Showing posts with label DC Punts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DC Punts. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Obsolete
What was that logo/slogan DC ran in all their house ads back around the turn of the century?
Oh. Never mind, then.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Waking Up To Find Harry Potter In The Shower
As I've mentioned before, there are times when the comic book industry seems to have quite the inferiority complex about itself.
And as a result, there are times when the industry sets ridiculously low standards for itself, and trots out the "we're only comic books, don't expect much from us" line of reasoning.
For example, take Flushpoint. Obviously there's a lot of controversy over DC's big move. And a lot of that controversy is over the wisdom/desirability of rebooting the DC Universe's fictional history yet again.
[DC officials can continue to hem and haw and try to claim it's "not really" a reboot all they want. But the solicits tell us this a world where Superman was "the world's first Super Hero," and there was therefore no Golden Age and no JSA. There's really no way you can tell us that isn't a reboot, even if you resume it in media res. Man up and admit it, DC.]
Now me, I generally oppose reboots, you all know that. I think they're usually pretty bad ideas, show a real lack of creativity, and break the show's/creators' unspoken contract with the audience.
Yes, there are counter-examples, reboots that work. But please note that there is a huge philosophical difference between, say the new Battlestar: Galactica, which rebooted a thirty-year old TV show, and rebooting a comic series that had brand new stories just last month. There is a huge difference between rebooting a "dead" intellectual property and on that is currently ongoing.
And, as sure as the suns rises in the east, many of the defenders of the Flushpoint reboot choose to blame the readers for actually caring what they read about. Here's a series of Tweets, from various comics professionals. I'm not naming names, because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument here; I'm just interested in examine the ideas. Here we go:
Gotta love that last one. I would have thought that the price of a comic book increasing over 1000% over the past thirty years, or short-sighted decisions allowing comics to lose 99% of their retail outlets over that same time, or the increased emphasis on violence and gore, or bizarre editorial mandates to continually reboot their product might have had a heck of a lot more to do with downward sales. Nope, it's actually the fault of fans who care about the stories they're told. Mea culpa.
Blaming the "fanboy mentality" has always struck me as pretty absurd, especially since DC has been in the grip of that same mentality themselves. There has been no consumer demand to keep redrawing Hawkman's history, or keep rebooting the Legion, or to bring back Barry Allen. That's all been DC's brass.
It's also DC brass who has, with every press release declared with bated breath that the reboot is "history-making" and "unprecedented." So, DC can get excited, but when people who think it's a bad idea get just as excited they can be dismissed as fanboys? Quite the double standard.
And yeah, the argument patronizing as hell. We do know the stories aren't real, we do know the older stories still exist. C'mon, that's not the argument that anyone is making. Set up a decent straw man, at least.
But perhaps more importantly, if other "legitimate" media tried the same tactics, they would never get away with blaming the fans.
Consider this hypothetical: J.K. Rowlings releases the 5th Harry Potter book, and in the first few pages declares the events of the 3rd and 4th books never "happened;" she declares that the series was getting too "complicated" and she was resetting things. What, exactly, do you think the reaction to that by media and fans would have been?
Of course, those are her books, and she can do what she wants with them. And yes, books 3 and 4 would still exist, even if overwritten. But somehow, I doubt people would be as forgiving of the "history-making" move, and instead we would here a lot more media outcry worrying about the fans who invested so much time and money following Harry Potter.
Obviously, a large part of that is because people think that books "matter" more than comics. And I suspect you wouldn't see as many book industry officials denigrating their own work by declaring "reboots happen-get over it." You would have serious discussions over what, if anything, an author owed her fans.
Second example, non-hypothetical this time. For those of you youngsters out there, Dallas was once the biggest prime time show in America. Go figure. But it was huge with a capital H. But Patrick Duffy, who played the "good" brother Bobby Ewing, decided he wanted to leave the show, so in the last episode of the 8th season, his character dies in a car crash.
So they went through the 9th season, and life went on. Bobby's widow, Pam, re-married, people lived and died and hooked up, children were born, things blew up. But rating started to slide for various reasons, and so the producers prevailed upon Duffy to return to the show.
But how? Well, there were any number of ways they could have done it--this was a soap opera, after all--but they way they chose? In the vary last scene of Season 9, Pam wakes up, and finds Bobby alive, taking a shower!! And how did they explain it? The first episode of Season 10 revealed--and I'm not making this up--that EVERYTHING that had happened in Season 9 had been a dream of Pam's. Never happened. None of it. The babies who were born, the people who had married or died, the things that blew up...magically undone.
Fans were upset. The show became a laughingstock (well, relatively more so) with critics. The creator of the show dissed the move as disrespectful of the fans.
And no one was dismissing fan concerns as "fan entitlement," no one tried to say, "Well the old stories still exist, so get over it."
Why? Because TV is "more important" than comics. Because in that medium, people understand and respect the emotional and intellectual commitment fans have to serial fiction. Because they understand that, on some level, creators have a social contract with the audience not to arbitrarily and repeatedly say "never happened," and that doing so has negative repercussions.
Comics creators, though? They don't respect their medium or their fans. They'll pull stuff that would never happen in other media, and if people complain, they'll trot out the "it's just comics, get over it" meme.
If you want to defend the reboot, great. If you want to discuss whether it's a good idea or not, great. But in your defenses, please don't denigrate the medium as not important, and don't mock the fans for the emotional and intellectual investment they've made. Hell, maybe even acknowledge that your comics work might be important enough for people to care about. "It's just comics" and "the fans shouldn't care so much" or just really, really foolish arguments to make. Comics should be as respected as other media, and dissing your product and your fans to defend (what I feel is) a dopey move is just counter-productive and sad.
Thus endeth the rant.
And as a result, there are times when the industry sets ridiculously low standards for itself, and trots out the "we're only comic books, don't expect much from us" line of reasoning.
For example, take Flushpoint. Obviously there's a lot of controversy over DC's big move. And a lot of that controversy is over the wisdom/desirability of rebooting the DC Universe's fictional history yet again.
[DC officials can continue to hem and haw and try to claim it's "not really" a reboot all they want. But the solicits tell us this a world where Superman was "the world's first Super Hero," and there was therefore no Golden Age and no JSA. There's really no way you can tell us that isn't a reboot, even if you resume it in media res. Man up and admit it, DC.]
Now me, I generally oppose reboots, you all know that. I think they're usually pretty bad ideas, show a real lack of creativity, and break the show's/creators' unspoken contract with the audience.
Yes, there are counter-examples, reboots that work. But please note that there is a huge philosophical difference between, say the new Battlestar: Galactica, which rebooted a thirty-year old TV show, and rebooting a comic series that had brand new stories just last month. There is a huge difference between rebooting a "dead" intellectual property and on that is currently ongoing.
And, as sure as the suns rises in the east, many of the defenders of the Flushpoint reboot choose to blame the readers for actually caring what they read about. Here's a series of Tweets, from various comics professionals. I'm not naming names, because I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat argument here; I'm just interested in examine the ideas. Here we go:
"I hope this reboot retroactively revises the content of my back issue collection. Otherwise the stories won't "count."
"When DC reboots Batman, it won't render my old Batman issues meaningless because I enjoyed them and they meant something to me."
"Readers only worrying about comics that "count" is part of how we got into this downwards sales spiral."
Gotta love that last one. I would have thought that the price of a comic book increasing over 1000% over the past thirty years, or short-sighted decisions allowing comics to lose 99% of their retail outlets over that same time, or the increased emphasis on violence and gore, or bizarre editorial mandates to continually reboot their product might have had a heck of a lot more to do with downward sales. Nope, it's actually the fault of fans who care about the stories they're told. Mea culpa.
Blaming the "fanboy mentality" has always struck me as pretty absurd, especially since DC has been in the grip of that same mentality themselves. There has been no consumer demand to keep redrawing Hawkman's history, or keep rebooting the Legion, or to bring back Barry Allen. That's all been DC's brass.
It's also DC brass who has, with every press release declared with bated breath that the reboot is "history-making" and "unprecedented." So, DC can get excited, but when people who think it's a bad idea get just as excited they can be dismissed as fanboys? Quite the double standard.
And yeah, the argument patronizing as hell. We do know the stories aren't real, we do know the older stories still exist. C'mon, that's not the argument that anyone is making. Set up a decent straw man, at least.
But perhaps more importantly, if other "legitimate" media tried the same tactics, they would never get away with blaming the fans.
Consider this hypothetical: J.K. Rowlings releases the 5th Harry Potter book, and in the first few pages declares the events of the 3rd and 4th books never "happened;" she declares that the series was getting too "complicated" and she was resetting things. What, exactly, do you think the reaction to that by media and fans would have been?
Of course, those are her books, and she can do what she wants with them. And yes, books 3 and 4 would still exist, even if overwritten. But somehow, I doubt people would be as forgiving of the "history-making" move, and instead we would here a lot more media outcry worrying about the fans who invested so much time and money following Harry Potter.
Obviously, a large part of that is because people think that books "matter" more than comics. And I suspect you wouldn't see as many book industry officials denigrating their own work by declaring "reboots happen-get over it." You would have serious discussions over what, if anything, an author owed her fans.
Second example, non-hypothetical this time. For those of you youngsters out there, Dallas was once the biggest prime time show in America. Go figure. But it was huge with a capital H. But Patrick Duffy, who played the "good" brother Bobby Ewing, decided he wanted to leave the show, so in the last episode of the 8th season, his character dies in a car crash.
So they went through the 9th season, and life went on. Bobby's widow, Pam, re-married, people lived and died and hooked up, children were born, things blew up. But rating started to slide for various reasons, and so the producers prevailed upon Duffy to return to the show.
But how? Well, there were any number of ways they could have done it--this was a soap opera, after all--but they way they chose? In the vary last scene of Season 9, Pam wakes up, and finds Bobby alive, taking a shower!! And how did they explain it? The first episode of Season 10 revealed--and I'm not making this up--that EVERYTHING that had happened in Season 9 had been a dream of Pam's. Never happened. None of it. The babies who were born, the people who had married or died, the things that blew up...magically undone.
Fans were upset. The show became a laughingstock (well, relatively more so) with critics. The creator of the show dissed the move as disrespectful of the fans.
And no one was dismissing fan concerns as "fan entitlement," no one tried to say, "Well the old stories still exist, so get over it."
Why? Because TV is "more important" than comics. Because in that medium, people understand and respect the emotional and intellectual commitment fans have to serial fiction. Because they understand that, on some level, creators have a social contract with the audience not to arbitrarily and repeatedly say "never happened," and that doing so has negative repercussions.
Comics creators, though? They don't respect their medium or their fans. They'll pull stuff that would never happen in other media, and if people complain, they'll trot out the "it's just comics, get over it" meme.
If you want to defend the reboot, great. If you want to discuss whether it's a good idea or not, great. But in your defenses, please don't denigrate the medium as not important, and don't mock the fans for the emotional and intellectual investment they've made. Hell, maybe even acknowledge that your comics work might be important enough for people to care about. "It's just comics" and "the fans shouldn't care so much" or just really, really foolish arguments to make. Comics should be as respected as other media, and dissing your product and your fans to defend (what I feel is) a dopey move is just counter-productive and sad.
Thus endeth the rant.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
An Important Caveat
You know, DC dropping the whole bombshell on us yesterday was really unfortunate, for one reason:
Flashpoint, the event, is actually pretty good so far.
There, I said it.
I mean, this week should have been left for the fans to discuss Flashpoint #2, and the first batch of micro-series. To discuss how, even though the basic idea is derivative of Yesterday's Enterprise/Age Of Apocalypse/House Of M, it's been executed pretty well, with a good story, good reveals on the differences in this world, good mystery and intrigue. Based on the first batch of micros, those series are being used to fill in the gaps of this vastly different world and help paint the broad picture, and not just repeat the same old same old from the main event series (I'm looking at you, Blackest Night!).
I know it's early days yet, but so far I'd say this is the best DC event since, oh, I don't know, Invasion. And to my eyes, it's the best work that Geoff Johns has done in quite awhile. It's certainly better, as a series and as an event, than Marvel's Fear Itself (although I'll confess my opinion on that is probably too much influenced for my dislike of how Matt Fraction handles Thor, and especially Odin.).
But instead of discussing that, DC opened the can of worms a week and a half early, and instead of Flashpoint getting the proper recognition, everyone's focused on the Flushpoint revelations (And I'm even more guilty of that than most people, so mea culpa.)
I'm not sure why the PR dump couldn't have waited a week, until after there was some time for the public to appreciate the latest Flashpoint; instead they completely diverted attention from it. But then, that's DC all over, isn't it--in declaring a need to better market themselves, they completely botch the marketing of the best thing they've had in awhile.
So, while I'm still quite leery of the forthcoming Flushpoint world, and we can debate the wisdom (or lack thereof) of DC's Punt, let's not miss the actual story that's being told right now. It's purty good.
There, I said it.
I mean, this week should have been left for the fans to discuss Flashpoint #2, and the first batch of micro-series. To discuss how, even though the basic idea is derivative of Yesterday's Enterprise/Age Of Apocalypse/House Of M, it's been executed pretty well, with a good story, good reveals on the differences in this world, good mystery and intrigue. Based on the first batch of micros, those series are being used to fill in the gaps of this vastly different world and help paint the broad picture, and not just repeat the same old same old from the main event series (I'm looking at you, Blackest Night!).
But instead of discussing that, DC opened the can of worms a week and a half early, and instead of Flashpoint getting the proper recognition, everyone's focused on the Flushpoint revelations (And I'm even more guilty of that than most people, so mea culpa.)
I'm not sure why the PR dump couldn't have waited a week, until after there was some time for the public to appreciate the latest Flashpoint; instead they completely diverted attention from it. But then, that's DC all over, isn't it--in declaring a need to better market themselves, they completely botch the marketing of the best thing they've had in awhile.
1 comments
Labels:
Blackest Night,
DC,
DC Punts,
Fear Itself,
Flashpoint,
Flushpoint,
Geoff Johns,
Invasion
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Differing Definitions
From the latest USA Today article on Flushpoint:
Obviously, DC has a different definition of "emphasis" than most of us do.
Maybe actually publishing a comic book starring Batwoman, Blue Beetle or Cyborg would help, as opposed to perpetually putting off Batwoman, cancelling Blue Beetle, and having Cyborg "star" in a series that is explicitly not in current DC reality.
(Or maybe if USA Today actually, you know, reported, rather than blindly passing along DC press releases as news...squawk, Polly want a cracker!)
I'm just sayin.'
The recent emphasis on diverse characters such as lesbian superheroine Batwoman, Hispanic hero Blue Beetle and African-American adventurer Cyborg (who will be a core member of Johns and Lee's new Justice League) also will continue.
Obviously, DC has a different definition of "emphasis" than most of us do.
Maybe actually publishing a comic book starring Batwoman, Blue Beetle or Cyborg would help, as opposed to perpetually putting off Batwoman, cancelling Blue Beetle, and having Cyborg "star" in a series that is explicitly not in current DC reality.
(Or maybe if USA Today actually, you know, reported, rather than blindly passing along DC press releases as news...squawk, Polly want a cracker!)
I'm just sayin.'
Twitter Doesn't Reduce My Snark
OK, so I went on way too long on Twitter yesterday about DC's massive declaration that all of their current comics are inadequate.
I did want to pass along a couple of those observations to those of you who don't follow me on the Twitter thing, but I'm fundamentally lazy, and rather than retype everything with paragraphs and punctuation and grammar, I'll just cut and paste. Yeah, lazy, and shameless self-promotion. There'll be a real post later, I promise.
Plus, it's hard evidence--restricting me to 140 characters doesn't make be any less snarky (nor does it make me any more readable...)
Oh, and please, everybody please refer to the post-Flashpoint DC Universe as "Flushpoint." It will make me ever so happy...
Wow, I really am an idiot in any format...
I did want to pass along a couple of those observations to those of you who don't follow me on the Twitter thing, but I'm fundamentally lazy, and rather than retype everything with paragraphs and punctuation and grammar, I'll just cut and paste. Yeah, lazy, and shameless self-promotion. There'll be a real post later, I promise.
Plus, it's hard evidence--restricting me to 140 characters doesn't make be any less snarky (nor does it make me any more readable...)
Oh, and please, everybody please refer to the post-Flashpoint DC Universe as "Flushpoint." It will make me ever so happy...
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
DC Punts
OK, so everything I wrote earlier today is irrelevant. Sorry. Timing is everything.
The facts: DC will be re-numbering all DC Universe titles starting with #1 in September. Please note, Justice League #1 will debut on August 31, so as I predicted, Flashpoint #5 will NOT be the only release that day. I win that one, at least.
In a USA Today article, Dan DiDio declares
CBR reports that in a letter to retailers, DC VP of Sales Bob Wayne said the massive reboot:
The facts: DC will be re-numbering all DC Universe titles starting with #1 in September. Please note, Justice League #1 will debut on August 31, so as I predicted, Flashpoint #5 will NOT be the only release that day. I win that one, at least.
In a USA Today article, Dan DiDio declares
We looked at what was going on in the marketplace and felt we really want to inject new life in our characters and line...This was a chance to start, not at the beginning, but at a point where our characters are younger and the stories are being told for today's audience.
CBR reports that in a letter to retailers, DC VP of Sales Bob Wayne said the massive reboot:
will introduce readers to a more modern, diverse DC Universe, with some character variations in appearance, origin and age. All stories will be grounded in each character's legend -- but will relate to real world situations, interactions, tragedy and triumph. Some of the characters will have new origins, while others will undergo minor changes. Our characters are always being updated; however, this is the first time all of our characters will be presented in a new way all at once.
Let me translate. DC's co-Publisher and Senior VP of Sales are out and out telling you that their current stories are NOT being told for today's audience, the the current DC Universe is not modern and not diverse, that the marketplace has said that the comics they publish need new life.
Has there ever been a more thorough admission of failure? "People don't like the comics we're publishing, they're not at all relevant, so we're going to start over." As if the comics that were allegedly lifeless and and irrelevant and not being told for today's audience were somehow being published by elves or fairies, and not by the exact same people making this announcement. The new product will be much better than the old product!! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Oh, yeah, and new costumes:In the 70s we had the DC Explosion, followed by the DC Implosion. Well, now we've got the DC Punt. "We have seen the enemy, he is us, and we're shifting the whole line to Ultimate DC."
Obviously, more to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)