|
Post by Tana Nile on May 11, 2009 22:24:13 GMT -5
I've come to the belief that the original Crisis on Infinite Earths has done more harm than good to DC as a whole. While the original intention of the series was to 'clean up' continuity and make the DC books more accessible to readers, I think this has not been the case. If anything, the elimination of the multiple universes, as well as the reboots of many characters and teams, left fans wondering which stories were still valid in the new DC universe (for example, I'm still not clear who are considered to be the founding members of the Justice League).
It seems like DC felt the same way, and they've essentially undone some of the things changed by Crisis - for example, the multiple universes have been brought back. But now, there is much to be sorted out. The level of confusion regarding the validity of stories and characters is probably just as high now as it was during the post-Crisis days. Most folks I know either gave up on Final Crisis or were left scratching their heads.
What I want to know is how do you feel about the current state of the DC universe? And 24 years later, what is your final verdict on Crisis - was it a good idea or not? Are comics fans too concerned with continuity?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 12, 2009 16:29:41 GMT -5
The constant reboots have been a real problem. Certainly the Legion suffered from this more than any other single hero or group. When Byrne was allowed to re-boot Superman after Crisis, the elimination of Superboy from the 'official' timeline seemed to render the Legion's adventures moot (despite that ridiculous 'Pocket Universe Superboy' stuff). The Legion has been struggling ever since. We'll see if even Geoff Johns can straighten it out.
The Crisis also directly affected the Justice Society and All-Star Squadron - basically, Roy Thomas' books got the short end of the stick. Because of the erasure of much of the Earth-two history, we got a Power Girl with a confusing background, and the Huntress' wonderful origin as Batman's and Catwoman's daughter was instead turned into that of a dull Mafia heiress.
In short, I think they traded a rich history for what was essentially the illusion of clarity.
edit: spelling
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 12, 2009 17:01:59 GMT -5
In reference to old discussions, I think Crisis - much more than Secret Wars - is when comics stopped being creativity driven. As someone who has never had a lot of knowledge of the DC universe, I found that story really hard to follow, trying to cram too many characters in 12 issues (or was it 10?).
The reboot had ups and downs. Batman Year One, and his new, more serious characterization was pretty good, and so was Superman Man of Steel, but for longtime fans must have been very strange to see characters rewritten to that extent. Indeed, it was much more than what happened at Marvel during Civil War (but at least had a better motivation).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 12, 2009 20:42:10 GMT -5
Tana -- great thread, and a karma-kudo to you!
The intent was certainly noble -- DC felt that what they had going by the early '80's was not user-friendly, and certainly not seeker-friendly. I admire the guts it took to do what they did, and I still think it was done with the fan in mind -- not with the fan's pocketbook in mind (as in "let's see how much we can get this chump to spend BWAH HA HA HA!!). True, it was right there with Secret Wars as the first maxi-series/major company crossover, but it just doesn't reek of the dollar signs that are attached to virtually every "event" of the present.
As Shiryu stated, the reboots of the Big Three (Trinity, if you will) worked quite well -- in part because they brought in some heavy hitters creatively to handle them. Of the three, I probably enjoyed Wonder Woman the most, with Byrne's Man of Steel/Superman second. Batman seemed to meander a bit after Miller's Year One, and Jason Todd was flat out unlikeable as Robin from the word "go".
Tana and others are correct in that the Legion suffered the most, and only recently has begun to have its place as one of the important titles in the DCU. Legionnaires was a fun book with cute Jeff Moy art, but even that began to fall into a rut. Waid's recent version of the team had some interesting concepts (Colossal Boy being a giant whose power was to shrink to 6' -- brilliant!!), but of course it now seems like the title can't go more than 4-5 years without having to renumber.
I will admit that I have not kept up with the past three years' worth of mega-events, but I will say that I feel all that is being done now is not for the better, but for the buck. What they had going after Crisis was not bad -- but as was said above, it didn't seem like there was a defined vision for the post-Crisis DCU. Too many creators left to their own devices was, in hindsight, not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on May 12, 2009 21:28:25 GMT -5
Would it have been better if DC had done what Marv Wolfman had originally suggested, which was re-boot everything? So the entire universe would start with a fresh slate as it were? That seems like an enormous undertaking but it might have avoided some of the later confusion. Although I am sure the company decided against it as it would likely have reduced (at least initially) the number of titles they produced.
|
|
nova36
Force Works-er
Posts: 19
|
Post by nova36 on May 12, 2009 22:36:21 GMT -5
Hey Tana great idea for a thread, i'll agree with the majority here it was a curse and caused much confusion on my part. Prior to COIE i was a huge LOSH fan and well it really messed them up soo much soo that we were soon subjected to the 5 years later legion which seems to be all but forgotton now. I mean superboy was not even the inspiration for the legion but Valor!! Mon-el to those who know... MON-EL !!! I like mon-el but no way is he the reason for the legion to exist, now this is just one part of the DCU that ceased to make sense. Next up we have the JLA, when i was little i always thought ohh superman, batman and wonder women are the three biggest heroes so they musta started the JLA after crisis this was a big NO... i am still confused by who started the JLA, the JSA is even more confusing and trying to figure out power girl... then there are the charas who died in crisis and were later re-introduced but by then... I am thinking supergirl she has never been as good as her pre-crisis personas, none of em. there are several more examples.. did some good come out of the crisis yea i think so the death of barry allen and the rise of wally west as an a-list hero first and foremost. The re-boots of wonder woman and superman, both excellent re-tellings by perez and byrne. So much was lost tho and this part really gets me... why as a writer would you want to limit storytelling potential? When there was a multiverse anything could happen.. maybe you're reading superman and in some strange galaxy there is a clark kent who never became supes and only read bout it in comics.. perhaps he was like you or i just a reg kid wishing he could be a hero. Oh right they screwed that up too . Perhaps it was the mistake of editorial or maybe the writers i dunno, but i do know i left DC as a fan shortly after this because it was all too confusing i did not know which stories happened and which did not. I can only be thenkful that Geoff johns is trying to fix some of what was damaged.. can he do it i dunno, but we better let him try. As to the state of the rest of the DCU as it pertains to the original crisis.... Most of the changes are gone now.. there is a Superman who was a boy.. I think Powergirl came fram an earth-2... i think there is a likeable supergirl again... i think Seems to be alot of work to repair something that was supposed to streamline the DCU. P.S tana i agree with you i much prefer the earth-2 huntress to the version we have now ahh well.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 13, 2009 7:22:36 GMT -5
I've come to the belief that the original Crisis on Infinite Earths has done more harm than good to DC as a whole. While the original intention of the series was to 'clean up' continuity and make the DC books more accessible to readers, I think this has not been the case. If anything, the elimination of the multiple universes, as well as the reboots of many characters and teams, left fans wondering which stories were still valid in the new DC universe (for example, I'm still not clear who are considered to be the founding members of the Justice League). I agree completely, 100%. I've said so on other message boards. While COIE was well done, in terms of writing and especially in terms of art, and while at the time I agreed with the goal of "cleaning up" the DC universe, it has clearly backfired. Instead of making things less complicated, it has made things infinitely more complicated. The constant crises and reboots have become a joke, IMO. While I certainly don't agree with everything Marvel does, I think they handle continuity MUCH better than DC does.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 13, 2009 7:23:57 GMT -5
The constant reboots have been a real problem. Certainly the Legion suffered from this more than any other single hero or group. When Byrne was allowed to re-boot Superman after Crisis, the elimination of Superboy from the 'official' timeline seemed to render the Legion's adventures moot (despite that ridiculous 'Pocket Universe Superboy' stuff). The Legion has been struggling ever since. We'll see if even Geoff john's can straighten it out. So sad. The Legion used to be my favorite DC comic.
|
|
garada
Great Lakes Avenger
Posts: 40
|
Post by garada on May 17, 2009 9:44:18 GMT -5
Well, despite GP's awesome art, Crisis was a bit of a mess IMHO. Granted, some of the core DCU titles came out of it for the better, but as mentioned, if you liked some of the more obscure characters, you were screwed.
I think it's funny that a mere 20 years after this huge housecleaning event things had already become so convoluted that they had to do YET ANOTHER major continuity-fixing event with Infinite Crisis. Again, despite amazing Phil Jimenez and his 'Perezesque' pencils, the thing was a sloppy, meandering, confusing mess. And this is from a guy who's a major DC buff!
I haven't read Grant Morrison's Final Crisis, but I've heard it is ALSO a big mess. I have that one on pre-order at Amazon, since I'm a huge Grant Morrison nut, but it doesn't mean I have to like it!
Just for the record, I don't know why more companies don't just handle things in the way DC themselves have handled certain titles like the wonderful 'Allstar Superman'... It's not part of the original continuity, yet it's not really an Ultimate-style reboot either. It just doesn't worry too much about continuity at all and instead focuses on telling a solid and entertaining story that has more resonance the more you know about Superman's pre AND post crisis history.
Anyway, great thread Lady Tana! You guys obviously know your comics FAR BEYOND just the Avengers.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 17, 2009 15:38:09 GMT -5
The intent was certainly noble -- DC felt that what they had going by the early '80's was not user-friendly, and certainly not seeker-friendly. I admire the guts it took to do what they did, and I still think it was done with the fan in mind -- not with the fan's pocketbook in mind (as in "let's see how much we can get this chump to spend BWAH HA HA HA!!). True, it was right there with Secret Wars as the first maxi-series/major company crossover, but it just doesn't reek of the dollar signs that are attached to virtually every "event" of the present. Hmmm, I don't know about this. Crisis came at a time when DC was really losing to Marvel, and such an extreme and out of the blue event makes me think they wanted to draw more attention towards their books. In a way, it was even more sales oriented than Secret Wars, whose repercussions were few and far between (pretty much limited to Spider-Man black's costume and the end of the Colossus-Kitty relationship really). After Crisis, new readers were certainly prompted to buy Superman, Batman etc by the reboot and by the creative teams involved, but if I were an old-time reader back then, I wouldn't have been happy to see that the characters I grew with didn't exist anymore. Batman for example was an awful lot darker from Year One on, and Flash died. I do however appreciate that they didn't write half a million tie-ins, crossovers and so on. I recently read the DC event "Our worlds at war" and found it to be totally disjointed due to the heavy fragmentation in all sorts of titles.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 28, 2009 9:38:37 GMT -5
I'm reading George Perez - storyteller and incidentally there is a paragraph where he gives an interesting insight on what Crisis was originally supposed to do, and on why the result wasn't quite what DC (and he and Wolfman) wanted. I'd say it adds nicely to our debate What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 28, 2009 11:08:59 GMT -5
Wow. Interesting. Another half@assed job by DC.
|
|