|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 10, 2017 23:02:46 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. Was it created that far in advance or were there just lengthy delays that prevented it from coming out in '85? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 10, 2017 23:43:40 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. Was it created that far in advance or were there just lengthy delays that prevented it from coming out in '85?
I think two things (at least) contributed to its taking as long as it did to be released:
1. Alan Moore had to wait to get approval from DC on whether or not he was allowed to paralyze Barbara Gordon, and
2. Brian Bolland takes a long, long time to draw (though you can see why)
I think it was also intended to come out as an annual but it was then decided to release in the new Graphic Novel format which may taken some time to set up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 10, 2017 23:48:38 GMT -5
I think two things (at least) contributed to its taking as long as it did to be released:
1. Alan Moore had to wait to get approval from DC on whether or not he was allowed to paralyze Barbara Gordon, and
2. Brian Bolland takes a long, long time to draw (though you can see why)
I think it was also intended to come out as an annual but it was then decided to release in the new Graphic Novel format which may taken some time to set up.
Kind of makes me wonder how long it took him to do all those 2000 AD Dredd serials. Regardless though, the guy just oozes crisp, clean photo-realistic artwork. Can kind of see why so many were falling over themselves when Neal Adams hit the scene back in the late 60's |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 14, 2017 22:15:16 GMT -5
I'd like to know what plans were cancelled due to Crisis. I know, for example, that the whole reason The Trial of the Flash went on for so long was precisely because Bates et al knew there was no point in coming up with a storyline to follow that one given what Crisis had in store for Barry Allen, but it doesn't mean they still didn't have plans before that bombshell hit. According to Bates, Flash was going to be found guilty of murder and thus "on the run" thereafter as a fugitive from justice much like his own Rogues Gallery.
The fact that the team over at Detective Comics was setting up a new status quo for Batman and Catwoman the same month that Miller was doing Year One hints at a new direction for the Caped Crusader rather than the overhaul which was already going on. Shaxper has already suggested over on his excellent Batman 300 and up thread that Doug Moench seemed to be writing under the impression that he might be laying the groundwork for this new direction even as his first Batman run was coming to a close. What did he think 1987 was going to bring?
And while I believe the Superman office knew well in advance that they'd have to close up shop once Carlin, Byrne, Wolfman took over and as such probably didn't make too many plans for the future, it still rankles me that Brainiac had just been granted this fantastic new look and personality only to be relegated to C-Level status once Byrne realized he didn't have any plans for the character. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 19:32:33 GMT -5
And while I believe the Superman office knew well in advance that they'd have to close up shop once Carlin, Byrne, Wolfman took over and as such probably didn't make too many plans for the future, it still rankles me that Brainiac had just been granted this fantastic new look and personality only to be relegated to C-Level status once Byrne realized he didn't have any plans for the character.
I loved that Brainiac look and it's one of my least favorite decision(s) made by Byrne. It was just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 17, 2017 1:09:24 GMT -5
And while I believe the Superman office knew well in advance that they'd have to close up shop once Carlin, Byrne, Wolfman took over and as such probably didn't make too many plans for the future, it still rankles me that Brainiac had just been granted this fantastic new look and personality only to be relegated to C-Level status once Byrne realized he didn't have any plans for the character.
I loved that Brainiac look and it's one of my least favorite decision(s) made by Byrne. It was just plain stupid. Directing a writer to throw close to 50 years of history out the window and come up with a replacement for everything was a pretty silly edict. That Byrne felt that on his own he could come up with new versions of characters which had been the product of numerous teams working over a period of decades was also pretty arrogant. The Brainiac of 1983 is proof that DC could have gone in new directions without abandoning their history - even Wolfman's businessman Luthor could have worked without Crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by Outrajs on Jul 28, 2017 4:27:25 GMT -5
From what I have discovered so far, the infinite earths storyline just seems like DC hitting a cheap reset button. Like it had painted itself into a corner so they just said..."Okay, do-over." Was there any other way they could have handled it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 28, 2017 9:19:13 GMT -5
From what I have discovered so far, the infinite earths storyline just seems like DC hitting a cheap reset button. Like it had painted itself into a corner so they just said..."Okay, do-over." Was there any other way they could have handled it? Yeah. They could have realized the readers weren't confused it was only a few writers who were confused and kept things the way they were. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jul 28, 2017 9:50:33 GMT -5
One thing going in is that DC's superhero sales were slumping very badly against Marvel, while at the same time, a lot of Marvel's creators had quit Marvel over conflicts with editor in chief Jim Shooter and defected to DC. I think there was a feeling among this wave of creators taking over at DC that they wanted the universe to be more like Marvel, and since sales were bad, the powers that be gave them full license to just rework the entire universe in Marvel's image.
I kind of feel like the whole "multiple Earths are too confusing for fans" thing was a straw man they set up to explain away the fact that it was the writers who wanted to remake DC into Marvel.
For me personally, I was just getting into superhero books in 1985 right as Crisis was starting, and the retconning of everything I knew right when I was trying to figure it out was so confusing I basically never got into DC superheroes. Crisis made things way more confusing for me personally, rather than simplifying things. And I don't think I'm alone there.
I'm not sure it failed from a marketing perspective, though - I think the reboot did attract a lot of new readers to try DC. Sales certainly went up at DC quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 28, 2017 10:02:27 GMT -5
Crisis made things way more confusing for me personally, rather than simplifying things. And I don't think I'm alone there. You're not. Some series were restarted from scratch, others continued as before. Some restarted as if their characters had years of experience already, but we readers didn't know what was retained from the old stories we knew. Some continued as before, then were restarted, then got restarted again (Hawkman). Some got their core elements obliterated because they didn't fit the new shared universe (Warlord, Power Girl, Legion of Super-heroes). Then things got really messy... Nostalgia kicked in and some of the old concepts creeped back in ever more confusing ways. Supergirl? Could anyone really claim that her new and multiple origins are easier to understand than "she's Superman's cousin, pretty much the same origin, only she arrived later"? No wonder DC had to go through several more reboots since then! |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 28, 2017 11:55:52 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 Yep. If I remember right, the only series with decent sales was "Teen Titans." Action Comics was about eighty. So, what if the Crisis on Infinite Earths Never Happened? I don't know. Bankrupt? |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 28, 2017 15:19:12 GMT -5
The world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jul 29, 2017 13:05:50 GMT -5
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 Yep. If I remember right, the only series with decent sales was "Teen Titans." Action Comics was about eighty. So, what if the Crisis on Infinite Earths Never Happened? I don't know. Bankrupt? When did the Warner buyout happen? Because they probably would have folded the company entirely except for probably licensing out the characters like King Features Syndicate does One thing going in is that DC's superhero sales were slumping very badly against Marvel, while at the same time, a lot of Marvel's creators had quit Marvel over conflicts with editor in chief Jim Shooter and defected to DC. I think there was a feeling among this wave of creators taking over at DC that they wanted the universe to be more like Marvel, and since sales were bad, the powers that be gave them full license to just rework the entire universe in Marvel's image. I think just flat out calling post-crisis DC "Marvel-lite" is a bit of a disservice, but you aren't wrong. DC really didn't change all that much except for maybe applying certain aspects of the "Marvel Forumla" to it's own books, but the tonal shift is certainly there |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 29, 2017 13:44:04 GMT -5
Yep. If I remember right, the only series with decent sales was "Teen Titans." Action Comics was about eighty. So, what if the Crisis on Infinite Earths Never Happened? I don't know. Bankrupt? When did the Warner buyout happen? Because they probably would have folded the company entirely except for probably licensing out the characters like King Features Syndicate does One thing going in is that DC's superhero sales were slumping very badly against Marvel, while at the same time, a lot of Marvel's creators had quit Marvel over conflicts with editor in chief Jim Shooter and defected to DC. I think there was a feeling among this wave of creators taking over at DC that they wanted the universe to be more like Marvel, and since sales were bad, the powers that be gave them full license to just rework the entire universe in Marvel's image. I think just flat out calling post-crisis DC "Marvel-lite" is a bit of a disservice, but you aren't wrong. DC really didn't change all that much except for maybe applying certain aspects of the "Marvel Forumla" to it's own books, but the tonal shift is certainly there It depends on how you want to figure it. DC was purchased by Kinney National Company in 1967. Kinney then purchased Warner Bros.-Seven Arts in 1969 and became Warner Brothers Pictures. DC was never going to go bankrupt. And as long as they were making any money and were a licensing bonanza Warner wasn't going to fold them. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 29, 2017 14:30:05 GMT -5
From what I have discovered so far, the infinite earths storyline just seems like DC hitting a cheap reset button. Like it had painted itself into a corner so they just said..."Okay, do-over." Was there any other way they could have handled it? They could have owned the multiple Earths.. hire a continuity-obsessed writer like Thomas or even young Kurt Busiek, and have them be in charge of things... then slap an 'Earth-1' or 'Earth-2' logo(or whatever Earth, or elseworlds, or whatever fit) on the title page of every comic... done. |
|
