Nine Months Later: DCU Relaunch
This time a year ago, the comic book internet (which is, surprisingly, MUCH larger than you would expect it to be) had only one thing on it's mind: the relaunching of the DC Universe. As anyone might predict, the reactions were varied. Obviously DC hoped it would be a tremendous success that would fix the comic book industry's problem of a rapidly aging, waning fan base. They poured money into an ad campaign for television commercials(!), radio advertisements, and of course website banners. This was a huge gamble--television ads aren't cheap, and while DC does have Warner Bros' bottomless pockets, there's no such thing as a company that enjoys wasting money. DC could've been in huge trouble if things didn't pan out well.
Now, a full year after the initial announcement, and nine months into the actual "new" DC Universe, it appears there was never any reason to panic. While "The New 52" sales didn't knock anyone out of their seats, it DID place DC above Marvel sales-wise for the first time in a couple decades...and it created some lulzy moments that I actually predicted, in which Aquaman beat out every single Marvel book on the stands, for two months straight. That said, now that some books are an arc in, or two arcs in, or halfway through their gigantic mega-arcs or whatever, I'm finding myself...less than enthused.
Now let's get a few things straight: I was one of The New 52's biggest proponents last year. The proof is on this site--my posts were those of an excited fanboy. And I DO think a lot of good stories have come from this "new" DC Universe. Grant Morrison's Action Comics. Geoff Johns' Aquaman. Scott Lobdell's Superboy (yes, seriously). Francis Manapul and Brian Buccelato's Flash. Gail Simone's Batgirl. These are all stories that came from the new 52 and couldn't have been told without some pretty powerful retcons. So why am I still unhappy? Well, let's get into that...
1.) Not Enough Attention To DC's Trinity
This one's going to come the furthest out of left field. For the first time in, forever, DC's "Trinity" of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all have critically acclaimed books being released for them. Between Grant Morrison on Action Comics, Scott Synder on Batman and Brian Azzarello on Wonder Woman, for a lot of fans there's never been a better time to be a fan of these three superheroes.
Unfortunately, a lot of fans just isn't me. What bugs me the most about these three books is that they ARE good. They ARE well-written and well-drawn, but each one of them has a problem that makes it difficult for me to give them the full nod of approval.
With Batman, more than anything else, it's Grant Morrison's run on the character that's bugging me. The bigger villains that Bats was pitted against during Morrison's run (which started in 2006 and is actually still going on today!) overshadow the myopic Court of Owls by so much it's embarassing. And STILL, when Morrison writes Batman the character never seems like he feels outclassed or out of his league. It's hard for me to take seriously a Batman that feels threatened by a group aiming to control a city when a completely different comic has him taking on a group trying to control the world and he's maintaining his cool. And I get it, the Court of Owls make Batman feel like Gotham's not "his". But Gotham was ALREADY screwed up, this is just one more group Bruce needs to smack around and show who's the REAL top dog of Gotham.
In the case of Action Comics...more than anything it's just misplaced expectations. It's a well-written book, but from the initial interviews to the first issue of the comic, we were all led to believe this would be a modern take on the 1930's Superman. From the city and the background characters to the Man of Steel himself, it felt like we were reading Superman by way of the old Max Fleischer cartoons. And then bam! The Legion pops up out of nowhere, and we're dealing with the Anti-Superman Squadron and Brainiac and we're not even ten issues in and Superman's already ditched the T-Shirt and Jeans look for his armored costume. Has the story thus far been a bad one? No. Did people think we were getting something else? Definitely.
But the worst offender to me, however, is Wonder Woman. Having gone through the most radical changes, the only thing that remains the same about Wonder Woman is the very basics of her origin...and in truth, barely even that. And if this were all in service to make her a better, more interesting character I'd be all for it. But she isn't. What happened here was a fairly typical thing (I want to call it a mistake, but this may have been his initial intentions) where the writer made the characters around the main hero more interesting, instead of making the main character more interesting. As a result, a large part of the first seven issues I read feature Diana (the superhero and main character) reacting to things around her rather than forcing people to react to her. For some people that might work and that's fine. People seem to love the run and I'm not going to insult Azzarello for writing it that way. But for my money Diana was a much more interesting character under Gail Simone a few years ago. She was funny, confident, sexy, and powerful. A three-dimensional character I enjoyed reading from month to month because the book felt like it was about her and not the Greek Gods and some random girl who banged Zeus.
Still, the biggest problem to me is that, as good as Action, Batman, and Wonder Woman may be...the secondary titles just don't have the same quality. Detective is drawn wonderfully, but feels lacking story-wise. The same with Superman. And Wonder Woman doesn't even HAVE a second book, which is a tad ridiculous considering Batman has four. While that means the quality level remains high in all of Wonder Woman's books, given all the complaints they got for not having enough females behind the scenes or on the stands, you'd think they could've gotten rid of at least one of Batman's superfluous titles to give Wonder Woman a Sensational Comics.
If you're going to relaunch your entire line, you have to go into it being fully aware that your most important characters need to have the strongest creative teams, with no weaknesses, and they need to be EQUAL. When Batman has four books while Superman has two and Wonder Woman just has one, you're sending a message that things haven't really changed and you just put a new coat of paint on the old house. Why couldn't Batman and Robin have been Detective Comics, if it's so good? Why did Batman: The Dark Knight even need to exist at all when you know you had only 52 slots to open with? And I love George Perez but having him write Superman? I sound (and feel) like a dick, but let's look at what we got: A six-issue arc in which the villain was his costume and technically delved into continuity that didn't exist yet. This is how we're introducing the Man of Steel after the biggest media push comics has ever seen?
I've got more, but this article is running a tad long so I'll run part 2 tomorrow.
Now, a full year after the initial announcement, and nine months into the actual "new" DC Universe, it appears there was never any reason to panic. While "The New 52" sales didn't knock anyone out of their seats, it DID place DC above Marvel sales-wise for the first time in a couple decades...and it created some lulzy moments that I actually predicted, in which Aquaman beat out every single Marvel book on the stands, for two months straight. That said, now that some books are an arc in, or two arcs in, or halfway through their gigantic mega-arcs or whatever, I'm finding myself...less than enthused.
Now let's get a few things straight: I was one of The New 52's biggest proponents last year. The proof is on this site--my posts were those of an excited fanboy. And I DO think a lot of good stories have come from this "new" DC Universe. Grant Morrison's Action Comics. Geoff Johns' Aquaman. Scott Lobdell's Superboy (yes, seriously). Francis Manapul and Brian Buccelato's Flash. Gail Simone's Batgirl. These are all stories that came from the new 52 and couldn't have been told without some pretty powerful retcons. So why am I still unhappy? Well, let's get into that...
1.) Not Enough Attention To DC's Trinity
This one's going to come the furthest out of left field. For the first time in, forever, DC's "Trinity" of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all have critically acclaimed books being released for them. Between Grant Morrison on Action Comics, Scott Synder on Batman and Brian Azzarello on Wonder Woman, for a lot of fans there's never been a better time to be a fan of these three superheroes.
Unfortunately, a lot of fans just isn't me. What bugs me the most about these three books is that they ARE good. They ARE well-written and well-drawn, but each one of them has a problem that makes it difficult for me to give them the full nod of approval.
With Batman, more than anything else, it's Grant Morrison's run on the character that's bugging me. The bigger villains that Bats was pitted against during Morrison's run (which started in 2006 and is actually still going on today!) overshadow the myopic Court of Owls by so much it's embarassing. And STILL, when Morrison writes Batman the character never seems like he feels outclassed or out of his league. It's hard for me to take seriously a Batman that feels threatened by a group aiming to control a city when a completely different comic has him taking on a group trying to control the world and he's maintaining his cool. And I get it, the Court of Owls make Batman feel like Gotham's not "his". But Gotham was ALREADY screwed up, this is just one more group Bruce needs to smack around and show who's the REAL top dog of Gotham.
In the case of Action Comics...more than anything it's just misplaced expectations. It's a well-written book, but from the initial interviews to the first issue of the comic, we were all led to believe this would be a modern take on the 1930's Superman. From the city and the background characters to the Man of Steel himself, it felt like we were reading Superman by way of the old Max Fleischer cartoons. And then bam! The Legion pops up out of nowhere, and we're dealing with the Anti-Superman Squadron and Brainiac and we're not even ten issues in and Superman's already ditched the T-Shirt and Jeans look for his armored costume. Has the story thus far been a bad one? No. Did people think we were getting something else? Definitely.
But the worst offender to me, however, is Wonder Woman. Having gone through the most radical changes, the only thing that remains the same about Wonder Woman is the very basics of her origin...and in truth, barely even that. And if this were all in service to make her a better, more interesting character I'd be all for it. But she isn't. What happened here was a fairly typical thing (I want to call it a mistake, but this may have been his initial intentions) where the writer made the characters around the main hero more interesting, instead of making the main character more interesting. As a result, a large part of the first seven issues I read feature Diana (the superhero and main character) reacting to things around her rather than forcing people to react to her. For some people that might work and that's fine. People seem to love the run and I'm not going to insult Azzarello for writing it that way. But for my money Diana was a much more interesting character under Gail Simone a few years ago. She was funny, confident, sexy, and powerful. A three-dimensional character I enjoyed reading from month to month because the book felt like it was about her and not the Greek Gods and some random girl who banged Zeus.
Still, the biggest problem to me is that, as good as Action, Batman, and Wonder Woman may be...the secondary titles just don't have the same quality. Detective is drawn wonderfully, but feels lacking story-wise. The same with Superman. And Wonder Woman doesn't even HAVE a second book, which is a tad ridiculous considering Batman has four. While that means the quality level remains high in all of Wonder Woman's books, given all the complaints they got for not having enough females behind the scenes or on the stands, you'd think they could've gotten rid of at least one of Batman's superfluous titles to give Wonder Woman a Sensational Comics.
If you're going to relaunch your entire line, you have to go into it being fully aware that your most important characters need to have the strongest creative teams, with no weaknesses, and they need to be EQUAL. When Batman has four books while Superman has two and Wonder Woman just has one, you're sending a message that things haven't really changed and you just put a new coat of paint on the old house. Why couldn't Batman and Robin have been Detective Comics, if it's so good? Why did Batman: The Dark Knight even need to exist at all when you know you had only 52 slots to open with? And I love George Perez but having him write Superman? I sound (and feel) like a dick, but let's look at what we got: A six-issue arc in which the villain was his costume and technically delved into continuity that didn't exist yet. This is how we're introducing the Man of Steel after the biggest media push comics has ever seen?
I've got more, but this article is running a tad long so I'll run part 2 tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment