Well, here we go again.
It's month four since DC Comics began their reboot, and while initial sales have placed them at the top of the order for a moment, the decisions that continue to come out of the DC Nation make me wonder, and I continue to ask when will the higher ups in Time Warner actually pay attention to what they are doing.
So, before I continue or begin my real criticism, let me do something and disarm the arguments in order for the changes.
1. DC had to do something or all of the comics were in danger of ending: Implied by Dan DiDio, the Editor in Chief of DC at the time, the move was made purely to ensure that DC Comic's stable of characters and books were continued. The argument was stated in media outlets that DiDio, Bob Harras, and Jim Lee among others saw this as an opportunity to revitalize the industry as well as maintain DC Comics as a whole.
A: Yes, this is partially true. Since the initial reboot, DC has maintained itself at the top of sales....but....there is a cost and prior history here. First, the sales are related to the idea of non-comic fans purchasing new books as both part of a ill-informed collector's market and the idea that the reboot was a permanent change. Yes, DC will maintain its dominance on the market for about another three months, and then you'll begin to see a slow but gradually increasing failure of the market. Simply put, disposable income will not continue to exist at this level for the crud that is being produced. It has happened before, specifically during the comic market crash of 1992, and more specifically the collapse of DC during the DC Implosion of 1978. History apparently has been reviewed in the DC Editorial meetings.
2. The need in a new creative direction was necessary to entice new readers, and the convoluted continuity of the DC Universe made it impossible for new readers to jump on-board.
A: Here is the thing: In 1985, DC Comics made a decision to refine their continuity with a little story called Crisis on Infinite Earths which was as controversial with the fans as much as the New DC. What came out of 1985 was a twenty year period in which DC floundered with the idea, seeking to appease a growing unrest with their older readers and the desire to really be competitive with Marvel Comics and other, newer studios. This of course was reversed several times, and ultimately, lead to the inadvisable decision to scrap everything and go back to basics. There was no attempt at resolution, instead a barely talented writer and an artist whose experience in editing and writing has left more wrecks of writing than the graveyard of the Atlantic. Instead of correcting the issues that were glaring, the decision was made to go with an easy option, a return to the awful 1990s period of writing and artists that ultimately caused the breakaway and break-up of Image Comics and the awful period at Marvel which led to ten years of retracted storylines and hard feelings from fans. Consider this: Jim Lee is a great artist, but how many titles has he edited and written past issue 12? Bob Harras admittedly began his period as Marvel's Editor-in-Chief during a bad period, but he made it worse through poor planning and a decision to reduce the role of continuity and limiting book editorial controls. Dan DiDio is not a bad writer, but he's obviously more interested in putting his visions for characters ahead of the long history, mythology, and groundwork that writers and creators have worked on prior to his period. The point is, DC has had bad decisions made which made the comics unapproachable by new fans, but ultimately, the long-term fans stuck it out.
3. If you enjoyed the stories of DC Comics in the past, you still have those stories and the new work isn't going to affect that....
A: Yes, let's take this one. This is the argument that reeks of nonchalance and attitude. First, It's a thumb at the nose towards older fans who have expectations and appreciations for the stories and work that have gone into the books they follow. In addition, it's as if DC Comics has effectively said: 'If you don't like it, you can always buy our older books, so we don't need you'. Whether this is the truth or not, it's the implied impression, and it's an impression that no one from the current editorial staff seems to care about. Really? This is your answer? This is your entire argument for what you've done, that if we don't like the current direction, we can suck it and buy older books? Nice.
Now, here is the real issue with the changes I have:
1. A lack of respect: It is clear to me that DC Comics has no real respect for its older fans, and that it certainly has no respect for the writers and artists who were on those books prior to the current generation of writers and/or artists. In addition, depending on who you ask when, the argument changes from being a matter of business to a creative decision or a new necessary direction. Yes, it can be all of those, and yes, it probably is, but the creative back-door politics make it impossible to determine what is true and what is not. Sales are indeed up, but for how long? What is 'the next big thing'? What will be done to correct this problem?
2. A lack of respect pt 2: I won't even touch the blasphemy that is the idea of Before Watchmen, but it is a clear indication that money drives the business, or at least, the excuse that drives people forward. I respect every writer who is planning to author a series or mini-series tied to this project, but without Alan Moore's involvement, this project is a blight. It's simply not something that should proceed, and the argument is that 'it's got lots of stories to tell' and 'its an untapped property', are pretty weak.
3. The 1990s are back, and the lessons were not learned: I have nothing against Jim Lee or Bob Harras, but neither of these men should have editorial powers or control over books. Jim Lee has never been able to sustain a book by himself as a writer or editor, and I'm saying that as a long-time fan. How many versions of WildCATS have we gone through? The respect for his own characters suggests a lot - He sold Wildstorm to DC, and let them have 'card blanche' for most of the period through the late 1990s until present. The fact is, Jim Lee is a good artist, a good concept person, but he'll never be Jack Kirby, and he needs to stop thinking that he has a chance at that.
Bob Harras, where do I begin? Bob took Marvel into a dark place, and it seems he's willing to do that at DC. The fact is, DC is NOT Marvel, and the same tricks with the same creators and writers won't work. You can mold it all you want, but it's still the same clay...and unless Bob really makes an attempt to break from form, he's stuck to repeat what caused Marvel to fail. Bob is very capable to make great decisions, but he's made several already that make me question his ability to truly overcome the pressure from others around him.
DC Comics were never as 'cool' as Marvel for the most part, not counting Vertigo titles and the big books, but that was fine. You could have made the decision to pair down books, refocus and restructure the books around concepts that worked, and actually stopped trying to make every fricking book like Batman. Mark my words: DC is riding high at the moment on delusional attitudes: Soon, within the next six months and even with the 'Next wave' of '52', the market will fail them, and they will have nothing but a mess.
4. You forgot these were our Heroes, not yours:
I have devoted other columns and other rants on the idea of modern mythology: First, these characters are not the property of an industry or even a current writer: They belong to all of us, and they deserve respect. Respect is that you add to something, you don't tear away something you don't like or make the characters unrecognizable to people. DC redesigned costumes, origins, and rid themselves of over 70+ years of stories to grab sales for a year. Was that worth it? Some would say yes, but what if you put something together and saw this happen? Is it so soulless and callous that you would act without thinking of your impact? It saddens me, because even as early as 1992, Jim Lee had designs on Superman, and it never respected those early eras or the work done by luminaries like Kirby, Schwartz, and others.
For a while, I really enjoyed Geoff John's writings. I thought to myself 'Here is a write that *gets it*', and I was pretty glad he was involved. Now I just see Johns not make the stand he could have, that he could have guided the 'New 52' to a better environment to modernize the characters in a way that was not disrespectful. Johns did not, and that saddens me.
Since before I could read, I had DC Comics in my life. I stood by DC while others told me it was not cool to do so. I've got some ridiculous comics that DC put out, story-lines that made me cringe, and specialty books that are worthless, but it was never that for me: I was a member of the DC Nation before it was the Nation, and I was part of the long-term fans that felt betrayed, insulted, and ultimately passed over for a quick buck. It saddens me that this is what it is to be loyal to something and have it treated badly. Our modern mythology needs visionaries, not profiteers. At this moment, it would seem that the current visionaries have very little vision that was not derived from the 1990s.
