|
|
Post by MDG on May 27, 2016 12:42:14 GMT -5
Whenever these conversations come up, I'm always reminded of the "Yes, and...." rule. Basically creators (or more properly in this case, "adapters") should acknowledge and build on what's gone before, but not purposefully contradict it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on May 27, 2016 13:03:47 GMT -5
The hiring of 90ies Mike Deodato on Wonder Woman probably also was editorial sabotage. What I also can't figure for the ife of me is the constant work Jim Balent got at DC throughout the 90ies... Convergeance obviously was editorial sabotage though. But in the light of the recent Rebirth one shot, everything might actually make sense  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 27, 2016 13:27:01 GMT -5
What I also can't figure for the ife of me is the constant work Jim Balent got at DC throughout the 90ies...  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on May 27, 2016 14:07:05 GMT -5
Roquefort feeted birds???
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 27, 2016 14:18:35 GMT -5
Roquefort feeted birds??? Boobies! |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on May 27, 2016 15:07:45 GMT -5
Ha! Now I learned a new word in english |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 27, 2016 15:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on May 27, 2016 15:17:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2016 15:31:18 GMT -5
So am I, but it is Untold Legends of the Batman that I view as featuring the "real" Batman. The Dark Knight Returns, much as I love it in its own right, always felt like a What if..? type of story to me. Exactly. Well said. DKR was always intended to be a what if story, until it was so well received and sold so well DC editorial decided to make it the model for Batman moving forward. It wasn't greenlighted as an attempt to redefine Batman, it was an attempt to tell a different kind of Batman story, but as all entertainment tends towards being reactionary, once that different type of story became popular, there was an attempt to make it the norm. That's not a fault of the story, the creative team or the editorial team who greenlighted the story, it's on those who came afterwards and/or on the fan audience who pressured editorial to make it the norm by requesting/demanding more of the same and rewarding that with their dollars. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on May 27, 2016 15:53:31 GMT -5
DKR was always intended to be a what if story, until it was so well received and sold so well DC editorial decided to make it the model for Batman moving forward. It wasn't greenlighted as an attempt to redefine Batman, it was an attempt to tell a different kind of Batman story, but as all entertainment tends towards being reactionary, once that different type of story became popular, there was an attempt to make it the norm. That's not a fault of the story, the creative team or the editorial team who greenlighted the story, it's on those who came afterwards and/or on the fan audience who pressured editorial to make it the norm by requesting/demanding more of the same and rewarding that with their dollars. -M And that only is to be considered a fault if you favor the previous canon. You could also argue that the fault lays in the fans of the canon who haven't supported enough their favorite take... Really, there really isn't any need to blame anyone, it's just evolution, unless you'd want to blame a mother to wish her kid never grew up, or a kid who can't wait to be a grown up  No one could imagine in the 40ies that those for hire creations still could be popular AND relevant 75 years later, so to think that their creators felt invested in those creations beyond the regular pay is... cute Wheter they do it intentionaly or not, superhero comics are as marshallmacluhanesque as anything else : they are a socio-cultural comment on their age. If current Batman comics still were a social comment on the 70ies, I don't need to elaborate on where this would have taken us  |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on May 27, 2016 16:20:46 GMT -5
My thought on Editorial Sabotage is when the creative team has a storyline plotted out that suddenly gets shot down by the editors. One example, from what I recall, would be Emerald Twilight. Gerard Jones had a totally different plotline conceived when the powers-that-be declared that Hal Jordan was going to go crazy and be replaced and gave the story to Ron Marz. While the resultant new character, Kyle Rayner, grew into a worthwhile character himself, it was nothing short of sabotage on the character of Hal Jordan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 27, 2016 16:35:09 GMT -5
What happened on to Rick Veitch on Swamp Thing is Editorial Sabotage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 27, 2016 16:40:41 GMT -5
What I also can't figure for the ife of me is the constant work Jim Balent got at DC throughout the 90ies... Not sure that a picture of these is SFW. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 27, 2016 17:24:58 GMT -5
Demoting Marvel comics' Satan to Mephisto and then to God knows what other demon might not have doomed characters like Daimon Hellstrom ("son of Mephisto") or Satanna ("Mephistana"?) or even Ghost Rider, but it sure made them a whole lot less interesting to me. As for retroactively making it clear that the unnamed character in Ghost Rider (the one who was clearly Jesus) was not who Tony Isabella meant him to be was outright sabotage. Criminy, if using Judaeo-Christian imagery is fine for horror movies, why shouldn't it be for comics? If my ordained friends are any indication, nobody will take offence at seeing comic-book interpretations of Jesus starring in an adventure, especially if (as was the case at Marvel) they are on the side of the angels. But clearly Jim Shooter thought otherwise.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,878
|
Post by shaxper on May 27, 2016 17:49:40 GMT -5
DKR was always intended to be a what if story, until it was so well received and sold so well DC editorial decided to make it the model for Batman moving forward. It wasn't greenlighted as an attempt to redefine Batman, it was an attempt to tell a different kind of Batman story, but as all entertainment tends towards being reactionary, once that different type of story became popular, there was an attempt to make it the norm. That's not a fault of the story, the creative team or the editorial team who greenlighted the story, it's on those who came afterwards and/or on the fan audience who pressured editorial to make it the norm by requesting/demanding more of the same and rewarding that with their dollars. -M No doubt, but the characterization was still intended to fly in the face of all that had come before and paint it as silly in contrast. It was still an "F You" to the legacy, even if it was well done and not intended to be canon. |
|
No one could imagine in the 40ies that those for hire creations still could be popular AND relevant 75 years later, so to think that their creators felt invested in those creations beyond the regular pay is... cute 
