Comics are awesome.

[Sparky Prime]

The Black Flashes, obviously, sit around and make everything go reeeealllly sloooow.

Didn't you know there already is a Black Flash? Its role is basically to be the grim reaper for Flashes.

Johns actually seems to think his awful ideas are good.

And that's why he's one of the most popular comic book writers these days? Seriously, his ideas are great. Just because you happen to dislike them is another matter...

[Onslaught Six]

The Black Flashes, obviously, sit around and make everything go reeeealllly sloooow.

Didn't you know there already is a Black Flash? Its role is basically to be the grim reaper for Flashes.

Johns actually seems to think his awful ideas are good.

And that's why he's one of the most popular comic book writers these days? Seriously, his ideas are great. Just because you happen to dislike them is another matter...

You know what else is popular?

Nickelback.

[andersonh1]

It remains to be seen just how Geoff Johns' work will be viewed in the future. He's certainly selling a lot of books for DC right now, and so by that measure he's certainly a success. I've generally enjoyed what I've read of his writing, which includes much of the current Green Lantern and Justice Society books, and what little bit of Brightest Day that we've seen so far. Johns seems to have a knack for mining continuity for some pretty decent story ideas.

I suspect that a lot of the griping about how he's "taking comics back to how they were when he was a kid" is motivated by sour grapes, as modern day fans of characters are having to go through what others went through in the 80s and 90s when it comes to seeing characters replaced. The shoe is on the other foot now, and they don't like it.

[Dominic]

Ah, but Anderson, you forget, I am old enough to remember when much of what Johns is restoring was the status quo.

I remember Hal as Green Lanter. I remember reading "Emerald Twilight" and not realizing until the end of part 2, (the death of Kilowog), that "holy crud, this is serious". I was actually shocked when they made Hal go heel. It was the single most shocking comic I had ever read. I was not even entirely sure how to jump. (I was pretty sure Superman would come back from the dead. And, Batman was likely not going to stay gimped. But, Hal going bad......) I had to adjust to Kyle like anyone else. ("Green Lantern" was one of the first DC books I really got into.) The same goes for Oliver Queen. I started reading DC with Oliver as the Emerald Archer.

That post A:2001 "Justice Society of America" series was a favorite of mine. I liked "All Star Squadron", (if only buying it as back-issues). But, I did not get all whiny during "Zero Hour", even though I liked the JSA. (Even surviving members were written out if you recall.)

Creeper and a few of the others killed in "Eclipso" were favorites of mine. But, I did not scream and whine for them to come back from the dead when Giffen offed them. I accepted that an ongoing story would have change. (What a concept.)

My sour grapes come from the fact that Johns is writing regressive fan-fiction and retreading the past over and over and over and over.....all while being hailed as a genius for playing to the most insular elements of the hobby.

And that's why he's one of the most popular comic book writers these days? Seriously, his ideas are great. Just because you happen to dislike them is another matter...

Popularity and talent are not the same thing.


Dom
-spent time on google trying to find the pefect link for that.

[andersonh1]

Ah, but Anderson, you forget, I am old enough to remember when much of what Johns is restoring was the status quo.

I remember Hal as Green Lanter. I remember reading "Emerald Twilight" and not realizing until the end of part 2, (the death of Kilowog), that "holy crud, this is serious". I was actually shocked when they made Hal go heel. It was the single most shocking comic I had ever read. I was not even entirely sure how to jump. (I was pretty sure Superman would come back from the dead. And, Batman was likely not going to stay gimped. But, Hal going bad......) I had to adjust to Kyle like anyone else. ("Green Lantern" was one of the first DC books I really got into.) The same goes for Oliver Queen. I started reading DC with Oliver as the Emerald Archer.

Same here, and as I noted earlier in the thread, I started reading comics around 1989. My reaction to both Hal and Oliver Queen's offing was "that's the stupidest bit of character destruction I've ever seen". And I didn't return to comics until Dreamwave started publishing Transformers, and even then I didn't return to collecting any DC titles on a regular basis until the past year or so. And I'm still not buying anywhere near the 15 to 20 titles a month I enjoyed back in the early 90s. DC broke my collecting habit quite effectively with some of the changes they put into place.

But, I did not get all whiny during "Zero Hour", even though I liked the JSA. (Even surviving members were written out if you recall.)

The character destruction of Green Lantern followed by the destruction of the JSA were the one-two punch that really made me disgusted with DC. I stuck with a few books for awhile after that (including Starman, one I now wish I hadn't dropped), but I had lost my enthusiasm for the "shock the reader" type of storytelling. It didn't take long for me to simply quit buying any comics at all.

Creeper and a few of the others killed in "Eclipso" were favorites of mine. But, I did not scream and whine for them to come back from the dead when Giffen offed them. I accepted that an ongoing story would have change. (What a concept.)

My sour grapes come from the fact that Johns is writing regressive fan-fiction and retreading the past over and over and over and over.....all while being hailed as a genius for playing to the most insular elements of the hobby.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you when talking about sour grapes. You've explained your position well enough that I don't think that's the case. But there are plenty out there to whom my charge definitely applies.

What exactly is Johns retreading? Simply bringing back some characters like Barry Allen or the GL Corps isn't necessarily retreading the past. It depends what's done with the characters, not who the character is. The question is not whether or not Johns is mining the past for things that only the most continuity-minded fans would recognize, but how well he uses the elements to tell a story that doesn't require encyclopedic knowledge to understand. And by all accounts, he's writing things that people want to read.

[Sparky Prime]

You know what else is popular?

Nickelback.

And....? So what? They have a huge following of fans that enjoy their music.

My sour grapes come from the fact that Johns is writing regressive fan-fiction and retreading the past over and over and over and over.....all while being hailed as a genius for playing to the most insular elements of the hobby.

How is he retreading the past? Sure, he's brought back several characters, but he isn't telling their same ol' stories over and over. He's telling new stories and building on what's been previously established in continuity. This is what good writers do.

Popularity and talent are not the same thing.

I never said they were. Certainly there are different methods of gaining popularity, and not everyone gets it through talent. However, you cannot deny that isn't the case for Johns. He is popular because of his talent to write stories people enjoy. And as I said, whether or not you personally like it is another matter.

[Shockwave]

Sorry Dom, but even Marvel TF back in the day had moments of "everything back like it was". Sure, the story was more or less linear, but how many times did Prime, Megatron, Jazz Starscream and Bumblebee come back? by the end of the run, virtually the entire '84 line up was back. And even IDW seems to be going that direction. Ironhide is now not dead on Earth, but was deactivated on Cybertron? WTF? Megs is on his way back albeit slowly, Thundy came back, and how long before Sunstreaker comes back? It's just the way comics are right now. Make big changes and then change everything back so that... you can change it again!

[andersonh1]

How is he retreading the past? Sure, he's brought back several characters, but he isn't telling their same ol' stories over and over. He's telling new stories and building on what's been previously established in continuity. This is what good writers do.

Agreed.

[Dominic]

Sorry Dom, but even Marvel TF back in the day had moments of "everything back like it was". Sure, the story was more or less linear, but how many times did Prime, Megatron, Jazz Starscream and Bumblebee come back? by the end of the run, virtually the entire '84 line up was back. And even IDW seems to be going that direction. Ironhide is now not dead on Earth, but was deactivated on Cybertron? WTF? Megs is on his way back albeit slowly, Thundy came back, and how long before Sunstreaker comes back? It's just the way comics are right now. Make big changes and then change everything back so that... you can change it again!

I do see your point. Maybe it is because most of the returned Marvel characters were changed in some way when they came back, it bothers me less. (The series also ended not long after the mass resurrection.) It also bothered me a bit less because death was consistently portrayed as temporary for TFs. Even after issue 50, it was stated in context that most of the guys killed in that issue could have been repaired but for time and parts. Soundwave showing up around issue 70 did not bother me for this very reason.

I have complained at some length about IDW bringing back characters and re-setting things. (I am however not going to calle "Ironhide" on anything until the series is over.)

How is he retreading the past? Sure, he's brought back several characters, but he isn't telling their same ol' stories over and over. He's telling new stories and building on what's been previously established in continuity. This is what good writers do.

The characters and settings are consistently restored to a previous state. None of the big "nothing will ever be the same" changes seem to stick. Johns is hardly the one one guilty of this. Marvel is currently doing this with "Heroic Age", setting things back to pre "Civil War", if not pre-90s hype, standard. (Bendis' "Avengers" keeps me from saying it is a fully pre-90s standard.) I am sticking with a few of the Bendis titles largely because Bendis' writing is very readable. I am thinking his "big ideas" ran out with "Dark Reign".

The character destruction of Green Lantern followed by the destruction of the JSA were the one-two punch that really made me disgusted with DC. I stuck with a few books for awhile after that (including Starman, one I now wish I hadn't dropped), but I had lost my enthusiasm for the "shock the reader" type of storytelling. It didn't take long for me to simply quit buying any comics at all.

Really? How was it disgusting?

As much as I liked the JSA, I "got" what DC was really doing with them. Extant aged them to where they were supposed to be. And, characters that had been around for 60+ years at the time were killed off and written out. (The Hourman fix is one of my least favorite elements of DC continuity.) How many times can they get de-aged?

As shocking as Heel Jordan was, I do think DC was trying to do more than give readers shock value. Kyle was clearly everything wrong with the 90s. That had to have been intentional. Then, DC had Kyle grow up a bit, and become an example of a modern hero.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you when talking about sour grapes. You've explained your position well enough that I don't think that's the case. But there are plenty out there to whom my charge definitely applies.

I see what you are saying. (There are plenty of backward looking fans in any hobby.)

My problem is that the more restoring/resetting there is, the less the hobby moves forward at all. Look at "GI Joe". IDW now has 3 continuities, movie, modern, retro-Hama. Hama has pretty much said that the continuation of the old Marvel book will effectively be "Archie with Guns". (He did not use those words. But, the meaning is clear. Time will not pass. Nothing will ever change....ever, despite the franchise being 25+ years old.) Despite the potential for hilarously bad customizing that "Archie with Guns" offers, is it really a comic worth reading?

If somebody wants to read the old stories, they can buy back-issues.

At the very least, publishers should stop telling us "that nothing, NOTHING, will ever be the same....for about 6 months". At least Hama is honest about how regressive retro-Joe is going to be.

I never said they were. Certainly there are different methods of gaining popularity, and not everyone gets it through talent. However, you cannot deny that isn't the case for Johns. He is popular because of his talent to write stories people enjoy. And as I said, whether or not you personally like it is another matter.

I agree, he does write what many people see to want to read.


Dom
-thinks we should market a TFV pin-up calendar. it would totally get us noticed.

[andersonh1]

The character destruction of Green Lantern followed by the destruction of the JSA were the one-two punch that really made me disgusted with DC. I stuck with a few books for awhile after that (including Starman, one I now wish I hadn't dropped), but I had lost my enthusiasm for the "shock the reader" type of storytelling. It didn't take long for me to simply quit buying any comics at all.

Really? How was it disgusting?

The destruction of Hal Jordan as a character is pretty self-explanatory. The JSA were wiped out en-masse simply because Mike Carlin didn't want DC publishing "senior citizen heroes", not for any decent story reasons. I don't have a problem with the death of Wesley Dodds in JSA or of Ted Knight in Starman. Each character was given an ending that fit the character and respected readers who had been following them for some time. You can't say that about the mass culling of the JSA in Zero Hour. They showed as little intelligence as Kyle Rayner in his stupidest greenhorn moments, and for a group of characters that had been around as long as they had, that's unacceptable. It was a case of turning them into idiots to fit the plot.

Now it's led to the modern incarnation of the group and the concept of a generational team, so ultimately we've gotten a good story product. But at the time, it was a stupid and lazy way to dispose of characters that DC didn't quite want to deal with.

As much as I liked the JSA, I "got" what DC was really doing with them. Extant aged them to where they were supposed to be. And, characters that had been around for 60+ years at the time were killed off and written out. (The Hourman fix is one of my least favorite elements of DC continuity.) How many times can they get de-aged?

We can accept shapeshifting aliens and characters that have all sorts of crazy powers, but not old men kept young by some mystical energy or whatever? If I'm prepared to suspend my disbelief for Superman or the Ray, or whoever, I can suspend my disbelief when Jay Garrick is still running at the speed of sound when he's 90. One's no more difficult to swallow than the other.

The JSA is a prime example of the rotating reset button. They had already been written out of existence once and consigned to some eternal "Ragnarok" after the Crisis. Then they were brought back in (I think) Armegeddon 2001 and given their own series, only to be written out again in Zero Hour. They went back and forth, depending on what editorial thought of them.