Comics are awesome.

[Onslaught Six]

The big 3 are anamolies. There are plenty of other characters that have either changed or faded away. (Does anybody really care about "Project Superpowers"? Really?) And, as much as you might hate Kyle, the character has ample staying power. Like I said, as easy as it is to laugh at those "new" characters from the mid-90s, DC made a credible attempt with most of them. (Kon-El carried his own title for a time. Steel and the Eradicator may not have their own books, but they refuse to stay dead. Damage is still floating around. Impulse too. Yeah, Mark Waid's little indulgence is still around.)

This is true for Marvel, too. Deadpool is arguably as popular as Wolverine is at this point.

The Manhunter is back. Professor Zoom is back. Hawk and Dove are back to pre A:2001 spec. So is Captain Atom. Goddammit, I am waiting for Ted Kord to come back. (They will find a way. Oi....)

If that happens, half of /co/ will cry because their favourite slashfic hero is back. The other half will cry because he's not dead anymore.

But part of me thinks the only way we'll see Ted Kord again is if people write stories that're simply...set when he was alive. *That's* what having continuity should mean. Not every book needs to be linear.

I would argue that "One More Day" created an all new, if less defined, status quo for the "Spider-Man" books. (Either way, it is being undone in the near future, so how we figure it out is largely academic.) But, your point is taken. Like I said though, Bendis's writing is highly readable. I will stay likely with the Avengers books for maybe 6 months to a year.

So now they're 'undoing' OMD? Jesus.

There are 2, maybe 3, posts worth of FCBD comics left. And, barring any real upsets, (like me deciding I want more than a few hours of sleep a night), the rest of the FCBD haul should be posted by the end of next week.

Did you get the Atomic Robo issue?

Oh, there are some "far future" Batmen, including Terry McGuiness and some guys who are probably from some "Elseworlds" comics.

I loved Batman Beyond, so any nod to that happening in the eventual future of DC is pretty awesome.

[andersonh1]

I loved Batman Beyond, so any nod to that happening in the eventual future of DC is pretty awesome.

There's a Batman Beyond mini-series coming out soon. I don't know whether it's actually set in DC continuity or not, but I've seen ads for it in recent books.

[Dominic]

Actually, Hal had to spend the time convincing Batman he was good again. It was far from a simple run in. Even that didn't really end with Batman saying "Maybe he is okay after all". At best, Bruce gave Hal the benefit of the doubt. The Lost Lanterns on the other hand are still openly hostile towards Hal and have made it quite clear they aren't going to forgive him.

Give it time.

Again, just bringing characters or a city back isn't the same thing as "restored to a previous state". Even you have to admit, Barry's life isn't the same as it was before he died, especially given Wally is still in a Flash costume having taken up the role when Barry died. A lot has changed while Barry has been gone and so things have hardly been "restored" for him just because he's back. And as I have previously said, most of these other characters really have not been dead for very long to make much of an impact either way.

Character come back and slowly get restored to some kind of artificial status quo. They may change a bit over time, (as Anderson notes with Batman). But, real changes are increasingly rare.

Peter is back to hanging out with Harry Osborn and company in a coffee shop, he is single, and was living with his Aunt again, but has moved into an apartment of his own. He was working as a photographer again, recently fired and is generally poor. I don't see how you can say you can argue this being an "all new" status quo when you can describe the '60-70's status quo pretty much exactly the same way.

I see your point in general terms. But, the big difference is that in the 70s, it did not come off as so artificial and temporary. There are ads in CSN playing up the very near un-un-doing of OMD. On some level, it almost feels worst than post-CoIE "Legion of Superheroes". (Feels good to get that off my chest.)

Either way, it is pretty bad.

I've really liked Bendis' work in the Ultimate Universe, but I have to say, I've never been that impressed with how he has handled things in the main Marvel universe.

"Dark Avengers" and "Siege" are fantastic. Bendis managed to blend ideas and dialogue...and a plot that actually managed to not completely undo itself. (Granted, much of "Siege" is undone by "Heroic Age", but.....)

Like I said, at this point, Bendis' "Avengers" books are filler. His work tends to be readable at worst. I am expecting nothing great, and demanding very little. If I add any more titles, it will probably be "Avengers" I cut.

It was clearly intended to stick, hence the utter and nearly-irrevocable destruction of Hal Jordan as a character, along with the Guardians, the Corps, the crippling of John Stewart, turning Guy into Warrior, changing Alan Scott's name...

Those moves annoyed me for being cowardly. "Look, John and Guy are temporarily and conveniently off the board...right when something really bad would have happened to them otherwise." "Wow, Alan Scott is technically not a "Green Lantern", so he is not Sentinel." I remember thinking at the time it would have been better to make a clean sweep of things.

No, they weren't. They were bandwagon jumping in an attempt to boost sales and attract new readers to a title that Kevin Dooley felt no one cared about.

Low sales more than justify "disrespecting the fans". Something drastic was needed. And, who can blame DC for wanting the passing of the torch to be something more than another "hero dies heroically and is replaced" or "hero retires and passes the torch"?

If anything, I would argue that is shows more respect for the readers to have a story progress in a way *not* expected, rather than giving them a redundant or simply predicable turn.

Sparky's point about some of the returned characters not having been dead very long is an example, (albeit unintentional), of this. Death is assumed to be temporary to the point that we as readers are just assume it will be undone. "Wow, XYZ sure stayed dead for a good long time....6 whole months!" The returns are predictable from the moment the deaths are announced, even if the deaths are announced in advance.

I am more insulted by that sort of thing than by "ruining" a character. (And, again, I hold this standard even with arcs I hated. As crass as it was, "Identity Crisis" needs to stick.)

I agree completely. But necessary change doesn't necessarily equal turning your decades-old hero into a mass-murdering psychopath.

My main point of disagreement with you here is the value you assign to longevity. I agree that changes should not be capricious or shock events. But, a character's longevity should not be a factor in the editor's decision.

But part of me thinks the only way we'll see Ted Kord again is if people write stories that're simply...set when he was alive. *That's* what having continuity should mean. Not every book needs to be linear.

Agreed in principle.

But, in practice, you would be shocked and saddened by how many people have a problem with this idea. Remember the bitching and whining about how the SW prequels were "confusing"? There are people who have trouble figuring out flash-backs....even when they are announced.

Did you get the Atomic Robo issue?

I am afraid to send it to you though...as you might come to my house and punch me.

(Just kidding. Send me your contact information. If you want it, you can have it.)


Dom
-dare O6 add himself to my filthy message and prank list?

[andersonh1]

No, they weren't. They were bandwagon jumping in an attempt to boost sales and attract new readers to a title that Kevin Dooley felt no one cared about.

Low sales more than justify "disrespecting the fans".

But do they really? Comic book readership is already shrinking, and has been for years. Does alienating a built-in fan base really make sense?

Now to be fair, DC attracted a lot more readers and sales with Emerald Twilight than they lost, as far as I know. But then they did the same thing with Rebirth, and without removing Kyle from the scene. I would argue that it was entirely possible to have replaced Hal without destroying the character and all the associated trappings such as the Corps and the Guardians. And that would have avoided all the obviously artificial changes to Guy, John and Alan.

Something drastic was needed.

The book and character had been rejuvenated and sales boosted in the past without such drastic moves.

And, who can blame DC for wanting the passing of the torch to be something more than another "hero dies heroically and is replaced" or "hero retires and passes the torch"?

But that's what most readers want and expect when reading about these larger than life heroic characters. If they're going to go, they should go out in the same way they lived, not go bad, and do so in the worst possible way. I mean, is that really what we're reading these books for? Should Spider-Man start snapping the necks of criminals? Should Superman conquer the Earth because he knows best and he's going to put an end to crime and war? Do we really want to see these iconic characters cross the line? I certainly don't.

I agree completely. But necessary change doesn't necessarily equal turning your decades-old hero into a mass-murdering psychopath.

My main point of disagreement with you here is the value you assign to longevity. I agree that changes should not be capricious or shock events. But, a character's longevity should not be a factor in the editor's decision.

If the character has had decades of successful sales, it certainly should be a factor. Throwing out a proven and valuable property isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned above, there's always the danger of alienating the loyal buyers, something I dont' think any comic book publisher can afford to do.

I'm somewhat amused at myself for still debating this 15 years after it happened. But in a larger sense this is the ongoing problem that comic books all face, isn't it? ET was just one example. How long can characters exist before telling new stories about them becomes more and more difficult? Is there really anything new for Superman or Batman to do that hasn't been done before? Probably not. But the characters sell because they long ago hit upon a formula that attracted readers and continues to attract readers. There's only so much room to vary that formula before the writers get away from what makes the character popular, and so they're forced to go back to what works. Characters slowly change with the times to reflect the attitudes of society and the readers (hence the difference between 60's Batman and 90s Batman, to re-use an example), but that doesn't mean unlimited freedom. Look at what happened when they turned Superman into an energy being. That was a bridge too far, the audience complained, and that change was undone.

I'm not sure how much permanent and meaningful change we can or should expect from comics. The books and characters tend to evolve organically, and any sudden sharp turns in direction tend to do more harm than good. The editors took the plunge and made a drastic change to Green Lantern, and it resulted in a new character and stronger sales. But it also resulted in a split fan base and a vastly more limited story potential. In some ways it was certainly a bold move, but it also had major downsides.

One other note about things not sticking, and this is in regard to the return of Barry Allen. I was browsing through the "Flash: Rebirth" trade, and it's a darn good piece of drama in my view. It incorporated some of the very things I thought should be in it with regard to the world having changed while Allen was gone, including Wally's growth into Barry's old role, and we get to see Barry's reaction to that. There's a lot of mileage to be gained by this approach. I'd have to say, based on at least this one storyline that there's more to be gained by returning Barry Allen than there was by keeping him dead. His death led to a lot of good story developments, but after 23 years of real time, there's a lot of new story potential to be had by putting him back in the modern DC universe. This was pretty much my first exposure to the character apart from stories like JLA Year One and COIE, and I liked what I read.

I think, like the return of Jordan and the corps, that the universe of storytelling has been broadened because the character's death has been reversed, and I think the possibility of good drama is more important than keeping the character's death permanent.

[Dominic]

But do they really? Comic book readership is already shrinking, and has been for years. Does alienating a built-in fan base really make sense?

It does if the idea is to gain new readers rather than pandering to a demographic stereotypically, (and not completely without reason), know for not liking change.

The book and character had been rejuvenated and sales boosted in the past without such drastic moves.

The other big rejuvenation was "Hard Travelling Heroes". Like that arc or hate it, it was a desperate move that DC thought would fail miserably. Yes, it did fantastically well. But, it was a desperate, and drastic, move. It established politics as a factor not just for the characters, but for the setting. Speedy was made into a joke that we still laugh at today.

I am not a fan of that arc, but it was drastic. And, it did work.

Should Spider-Man start snapping the necks of criminals? Should Superman conquer the Earth because he knows best and he's going to put an end to crime and war? Do we really want to see these iconic characters cross the line? I certainly don't.

If it is worth them crossing the line, then yes. I do want them to cross the line. Hell, I want them to blow the damned line away.

And, when they cross the line, it needs to stay crossed outside of a full reboot. ("Elseworlds" and "What Ifs" are a good way to deal with some of this. Writers get to toy with ideas, such as the moral hazard in "Red Son", with no need for ramifications or to undo the story later.)

If the character has had decades of successful sales, it certainly should be a factor. Throwing out a proven and valuable property isn't a good idea. And as I mentioned above, there's always the danger of alienating the loyal buyers, something I dont' think any comic book publisher can afford to do.

But, if the value is consistently diminishing, something needs to be done. The thing that saved comics this past decade was not panding to the most insular parts of the base. It was comic reaching out into the mainstream and pulling in *new* readers from there.

Has this resulted in some bad comics? "Identity Crisis" says "hell yeah". But, it has also done more to help the industry than any magical status quo that must not be violated for any reason.

I'm somewhat amused at myself for still debating this 15 years after it happened. But in a larger sense this is the ongoing problem that comic books all face, isn't it? ET was just one example. How long can characters exist before telling new stories about them becomes more and more difficult? Is there really anything new for Superman or Batman to do that hasn't been done before? Probably not.

Never say "never" on this sort of thing though. Had you asked me even 2 years ago if we could have had TF comics as good as AHM or Wreckers, I would have laughed at you. I would have jumped on a bus, come down to your house and laughed at you.

Then, you could have driven up to Boston and laughed at me.

Had somebody told me 3 years ago that a Bendis written book featuring Norman Osborn, (a character that I had bad associations with, and had never seen used well beyond a shock story), would not only be on my regular pull-list, but also my favorite book...and damned well written, I would bet hard money against it.

But, in order to get those new stories and apply the characters to new ideas, writers need the freedom to innovate. "Elseworlds" type stories are good for this. But, the innovations are devalued if they happen and are consistently undone in context.

There's only so much room to vary that formula before the writers get away from what makes the character popular, and so they're forced to go back to what works. Characters slowly change with the times to reflect the attitudes of society and the readers (hence the difference between 60's Batman and 90s Batman, to re-use an example), but that doesn't mean unlimited freedom.

In theory, the idea should be that the characters and settings should cheange, which keeps unpopular things from sticking. But, there is a difference between "change" and "changing back".

Superman being an energy thing was so obviously an event at the time it happened that nobody thought it was going to stick. I recall the sentiment being annoyance more than anything else. DC was trying to maintain artificial momentum post "Action Comics" #500. Readers were wondering if/why they should bother more than anything else.

I'm not sure how much permanent and meaningful change we can or should expect from comics. The books and characters tend to evolve organically, and any sudden sharp turns in direction tend to do more harm than good. The editors took the plunge and made a drastic change to Green Lantern, and it resulted in a new character and stronger sales. But it also resulted in a split fan base and a vastly more limited story potential. In some ways it was certainly a bold move, but it also had major downsides.

Comics can have meaningful progression. Nightwing is a good example of this, as is Wally West. And, neither of those things would have happened if not for serious changes to iconic titles. (Well, "Flash" has always been a second tier character, but you get the idea.)

The changes to "Green Lantern" did not limit story potential. There would still be plenty of stories to tell. Perhaps Kyle and Ganthet, (each one of a kind), could attempt building a *new* Corps with *new* members. Arcs showing Kyle's attempts at keeping order on his own would have been a *new* possibiiity that the old status quo would not have allowed.

Barry Allen's death was so freighted with meaning that undoing reduced much of the past 20+ years to hype.


Dom
-because Ted Kord's death matters oh so much.

[andersonh1]

But do they really? Comic book readership is already shrinking, and has been for years. Does alienating a built-in fan base really make sense?

It does if the idea is to gain new readers rather than pandering to a demographic stereotypically, (and not completely without reason), know for not liking change.

I wouldn't have said that it's pandering to make certain that characters who are purported to be virtuous, upstanding and heroic are written to actually be that way.

The other big rejuvenation was "Hard Travelling Heroes". Like that arc or hate it, it was a desperate move that DC thought would fail miserably. Yes, it did fantastically well. But, it was a desperate, and drastic, move. It established politics as a factor not just for the characters, but for the setting. Speedy was made into a joke that we still laugh at today.

Actually, I'm fairly sure it wasn't really all that commercially successful. It was a critical success, and a turning point for the two main characters and for DC's approach to storytelling, but it was a short-lived experiment because it didn't increase sales very much, if at all.

If it is worth them crossing the line, then yes. I do want them to cross the line. Hell, I want them to blow the damned line away.

And, when they cross the line, it needs to stay crossed outside of a full reboot. ("Elseworlds" and "What Ifs" are a good way to deal with some of this. Writers get to toy with ideas, such as the moral hazard in "Red Son", with no need for ramifications or to undo the story later.)

I would argue that Elseworlds type stories are exactly the type of place to twist and reinvent characters, not in the main continuity. A casual reader expects Superman to have a blue suit and a red cape and to fly around Metropolis, and to pine away for Lois Lane when he's Clark Kent. You can't stray far from that without alienating new readers who won't know what's going on. Keeping a familiar character "familiar" isn't pandering, it's keeping the character accessible for the casual or new reader.

That was one of the problems with Kyle being the only GL. In order to really understand him, you had to know the history behind the ring and who this blue dwarf was that kept turning up, and who that grey-haired guy in the green cape was. The basic idea that he had a ring that could make anything he imagined was apparent enough, but the readers who started asking where the ring came from and why Kyle had it had to delve into the very continuity that DC was trying to jettison.

But, if the value is consistently diminishing, something needs to be done.

All comic characters go through cycles where sales diminish. This situation was no different.

Never say "never" on this sort of thing though. Had you asked me even 2 years ago if we could have had TF comics as good as AHM or Wreckers, I would have laughed at you. I would have jumped on a bus, come down to your house and laughed at you.

Then, you could have driven up to Boston and laughed at me.

Yeah, who would have thought it?

Barry Allen's death was so freighted with meaning that undoing reduced much of the past 20+ years to hype.

It wasn't actually undone... it still happened, and so all the consequences still have meaning. Wally grew into the role he enjoys today because of Barry's removal as the main Flash. The idea of the Flash book as a generational/legacy title took place during Mark Waid's run on the title. None of that has changed or been undone.

I was pretty much with you in thinking that there was no point in bringing Barry Allen back until I actually started reading Flash Rebirth. I haven't finished it, but the story itself and the use of all the characters has pretty much changed my mind.

[138 Scourge]

I've actually heard good things about the "Flash" series. I mean, I'm not gonna get it myself, mind you, but I've heard good things. I figure it this way: I read Barry's appearances in "Final Crisis", which was Morrison-written. I didn't care about Barry then, and didn't think it was worth having him back. Now, if Morrison can't make me like him, I just am completely incapable of liking him.

Okay, not entirely true. I liked Barry in the flashbacks during Waid's "Flash" run. But still.

One thing about "One More Day" that's gotta be mentioned. Okay, on the surface of it, "Deal with the devil that turns back time" is... even more retarded than "Giant Yellow Space Bug Did It". But I have to admire the sheer ballsiness of Marvel just deciding "We can turn back time, we can find a way.." and going with it. That is sheer out of their heads crazy.

Anyway, if "Giant Yellow Space Bug" was worth it to get Jordan back, then "Deal With the Devil" was worth it to bring back Harry Osborn. I will say, though, I don't know for sure if it was the turning back time that brought back Harry, or that his death was faked by Mysterio. But either way, I'm just glad that Harry's back, and we didn't even have to get Rainbow Goblins to do it!

Also, I guess I'm okay with "Brand New Day" because honestly, when I think about it, I don't care that much about Mary Jane. Nothin' against her, you understand, but just don't care that much.

Have new comics, might summarize later.

[Dominic]

I wouldn't have said that it's pandering to make certain that characters who are purported to be virtuous, upstanding and heroic are written to actually be that way.

It is pandering to have the characters nevereverever change...ever, for any reason if the assumption is that readers cannot handle it.

If nothing else, if they never ever change, what is the incentive for long term readers to stick around? I know that books like "Archie" and even "GI Joe" have a long-term readership. But, it is beyond me why the stick around for the same thing over and over and ad nauseum. (And, it only really works for "Archie", which has *still* been forced to broaden its product line in recent years.)

I am the last one who would argue that we need more books like Mark Waid's exhibitionist tantrums, "Irredeemable" and "Incorruptible". But, there is a case to be made for accentuating heroice qualities by showing a hero fall, (perhaps by taking the heroic qualities too far).

Hal's actions in "Emerald Twilight" were not that far off base for a super hero. They solve problems. The more problems, and types of problems, one tries to solve, the more ownership one is taking of the problems and solutions. Hal took ownership of the Coast City problem, and he applied it on a large scale. And, look what happened.

Granted, Byrne also addressed this issue in "Superman". (Superman does not kill because he fears taking too much ownership of problems as well as the consequences for mistakes he could make.) But, it would accentuate Superman's heroic qualities to have a hero fall every so often.

Actually, I'm fairly sure it wasn't really all that commercially successful. It was a critical success, and a turning point for the two main characters and for DC's approach to storytelling, but it was a short-lived experiment because it didn't increase sales very much, if at all.

Good catch. But, all of those compilations and references since illustrate how much the radical change added to the characters. (O'Neil himself said that nobody much cared about Green Arrow before HTH.)

There is a huge difference between accessibility and stagnation. Bringing in new readers is one thing. Getting them to stick around is quite another. I flip through, and even pick up, random books all the time. But, if they do not seem to have any direction or real premise, I do not bother to pick up the next one.

DC was not trying to jettison old continuity with Kyle, they were trying to advance it. For a time, Marvel had one page "what came before" summaries in all their books. That mechanism would be a good fixt for the problem of necessary background that you bring about.

It wasn't actually undone... it still happened, and so all the consequences still have meaning.

What consequences? Barry is back. And, inside of a few years, the other non-Jay Flashes will retire/die. Hell, Bart is only still around now because the fans pitched a fit when DC killed him off.

Okay, not entirely true. I liked Barry in the flashbacks during Waid's "Flash" run. But still.

Because him being dead made him more useful for story telling purposes? (Keep in mind one of the reasons they killed him off was that he was actually pretty useless alive.)

But I have to admire the sheer ballsiness of Marvel just deciding "We can turn back time, we can find a way.." and going with it. That is sheer out of their heads crazy.

I would have agreed with this before it became apparent that it was all being un-un-done.

Dom
-reallys wants a capes and tights book along the lines of "Doonesbury" or "For Better or Worse".

[Sparky Prime]

Give it time.

Time? The Lost Lanterns were saved by Hal himself about 4 years ago from the Manhunters. Then they saw Kyle possessed by Parallax during the "Sinestro Corps War". If they didn't forgive Hal after all of that, what makes you think that'll change with more time? Boodikka in particular is more stubborn now that she's become an Alpha Lantern.

Character come back and slowly get restored to some kind of artificial status quo. They may change a bit over time, (as Anderson notes with Batman). But, real changes are increasingly rare.

No, just because a character comes back doesn't mean the status quo gets restored. Granted, it's commonly what happens but not always. As I've been saying with Hal, his status quo is hardly restored to what it was before he was possessed by Parallax. Really, the entire Green Lantern storyline has seen a completely new direction ever since "Rebirth".

I see your point in general terms. But, the big difference is that in the 70s, it did not come off as so artificial and temporary. There are ads in CSN playing up the very near un-un-doing of OMD. On some level, it almost feels worst than post-CoIE "Legion of Superheroes". (Feels good to get that off my chest.)

Either way, it is pretty bad.

Well that's because in the 70's, it was natural story progression. You can't revisit the past like Quesada is trying to do, it just doesn't work that way. What ads? The only upcoming Spidey thing I've heard about is called "One Moment In Time" (O.M.I.T.) which is supposed to "explain" what happened to undo the marriage (and other changes to Spidey). I haven't heard of anything that'll supposedly undo OMD.

[Sparky Prime]

Anyway, if "Giant Yellow Space Bug" was worth it to get Jordan back, then "Deal With the Devil" was worth it to bring back Harry Osborn. I will say, though, I don't know for sure if it was the turning back time that brought back Harry, or that his death was faked by Mysterio. But either way, I'm just glad that Harry's back, and we didn't even have to get Rainbow Goblins to do it!

What? How can you say if one was worth it so was the other? The two are completely disproportionate to each other. Parallax and the Emotional Spectrum have greatly added to the Green Lantern mythos and has brought about consistently great stories. The deal with the devil, on the other hand, has taken more away from Spidey (his marriage, his 'new' powers, a sense of independence and so on) than it gave him back, and the stories have been generally pretty terrible since then. Making Parallax a separate entity was a great move, while Spidey's deal with the devil was terrible, and not worth it just for Harry being back.