DC's Fundamental problem...

[Bosco685]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

 

Fairy Tales? I am not enough familiar with his work to comment properly, as I never liked it, but Gaiman’s writing definitely owes more to flawed philosophy than to any fairy tales tradition.

 

Flawed philosophy? In what way?

 

What Gaiman has written has so much fun mixing in fables, myths, paranormal, religious beliefs and conflicts along with general life challenges. Even when he writes a children's story, it is some lesson to be passed along that blends in many motivations in a wise and wonderful way.

[Comicopolis]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

 

Fairy Tales? I am not enough familiar with his work to comment properly, as I never liked it, but Gaiman’s writing definitely owes more to flawed philosophy than to any fairy tales tradition.

 

Flawed philosophy? In what way?

 

What Gaiman has written has so much fun mixing in fables, myths, paranormal, religious beliefs and conflicts along with general life challenges. Even when he writes a children's story, it is some lesson to be passed along that blends in many motivations in a wise and wonderful way.

 

[Bosco685]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

 

Fairy Tales? I am not enough familiar with his work to comment properly, as I never liked it, but Gaiman’s writing definitely owes more to flawed philosophy than to any fairy tales tradition.

 

Flawed philosophy? In what way?

 

What Gaiman has written has so much fun mixing in fables, myths, paranormal, religious beliefs and conflicts along with general life challenges. Even when he writes a children's story, it is some lesson to be passed along that blends in many motivations in a wise and wonderful way.

 

 

You disagree?

[Comicopolis]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

 

Fairy Tales? I am not enough familiar with his work to comment properly, as I never liked it, but Gaiman’s writing definitely owes more to flawed philosophy than to any fairy tales tradition.

 

Flawed philosophy? In what way?

 

What Gaiman has written has so much fun mixing in fables, myths, paranormal, religious beliefs and conflicts along with general life challenges. Even when he writes a children's story, it is some lesson to be passed along that blends in many motivations in a wise and wonderful way.

 

 

You disagree?

 

No - I'm waiting for his explanation.

[Hibou]

This was especially eye-opening to me:

 

 

 

"DC was focused on superheroes, and since they had the most popular superhero ever created, and the second most popular superhero ever created, and the third, and the fourth and the fifth, and Aquaman, what’s the point of even trying to compete with them? How do you even begin to take on Superman?

 

Well, if you’re Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and you’ve been watching all this go down for the past 20 years, it’s easy. You just sit down one day and reinvent the superhero comic. No big deal.

 

Which is exactly what they did. I’ve talked about this before, how the Marvel comics are deceptively simple in how they work. They’re undeniably adventure comics, the same kind of superhero stories that DC’s publishing, only they add in the stuff they’d been working on for the past decade. The twists and horrified reactions of the monster comics, the angsty, unrequited yearning of the romance books, and just bundle it all together in a book that doesn’t look like anything else on the stands."

 

 

 

 

And what a striking comparison to take DC's top book and put it next to FF1, both with November 1961 covers dates!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Davenport]

This was especially eye-opening to me:

 

Well, if you’re Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and you’ve been watching all this go down for the past 20 years, it’s easy. You just sit down one day and reinvent the superhero comic. No big deal.

That statement is where the writer took his gigantic leap, ignores history, imho. "It's easy" and "you just sit down one day and...". "No big deal."

Yeah, right.

 

This is probably closer to the truth of it: (emphasis mine)

 

Stan Lee Wiki

In the late 1950s, DC Comics editor Julius Schwartz revived the superhero archetype and experienced a significant success with its updated version of the Flash, and later with super-team the Justice League of America. In response, publisher Martin Goodman assigned Lee to create a new superhero team. Lee's wife urged him to experiment with stories he preferred, since he was planning on changing careers and had nothing to lose.

 

Fresh out and with nothing to lose you're free to try anything, including your wife's advice. That's far far different than a radical genius waltzing in and consciously reinventing a genre, all easy-peasy like.

 

I think Stan Lee himself would laugh at the notion. Just on the cusp of middle-age, feeling at the end of a flailing career, he was probably more shocked than anybody when success unfolded.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

 

I think Marvel has been copying DC more lately than the other way around. Marvel Now! Was an attempt at rebooting titles a la DC 52. Necrosha X was a crappy rip of Blackest Night.

 

I think DC has been telling better stories overall than Marvel over the last 5 years.

 

I read all of the New 52 for the first year and then I had to stop as the temptation to throw myself into a combine harvester became too great..

I agree. I had such high hopes for it. I will just stick to DC Animation and DC live-action movies.

 

 

[Hibou]

This was especially eye-opening to me:

 

Well, if you’re Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and you’ve been watching all this go down for the past 20 years, it’s easy. You just sit down one day and reinvent the superhero comic. No big deal.

That statement is where the writer took his gigantic leap, ignores history, imho. "It's easy" and "you just sit down one day and...". "No big deal."

Yeah, right.

 

This is probably closer to the truth of it: (emphasis mine)

 

Stan Lee Wiki

In the late 1950s, DC Comics editor Julius Schwartz revived the superhero archetype and experienced a significant success with its updated version of the Flash, and later with super-team the Justice League of America. In response, publisher Martin Goodman assigned Lee to create a new superhero team. Lee's wife urged him to experiment with stories he preferred, since he was planning on changing careers and had nothing to lose.

 

Fresh out and with nothing to lose you're free to try anything, including your wife's advice. That's far far different than a radical genius waltzing in and consciously reinventing a genre, all easy-peasy like.

 

I think Stan Lee himself would laugh at the notion. Just on the cusp of middle-age, feeling at the end of a flailing career, he was probably more shocked than anybody when success unfolded.

 

Good point.

[General Zod]

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

I guess. But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me). They are also generally VERY SERIOUS (as the author of the article points out), a market which DC still has cornered to this day.

 

DC just can't win, then. Derided for their campy Silver Age and now derided for being too serious today.

[Prince Namor]

Batman is DC's most popular character for the same reason Marvel's characters are more compelling than the rest of the DC characters - there's a human element as a motivating factor behind their actions.

 

The FF, primarily through the despair of the Thing... Spider-man's responsibility in the death of his Uncle Ben... The Hulk's rage... The racism directed towards the X-Men mutants...

 

The Flash - whatta ya got?

Green Lantern - space policeman or whatever

The Atom - hmmm

Even Superman - he's an alien

Batman of course has the death of his parents and his revenge to make him a more compelling character...

[Bosco685]

Batman is DC's most popular character for the same reason Marvel's characters are more compelling than the rest of the DC characters - there's a human element as a motivating factor behind their actions.

 

The FF, primarily through the despair of the Thing... Spider-man's responsibility in the death of his Uncle Ben... The Hulk's rage... The racism directed towards the X-Men mutants...

 

The Flash - whatta ya got?

Green Lantern - space policeman or whatever

The Atom - hmmm

Even Superman - he's an alien

Batman of course has the death of his parents and his revenge to make him a more compelling character...

 

I would agree with some of this assumption that it is the basic human needs and wants that makes certain characters easier to relate to. But I would say this shows up in the DC Universe as well.

 

- Superman: Yes, an alien. But if you look at it from his roots, you are dealing with the last surviving being of a doomed civilization who is adopted by a couple who attempt to make him one of their people. Yet due to his super-strength, and finding out about his origin, he comes across as a loner no matter how many friends he picks up over the decades. Can there be anything more 'human' than that about having to find your way on your own and keeping himself in check when he has the power of a god and could rule the world if he so desired? I think it is just DC Comics reinventing the character every few years that allows that point to get lost in the mix.

 

- Hal Jordan/Green Lantern: This may get lost in the many stories involving Hal, but in 'Emerald Dawn' it is revisited that he is strongly influenced by his father and his death as a test pilot. Wanting to be just like him, Hal goes down the same path of being a pilot that has no fear of taking risks. And he very much wants to demonstrate he is just as good as his father to honor his memory. But the rage inside him over this loss also is what makes him flawed, as he will take risks others would shy away from most probably because he is slightly self-destructive. Who has not run into someone like this that is haunted by family death, which helps form their personality and actions?

 

Now I haven't read the more modern versions of these characters. And I realize DC has changed the backstories on some characters to make them fit readership times. This may be where those changes have allowed them to become disconnected from reader reality. Though we are talking about super-beings across both companies that have heat vision, can fly, can generate webbing from their bodies, etc.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Thanks for sharing the article. It was very interesting and as a Marvel guy, I enjoyed hearing some DC history.

 

Batman is DC's most popular character for the same reason Marvel's characters are more compelling than the rest of the DC characters - there's a human element as a motivating factor behind their actions.

 

The FF, primarily through the despair of the Thing... Spider-man's responsibility in the death of his Uncle Ben... The Hulk's rage... The racism directed towards the X-Men mutants...

 

The Flash - whatta ya got?

Green Lantern - space policeman or whatever

The Atom - hmmm

Even Superman - he's an alien

Batman of course has the death of his parents and his revenge to make him a more compelling character...

 

I would agree with some of this assumption that it is the basic human needs and wants that makes certain characters easier to relate to. But I would say this shows up in the DC Universe as well.

 

- Superman: Yes, an alien. But if you look at it from his roots, you are dealing with the last surviving being of a doomed civilization who is adopted by a couple who attempt to make him one of their people. Yet due to his super-strength, and finding out about his origin, he comes across as a loner no matter how many friends he picks up over the decades. Can there be anything more 'human' than that about having to find your way on your own and keeping himself in check when he has the power of a god and could rule the world if he so desired? I think it is just DC Comics reinventing the character every few years that allows that point to get lost in the mix.

 

- Hal Jordan/Green Lantern: This may get lost in the many stories involving Hal, but in 'Emerald Dawn' it is revisited that he is strongly influenced by his father and his death as a test pilot. Wanting to be just like him, Hal goes down the same path of being a pilot that has no fear of taking risks. And he very much wants to demonstrate he is just as good as his father to honor his memory. But the rage inside him over this loss also is what makes him flawed, as he will take risks others would shy away from most probably because he is slightly self-destructive. Who has not run into someone like this that is haunted by family death, which helps form their personality and actions?

 

Now I haven't read the more modern versions of these characters. And I realize DC has changed the backstories on some characters to make them fit readership times. This may be where those changes have allowed them to become disconnected from reader reality. Though we are talking about super-beings across both companies that have heat vision, can fly, can generate webbing from their bodies, etc.

 

Bosco, you're right that those elements exist in those characters, but how often does DC play them up? Name the best Superman stories of the past 10 years. First, there aren't a lot. Second, how many of them show Clark Kent. I guess Superman for All Seasons has some Clark stuff. All Star Superman doesn't though. The early Superman/Batman issues were pretty good. They have virtually no Clark Kent.

 

I think you could argue that some of John's Green Lantern has those elements, but you can still read issue upon issue without ever really seeing Jordan.

 

It is very difficult to pick up an issue of a Spider-Man book and not see Peter Parker. I'd even say one of the weaknesses of Slott's run is he does they mega arcs with little to no face time for Peter.

 

Superman would be a much better book if they played up Clark Kent and his struggles as a person. I'm hoping that is Johns' plan anyway. From the way this first issue looks, it looks like that is what Johns is going to do

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I have always run a big pull list, mostly Marvel, when new 52 came out, I gave a bunch of them a try, cancelled it all but the main Batman book at 12 issues. Since then, I gave Constantine a try, cancelled it after 2 issues.

 

Yea I was reading 6 or 7 DC titles prior to the New 52. Now Batman is the only one left. I've since added Batman Eternal which I've actually enjoyed more than Batman.

 

I also think Snyder's run on the main Batman title has really dropped off. The first two arcs were really good, but Zero Year has dragged on and lost steam.

[Bosco685]

Bosco, you're right that those elements exist in those characters, but how often does DC play them up? Name the best Superman stories of the past 10 years. First, there aren't a lot. Second, how many of them show Clark Kent. I guess Superman for All Seasons has some Clark stuff. All Star Superman doesn't though. The early Superman/Batman issues were pretty good. They have virtually no Clark Kent.

 

I think you could argue that some of John's Green Lantern has those elements, but you can still read issue upon issue without ever really seeing Jordan.

 

It is very difficult to pick up an issue of a Spider-Man book and not see Peter Parker. I'd even say one of the weaknesses of Slott's run is he does they mega arcs with little to no face time for Peter.

 

Superman would be a much better book if they played up Clark Kent and his struggles as a person. I'm hoping that is Johns' plan anyway. From the way this first issue looks, it looks like that is what Johns is going to do

 

I do agree with you Chris, which is why I closed out with the mention of DC changing backstories and potentially not being consistent about character motivations and influences.

 

When it comes to Green Lantern, stories like Emerald Dawn, Emerald Dawn II, Emerald Twilight and even Blackest Night really stand out for me. With Superman, it is usually a very short period of story arcs or a temporary creative team that makes it worth picking up (e.g. John Byrne relaunching the character was one of my favorite periods of Superman reading).

 

It's a shame to abandon those parts of the characters which makes them worth reading. I guess the editors assume we can't have decades of rage, angst, loneliness and twisted feelings without it getting old. But if it is part of the character foundation, you would assume it needs to be there from time to time.

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Yea when I re-read your comment I noticed you sort of agreed with me at the end. I guess I was just elaborating on it a bit.

 

It is a shame that DC has the potential and background to make their characters more appealing. Taking advantage of the dynamic of Clark Kent could really work. It is hard to write Superman stories with drama because of Superman's powers- he is virtually indestructible. The more interesting element of the character is an orphan from a different planet, like you mentioned.

 

My hope is that Johns taps into it though. I really think his first issue showed that he might. The creation of the foil for Superman shows that he is sort of working in that direction.

 

Again though, trying to tap into the drama that is Clark Kent sort of falls in line with what the article is about though.

[Davenport]

Batman is DC's most popular character for the same reason Marvel's characters are more compelling than the rest of the DC characters - there's a human element as a motivating factor behind their actions.

There's an old quote (can't remember who), goes something like this:

 

DC Comics is gods struggling to become human, Marvel is humans struggling with becoming gods.

 

There's some truth in that quote, and it's what Lee tapped into during the SA: soap opera angst and cliffhanger continuity. Older readers ate it up.

But since then both Universes have evolved to be as angst-ridden as the other. They both observe each other, what sells and adapt. Back and forth, year after year.

[Chip Cataldo]

The more interesting element of the character is an orphan from a different planet, like you mentioned.

They have already explored a lot of this, though...just through J'onn J'onzz instead.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[Maccai3]

Batman is DC's most popular character for the same reason Marvel's characters are more compelling than the rest of the DC characters - there's a human element as a motivating factor behind their actions.

There's an old quote (can't remember who), goes something like this:

 

DC Comics is gods struggling to become human, Marvel is humans struggling with becoming gods.

 

i disagree with this, Clark Kent was raised by humans and struggled becoming Superman, Green Lantern is a test pilot and struggled with the responsibility of his duties.

 

Oliver Queen, Barry Allen, Billy Batson, Ray Palmer, Boston Brand all started as humans and had to adapt, sure there's Aquaman and Wonder Woman but Marvel has Silver Surfer and Namor too.

 

 

[StuporMan]

There's an old quote (can't remember who), goes something like this:

 

DC Comics is gods struggling to become human, Marvel is humans struggling with becoming gods.

 

There's some truth in that quote, and it's what Lee tapped into during the SA: soap opera angst and cliffhanger continuity. Older readers ate it up.

But since then both Universes have evolved to be as angst-ridden as the other. They both observe each other, what sells and adapt. Back and forth, year after year.

 

That'a a great quote and sums up the issue with DC. Most of DC character's secret identities are humans who are struggling with "acting" human. It naturally takes humans out of the story. They're showing humans as bumbling insufficiently_thoughtful_persons and weak. Quentin Tarantino touched on this with Bill's speech at the end of Kill Bill. It's no surprise that Batman doesn't follow this formula and has consistently been the most popular character and movie subject out of that universe.

 

Also, DC needs to stop ruining Superman like this:

http://io9.com/5980428/12-things-that-ruined-superman

 

That super-mullet...

[Bosco685]

Also, DC needs to stop ruining Superman like this:

http://io9.com/5980428/12-things-that-ruined-superman

 

That super-mullet...

 

 

Please don't make me look at the mullet again. Please!