|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 14:49:04 GMT -5
How do you think the DC Universe would have played out if the Crisis never happened? Do you think DC would have eventually had some major overhaul? Would some of the low selling titles been cancelled despite featuring popular characters (such as Wonder Woman)? I sometimes wonder how Earth-2 stories would have progressed.
I believe eventually there would have been some sort of revamp, especially for the big 3. Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman all saw new life due to the Crisis--while some characters suffered such as the earth-2 heroes and concepts, LSH, and Wondergirl.
For its time, Crisis on Infinite Earths was quite the story. I haven't re-read it in several years, but when I was younger and read it, I was stunned at the deaths of the Flash, Supergirl, Earth-2 Robin and Huntress. Even more stunned at the Wonder Woman relaunch (I kept waiting for Diana Prince to come back and Wonder-spin). I liked the John Byrne version of Superman complete with Ma and Pa Kent alive! I did miss the concept of Superboy as well as Supergirl. I remember losing interest in Batman after the Crisis as the title took on a darker tone and he went from caped crusader to dark knight.
*Sorry if there is already a thread devoted to this topic!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2017 15:22:59 GMT -5
I read and re-read the entire storyline and every time that I read it; I get more confused about the whole mess. I regard this storyline one of the most complex and I need a scorecard to keep track of the deaths that occurred here and that's why I don't care for it at all. To me, I wished that DC Comics had done something more differently than the approach that it was given at that point of time and I have no answers to how to fix this. In another thread, one member started a poll ... james asked all of us - do you want a movie based on this storyline and I said firmly No. Because it would be an expensive animation project and even more expensive live action movie that will be the most difficult undertaking ever. I always hated this storyline because like @mrjupiter and I just couldn't get over the deaths of four heroes that he mentioned and that alone hurts me so much because back then - I was a huge Robin of Earth 2 and Supergirl and having seen them die in this storyline made my heart sank to a new low and I blamed DC Comics for making this one of the emotional stories that I ever read in my entire life. I know that they wanted to shake things up but this is the most ridiculous way of doing it. I wished that they never done this and I haven't read this for more than 20 years and not planning on doing it again because the impact and the madness it's brings. This storyline changed my focus from DC Comics to Marvel Comics in a hurry and that's when I started loving Daredevil, Black Panther, Iron Man, and reaffirmed my love to Spiderman even more. It's took me 3-5 years to get back to DC Comics and that alone made me to re-think the Infinite Crisis storyline that I read again and the 2nd time I read it - I threw away all the Comic Books that supports it and blamed DC Comics for the deaths of Robin of Earth 2, Supergirl, Flash, and Huntress altogether and that's a difficult pill to swallow here. There is no solution in my own mind to fix this horrible mess that DC Comics created in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 8, 2017 16:05:03 GMT -5
It (may have) seemed like a good idea at the time, but it destroyed a lot of what made DC unique. From Flash of Two Worlds through other attempts to tame continuity up to Crisis, it seemed a strategy of "explain" not "fix." And I think that's a strategy that takes a lot more creativity and imagination.
Also, it opened the floodgates for seemingly constant reboots. (I think--I stopped reading when Hawkman's continuity got too convoluted.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Jun 8, 2017 17:14:34 GMT -5
We wouldn't have encountered all these useless reboots and retcons over the last thirty-three years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jun 8, 2017 17:25:51 GMT -5
It never did happen. Earth-1, Earth-2, and all the other Earths are all still there. DC just stopped publishing their stories in 1986 and started making stuff up instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 8, 2017 17:27:47 GMT -5
I read and re-read the entire storyline and every time that I read it; I get more confused about the whole mess. I regard this storyline one of the most complex and I need a scorecard to keep track of the deaths that occurred here and that's why I don't care for it at all. To me, I wished that DC Comics had done something more differently than the approach that it was given at that point of time and I have no answers to how to fix this. In another thread, one member started a poll ... james asked all of us - do you want a movie based on this storyline and I said firmly No. Because it would be an expensive animation project and even more expensive live action movie that will be the most difficult undertaking ever. I always hated this storyline because like @mrjupiter and I just couldn't get over the deaths of four heroes that he mentioned and that alone hurts me so much because back then - I was a huge Robin of Earth 2 and Supergirl and having seen them die in this storyline made my heart sank to a new low and I blamed DC Comics for making this one of the emotional stories that I ever read in my entire life. I know that they wanted to shake things up but this is the most ridiculous way of doing it. I wished that they never done this and I haven't read this for more than 20 years and not planning on doing it again because the impact and the madness it's brings. This storyline changed my focus from DC Comics to Marvel Comics in a hurry and that's when I started loving Daredevil, Black Panther, Iron Man, and reaffirmed my love to Spiderman even more. It's took me 3-5 years to get back to DC Comics and that alone made me to re-think the Infinite Crisis storyline that I read again and the 2nd time I read it - I threw away all the Comic Books that supports it and blamed DC Comics for the deaths of Robin of Earth 2, Supergirl, Flash, and Huntress altogether and that's a difficult pill to swallow here. There is no solution in my own mind to fix this horrible mess that DC Comics created in the first place. My actual poll was "Do you think if Marvel's Infinity War does exceptionally money wise that DC will make a Crisis movie. I agree with everything you and mrjupiter have written however. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 8, 2017 21:57:29 GMT -5
I think DC would have done another soft reboot, at some point in the 80s. Greg Hatcher did a column about this, back at the old site, and talked about how DC used to do "soft reboots," where characters would be updated in their own books, without huge fanfare. Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman all went through some changes in the early 70s, modernizing them, without totally rewriting things. The JSA got a bit of that, too, via the All Star Comics revival, the JLA/JSA crossovers, and stories like Alan Brennert's Earth-2 Batman pieces (marrying Catwoman, Catwoman's later death). I think we would have seen more of that, just to shake things up a bit. I still think that they would have been fine concentrating on Earth-1 and Earth-2, as those were the primary stories and those characters were fairly easy to differentiate. The Marvel Family were de-emphasized when the tv show went off the air and due to rights issues with Fawcett (DC had licensed the character, not bought it and it was a while before they owned him and his family, outright). It was easy to shift the Freedom Fighters to Earth-2 (not that they were being used, after their series was cancelled) and Earth-3 didn't make regular appearances. The notion that readers were confused is nonsense; the only confusion was about certain minor characters, who weren't regular features. It seemed to be more the ex-Marvel writers who had a problem.
I can see Byrne still doing a soft reboot of Superman and the Perez Wonder Woman, as they didn't change that much. Dark Knight is still a potential future story and Year One is another soft reboot. The Legion didn't change, other than the loss of Superboy. With minor tweaking, you can have them inspired by a young Clark Kent, who has not yet decided to be a public protector and have a time loop, where the legion is inspired by Clark/Superman, go back in time and meet him, and plant the notion in Clark to take up a public persona.
No, outside of Crisis, itself, I don't see much that DC published post-Crisis that couldn't have grown out of the pre-Crisis DC, in a slightly different manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 8, 2017 22:51:53 GMT -5
It (may have) seemed like a good idea at the time, but it destroyed a lot of what made DC unique. From Flash of Two Worlds through other attempts to tame continuity up to Crisis, it seemed a strategy of "explain" not "fix." And I think that's a strategy that takes a lot more creativity and imagination. True, but wasn't DC tanking financially or some such? I remember hearing that was also one of the reasons why the idea of Crisis was so appealing Still would have liked to seen Warner give the rights of DC over to Marvel just for all the fun interactions, but I imagine trying to bring in an entirely different universe into your own that's already slightly chaotic with toy licenses would be a bit of a creative nightmare Also, it opened the floodgates for seemingly constant reboots. (I think--I stopped reading when Hawkman's continuity got too convoluted.) I liked Hawkman's Golden Age origin. Though the silver/bronze age versions were alright though not my cup of tea, I think Hawkman was far better as a constantly reincarnated Egyptian prince exposed to alien tech that crash landed in the desert. Like a smarter version of Ancient Aliens |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 8, 2017 23:34:10 GMT -5
It (may have) seemed like a good idea at the time, but it destroyed a lot of what made DC unique. From Flash of Two Worlds through other attempts to tame continuity up to Crisis, it seemed a strategy of "explain" not "fix." And I think that's a strategy that takes a lot more creativity and imagination. True, but wasn't DC tanking financially or some such? I remember hearing that was also one of the reasons why the idea of Crisis was so appealing Still would have liked to seen Warner give the rights of DC over to Marvel just for all the fun interactions, but I imagine trying to bring in an entirely different universe into your own that's already slightly chaotic with toy licenses would be a bit of a creative nightmare Also, it opened the floodgates for seemingly constant reboots. (I think--I stopped reading when Hawkman's continuity got too convoluted.) I liked Hawkman's Golden Age origin. Though the silver/bronze age versions were alright though not my cup of tea, I think Hawkman was far better as a constantly reincarnated Egyptian prince exposed to alien tech that crash landed in the desert. Like a smarter version of Ancient Aliens DC was actually rebounding well before Crisis. The changes implemented by Jenette Kahn and Paul Levitz (and Dick Giordano, when he became managing editor, in 1981) started paying off around 1979 and 1980, as the line started stabilizing. They had a bona fide hit in New Teen Titans (launched in 1980) and Legion of Superheroes joined it, with the Great darkness Saga pushing them into superstar book status (storyline beginning in 1982). Firestorm was a hit. Dc Comics Presents had good numbers, Justice League picked up with Perez and issue 200 and stayed strong afterward. All-Star Squadron was a hit. DC was bankrolled by Warner going back to 1967 (as Kinney National Corporation bought them, then Warner-Seven Arts, which became Warner Communications) and were never in "financial peril." Sales were down industry-wide in the mid-70s, but they made a ton of money through licensing their characters, which earned them plenty of revenue, subsidizing the newsstand sales. Sales were reversing by 1979 and were picking up in the 80s, before Crisis (1985). DC was drawing good press with their changes and new titles. Crisis was originally supposed to just be a 50th Anniversary celebration; but, it took on a life of its own, as it developed, becoming the event we know. Swamp Thing was going through its renaissance with Alan Moore, prior to Crisis. The pieces were already there. Crisis came about because of DC's success, not in response to turmoil. DC capitalized on the response to Crisis and instituted more changes than originally envisioned. Even then, most of that didn't really start happening until 1987 (give or take). |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 9, 2017 1:41:27 GMT -5
I don't know enough about DC to understand all the continuity stuff and what exactly Crisis changed, but I agree that they were already reaping the benefits from the influx of Marvel talents like Wolfman, Perez, Gene Colan, etc; and then Alan Moore came along and revitalised Swamp Thing. So as far as the Big 2 were concerned, DC had already surpassed marvel by the early 80s, IMO.
Unfortunately for me, I never found most of the DC characters as interesting as Marvel's, so I didn't enjoy, say, Perez on Teen Titans as much as I had Perez on the Avengers, or Gene Colan on Batman as much as Gene Colan on Daredevil. The Wolfman/Colan Night Force was great but cancelled early; Englehart' Starlin, and Gerber didn't stay around long enough to produce anything that might have matched their achievements at Marvel. So as it turned out, Moore's Swamp Thing was the only ongoing DC series that I stayed with for the long haul.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 9, 2017 7:35:29 GMT -5
I think I'm probably in the minority here but, much as I enjoyed pre-Crisis continuity, particlarly the Earth Two stuff, I actually liked Crisis and the new universe it created, despite all its problems, mostly because it brought the Golden Age characters firmly into the "main" continuity and ended up giving us wonderful concepts like the Flash as a legacy character, which I really enjoyed. I doubt we'd ever have seen stuff like James Robinson's Starman without Crisis, or seen nearly as much of characters like Jay Garrick and Alan Scott cropping up all over the place as they did from the early 90s onwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 9:50:42 GMT -5
mostly because it brought the Golden Age characters firmly into the "main" continuity and ended up giving us wonderful concepts like the Flash as a legacy character, which I really enjoyed. Good point here and I didn't see this coming and I do like the Golden Age better than any age in Comic History. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jun 9, 2017 12:04:17 GMT -5
I liked Hawkman's Golden Age origin. Though the silver/bronze age versions were alright though not my cup of tea, I think Hawkman was far better as a constantly reincarnated Egyptian prince exposed to alien tech that crash landed in the desert. Like a smarter version of Ancient Aliens I agree completely. For all the rest of the Silver Age reboots, I think the latter-day versions are more interesting and dynamic, but the Golden Age Hawkman was always a much more compelling character. I think I'm probably in the minority here but, much as I enjoyed pre-Crisis continuity, particlarly the Earth Two stuff, I actually liked Crisis and the new universe it created, despite all its problems, mostly because it brought the Golden Age characters firmly into the "main" continuity and ended up giving us wonderful concepts like the Flash as a legacy character, which I really enjoyed. I doubt we'd ever have seen stuff like James Robinson's Starman without Crisis, or seen nearly as much of characters like Jay Garrick and Alan Scott cropping up all over the place as they did from the early 90s onwards. I thought the idea of a merged Earth had a lot going for it, but what they did with it turned me off DC. They either ought to have: (a) done what Marv Wolfman wanted to do (and what DC ironically did decaded later), and start everything over from scratch with new #1's and new continuity; OR (b) carefully crafted everything into a seamless web with people like Wolfman, Roy Thomas, and E Nelson Bridwell at the core. Instead, they came up with hodgepodge of mixed soft and hard reboots and a feeling that they didn't care at all about the legacy they had spent decades crafting. It completely alienated me as a fan and eventually I stopped buying mainstream DC titles. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jun 9, 2017 12:20:07 GMT -5
I liked Hawkman's Golden Age origin. Though the silver/bronze age versions were alright though not my cup of tea, I think Hawkman was far better as a constantly reincarnated Egyptian prince exposed to alien tech that crash landed in the desert. Like a smarter version of Ancient Aliens I agree completely. For all the rest of the Silver Age reboots, I think the latter-day versions are more interesting and dynamic, but the Golden Age Hawkman was always a much more compelling character. I think I'm probably in the minority here but, much as I enjoyed pre-Crisis continuity, particlarly the Earth Two stuff, I actually liked Crisis and the new universe it created, despite all its problems, mostly because it brought the Golden Age characters firmly into the "main" continuity and ended up giving us wonderful concepts like the Flash as a legacy character, which I really enjoyed. I doubt we'd ever have seen stuff like James Robinson's Starman without Crisis, or seen nearly as much of characters like Jay Garrick and Alan Scott cropping up all over the place as they did from the early 90s onwards. I thought the idea of a merged Earth had a lot going for it, but what they did with it turned me off DC. They either ought to have: (a) done what Marv Wolfman wanted to do (and what DC ironically did decaded later), and start everything over from scratch with new #1's and new continuity; OR (b) carefully crafted everything into a seamless web with people like Wolfman, Roy Thomas, and E Nelson Bridwell at the core. Instead, they came up with hodgepodge of mixed soft and hard reboots and a feeling that they didn't care at all about the legacy they had spent decades crafting. It completely alienated me as a fan and eventually I stopped buying mainstream DC titles. It actually took awhile for things to start going seriously wrong though, and when they did, it really had nothing to do with Crisis. Like the Hawkman fiasco, which didn't start until three years later, really. Or the Challengers of the Unknown thing. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 10, 2017 22:34:38 GMT -5
I don't know how things would have turned out for DC as a whole, but as far as Batman is concerned I think some things are a pretty safe bet based on what was going on prior to Crisis:
1. The Killing Joke would have still come out. Although released in 1988, letter columns over in the Batman titles circa 1985 would comment on its progress and suggest the impact this tale would have on the character. I'm not sure at what point it was decided to paralyze Barbara Gordon (whether before or after Crisis might be important since DC's decision to cripple her may have been influenced by the deaths of Supergirl and Flash) but I think as far as The Joker is concerned, this would have still been his new "origin" and the direction the character would take.
2. Dark Knight Returns would have still been a hit and I have to imagine that Crisis or no Crisis, it would have informed Batman's personality going forward. As a matter of fact, we got a Batman influenced by Frank Miller as early as 1983 with Batman and the Outsiders. Although Miller didn't write the title of course, Mike Barr (who did) commented in that inaugural issue that he got some ideas about how to handle Batman from a discussion with Miller. Although he didn't say what ideas the future Dark Knight author contributed, it should be noted that Batman and the Outsiders 1 drove a fairly deep wedge between Batman and Superman with the latter taking on the role of government stooge (a la Dark Knight) and Batman rebelling.
There had been occasional moments when the pre-Crisis Batman seemed to foreshadow his post-Crisis self. Barr had Batman kill Ra's Al Ghul (though he got better) in Batman Annual 8 and there were occasional moments where Batman would willing use a criminal as a human shield to protect himself from bullets (thus ending the life of said criminal) or set criminals up to die by their own hands. Though it could be pointed out that this is as inconsistent with the post-Crisis Batman as it is for his pre-Crisis self, the point remains that DC didn't wait until Crisis to turn him into a darker character.
3. Continuity both small and large was starting to be openly ignored over in the Bat titles a few years prior to Crisis. Round about 1980, Bruce Wayne started a serious relationship with Selina Kyle. Though the details were never given, it was soon revealed that Kyle knew that Wayne was Batman and he knew that she knew. About five years later though, an issue of Batman had Batman blindfold Catwoman before taking her to the Bat-Cave. When readers inquired why such a precaution was necessary, editorial announced that going forward, Selina Kyle does not know and has never known who Batman was. A pretty big detail to just shrug off. As an aside, though DC soon reversed their reversal and had Catwoman back to knowing Batman's identity (until it was erased by Dr Moon in a post-Crisis issue of Detective which didn't fit post-Crisis continuity) it does establish that they weren't averse to saying "to hell with continuity". On a lesser note, though an issue of Brave and the Bold had established that Rex Mason also knew Batman's alter ego, when the two became members of The Outsiders, DC once again admitted in their letter pages that continuity had simply changed.
There are some things I wonder about - had there been no Crisis would DC have still gotten rid of Doug Moench on the titles? They brought Max Allen Collins in to provide Jason Todd a new origin and take over, but would this have been necessary without Crisis? Or was Collins brought in because it was simply felt that with the success of Dark Knight, they needed a harder edged writer such as Collins (not that his take on Batman was hard edged). Collins' replacement Jim Starlin certainly aped Miller's style as well as anyone could, would he still have eventually found his way onto the titles reboot or not? Would he still have done everything he could to kill off Jason Todd? Something to ponder at any rate. |
|
