|
|
Post by nero9000 on Mar 4, 2018 15:19:33 GMT -5
Nice to see some proper discussion heating up here! Yes, I'm afraid my reviews aren't for the faint of heart. But hey, my Ibsen or Joyce roasts would be even nastier!  nero9000, I would recommend following COIE with the History of the DC Universe 2-part special, which is fine way of seeing how post-COIE universe worked. Although COIE is one of the top hallmarks of 1980s comics overall, part of the reason it worked was the deep foundation and character history established in the 50 years of publishing before it. While "50 years" sounds like much to consider, for comics, certain key story lines or periods of character development actually run over the course of several years, so to experience the "why and how" leading up to COIE, you would not be required to scan through every page published in a 50 year period. Also done by Wolfman/Perez? Maybe I'll check it out if I can find it. In the meantime I'll just make up my headcanon DC Universe to make up for not reading the stuff. I already imagine the gorilla filling the Doctor Doom position. Well, let me offer the Democratic Response, here. Everyone reacts to stories differently, which is what makes storytelling, and art , in general, great. Crisis is not necessarily a great jumping on point, for anything. It is essentially an ending to the Silver and Bronze Age DC and the launching point of a more unified fictional realm for all of DC . Thanks for this comment , Cody. I found the tone of the initial post to be utterly disrespectful and although I agree that some plot points were weak and better left out ( the wave affecting the future and the past ) I have to add a few points to consider: 1. To fully appreciate the series you have to have been familiar with the DC universe and it's stories from the Silver age. The inclusion of characters like Anthro was a nod to all that came before. 2. The exposition that some might find annoying was the standard way writers would " catch you up" with facts and details that were the basic concepts of each character and their universe. Other ways would have been to have recap pages or footnotes referring the reader to specific comics, but it would require the reader to do more research. 3. Involving other DC series that were based in the past or the future like LSH and All Star Squadron was a way to involve ALL of DC's books. It didn't make sense to me either but that was their call. 4. Issue #1 was the very first DC appearance of the Blue Beetle. They had acquired the Charlton superhero properties and it looks like they were trying to make him their " Spider-man". 5. Why would every universe have their own Monitor and Lyla? Each earth was distinct ex: Fawcett earth, Charlton earth. It wasn't parallel universes. 6. The shadowy goons are a force to be reckoned with as you will see as you read the rest of the series. I think this book and many like it becomes more relevant when you have an attachment to the universe or characters. It mattered to me when Warlock died in the Starlin books because I cared about him, the same for Captain Marvel. I didn't really care when Phoenix died because I didn't have an attachment. See how that works? Many comic fans that started reading in the Silver or Golden age cared about the COIE. It was a big deal at the time. 2. I don't find the exposition annoying as much as weird. At times Wolfman makes use of the narrator to explain stuff, but then there's an entire page of a guy just talking to himself or something, that could've just as easily been explained in captions. 4. Yeah, totally getting a Spidey vibe from BB, with all the trash-talking. Was he like this already in the Charlton days? Was thinking it was a Ditko thing. 5. Well, they've all got their own Superman, so how come the Monitor gets to be a snowflake? While I will grant you that someone always has their first experience with something, it's kind of hard to spoil something that is 30 years old, advertises the death of very specific characters on the trade cover, and is discussed in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article!  Next, you'll tell me not to say that Rosebud is a {Spoiler: Click to show}middle name for Richie Petrie. Ha, ha; fooled ya! Well, the opening post did say, 'My only request is not to get too many direct spoilers. I already know some of the happenings in this series after being part of the online comic community for years, and I don't mind if people talk about character backstories or even stuff that happened to them later, but hopefully no "next issue this happens" stuff.' Thanks for pointing out the request. I have to admit I knew about the fates of Supergirl and The Flash, so Cody got that right, at least. Those are the only two, though, so don't break my heart by telling me the gorilla gets it! |
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 4, 2018 17:26:37 GMT -5
Not at all. At the end of it all, the reputation was not built on fanboys' with DC glasses on, or latter-day nostalgia for a bygone era of event comics. COIE's mission was--unlike so many event comics of its era and beyond--actually delivered what it promised, which was no small feat, considering the series was trying to set right 50 years of DC history, yet respect the core of its well-remembered past in key areas. This was not change for the sake of it, or some thoughtless, gimmicky hero get-together just to be "cool" or grab a dollar. COIE was as much a beginning as it was an ending--the virtual central passageway of DC's publishing past and future. Everything depended on the success of this series, and that everything was not disappointed at its conclusion. As mentioned up thread, anyone reading COIE should also read History of the DC Universe, the 1986 Wolfman/Perez follow-up, which served to merely show the structure of the new universe (past, present and future) in the wake of the chaos of COIE. My question may have been misconstrued. My intention wasn't to question the legacy/success of Crisis rather in response to Wolfman's comments on the fan perception of Crisis being the source of plenty of hero deaths whereas Wolfman said they didn't kill as many as is generally perceived. I just finished reading up through #3 and so far, we have 15 deaths among the heroes and villains. If the list Cody provided is accurate, then we may be looking at upwards of around 45 deaths within 12 issues. (I'm counting individual deaths, not lumping some together under a group name as that list does.) To me, that's fairly impressive especially at this time where death for a character actually held more meaning than it does today. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 4, 2018 18:38:13 GMT -5
Just wanted to note that the latest editions of the COIE collected book also include The History of the DC Universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 4, 2018 19:59:14 GMT -5
I have to admit I knew about the fates of Supergirl and The Flash, so Cody got that right, at least. Those are the only two, though, so don't break my heart by telling me the gorilla gets it! Without addressing that question... I'll mention that the Krueger/Ross series "Justice" has an ample helping of Grodd for you as well! |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 5, 2018 0:53:00 GMT -5
You can debate the number of significant deaths in Crisis. There is a mix of leading characters and supporting characters and plenty that are wiped from existence, which is pretty much death; so, it's all in how you interpret it. Some of the deaths come in the regular titles, rather than in the pages of the Crisis issues. Thing is, people remember because most are significant, in some fashion; and, in service to the story. The real impact, though, was that Crisis had real stakes to it, which is why it resonates so much more than the other crossover events. You are never sure how things are going to turn out and there are real, emotional losses, and spirited triumphs. At the same time, there are little asides and moments for everyone whether it is just dialogue between Solavar and Kamandi, or a few moments with Anthro, or when Starman (Prince Gavyn), heads off to face the crisis, with the dignity and solemnity of the hero he never really got to be, in his own series. Crisis really captured heroism, from all corners; hero, villain and common man.
I will say, from a technical standpoint, some of the early issues of Crisis suffer from the teething problems DC was having with the flexo-graphic press they were using to print their books. Thankfully, you don't get thn in the collected editions.
What people forget is that DC didn't really give this a huge marketing push, outside of talking it up in editorial columns and the like. You didn't have big promotional posters and the like. They hadn't quite gotten to that point, yet. They pushed Infinite and Final Crisis far more than they originally marketed COIE. They did get the mainstream to pick it up, once it was underway, as I recall a wire service story in my local paper. That was the first comic book article I ever saw in a newspaper and they treated it rather seriously (though it did come in anticipation of the headline death).
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 5, 2018 5:30:12 GMT -5
Actually, a few of my local comic shops had COIE posters (smaller 11x17 sized, if I recall) before the series' release.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 5, 2018 6:27:32 GMT -5
It was advertised in a big way in their own books. It stopped many of their comics in their tracks and caused books to be effectively cancelled. I always say, that it would have been better for Dc to start their entire line over at #1's after COIE.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 5, 2018 8:32:12 GMT -5
It was advertised in a big way in their own books. It stopped many of their comics in their tracks and caused books to be effectively cancelled. I always say, that it would have been better for Dc to start their entire line over at #1's after COIE. The biggest problem with Crisis was how poorly the rebooting was executed. I've read before (I wish I could recall where) that rebooting the DCU in the wake of Crisis was a last minute decision. As a result, not only were the reboots in no way uniform, but none took place until a full year later, in the wake of Legends. 1986 is rough reading pretty much across the DCU, because no one seemed to know where their particular franchise was heading. In at least two instances, writers seemed ready to reboot their franchises at the beginning of 1986 to coordinate with Crisis, but then the brakes were applied for a full year. I do continue to find it interesting how different offices applied the reboot differently: Wonder Woman got a total restart. Superman mostly totally restarted, but legacy numbering was employed, and John Byrne ultimately brought back a lot of Pre-Crisis aspects to the character within the first year. Batman never had a clear restart point, and yet the character certainly changed. Justice League brought in a whole near team and a whole new approach, and yet the old continuity was mostly left intact. It was a total mess, but it was a fascinating mess. A company-wide total reset would have been less satisfying for me, personally. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 5, 2018 8:35:17 GMT -5
It was advertised in a big way in their own books. It stopped many of their comics in their tracks and caused books to be effectively cancelled. I always say, that it would have been better for Dc to start their entire line over at #1's after COIE. IIRC, subscription mail order comic books were still a thing in the mid-80s, and mailing rates were lower for periodicals with higher issue numbers. Marvel and DC also took it as a point of pride that they had outlasted their competitors and could truthfully claim issue numbers in the hundreds. I think the notion of #1s being a good thing was driven later by the collectors' bubble (X-Factor #1 was selling for more than its cover price almost immediately) and then by the new economics of comic book specialty stores that felt obliged to stock unusual numbers of any #1 title in case it became a hit for either speculative or entertainment purposes. I wish series never rebooted numbers. It's super confusing years later to understand the proper order. Even just with my Astro City reviews I've had trouble understanding how Volume 1 and Volume 2 fit together with The Dark Age, the Flipbook, the Supersonic Special, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 5, 2018 10:32:49 GMT -5
What people forget is that DC didn't really give this a huge marketing push, outside of talking it up in editorial columns and the like. You didn't have big promotional posters and the like. They hadn't quite gotten to that point, yet. They pushed Infinite and Final Crisis far more than they originally marketed COIE. They did get the mainstream to pick it up, once it was underway, as I recall a wire service story in my local paper. That was the first comic book article I ever saw in a newspaper and they treated it rather seriously (though it did come in anticipation of the headline death). I can't speak to the posters as there wasn't a comic book shop within 150 miles of me. But there was a ton of buzz in the fan press. Amazing Heroes was all over Crisis. Or vice-versa. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 10:46:17 GMT -5
Actually, a few of my local comic shops had COIE posters (smaller 11x17 sized, if I recall) before the series' release. I worked in a LCS at that time. I don't remember any posters at that time. Are you sure you are not talking about the poster Perez did in 1999? |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 5, 2018 10:54:08 GMT -5
Again, I was a long way from any comics shop. But I definitely remember seeing this promo at the time and I'd be shocked if it didn't go out as a promo poster.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 5, 2018 11:47:34 GMT -5
It was advertised in a big way in their own books. It stopped many of their comics in their tracks and caused books to be effectively cancelled. I always say, that it would have been better for Dc to start their entire line over at #1's after COIE. The biggest problem with Crisis was how poorly the rebooting was executed. I've read before (I wish I could recall where) that rebooting the DCU in the wake of Crisis was a last minute decision. As a result, not only were the reboots in no way uniform, but none took place until a full year later, in the wake of Legends. 1986 is rough reading pretty much across the DCU, because no one seemed to know where their particular franchise was heading. In at least two instances, writers seemed ready to reboot their franchises at the beginning of 1986 to coordinate with Crisis, but then the brakes were applied for a full year. I do continue to find it interesting how different offices applied the reboot differently: Wonder Woman got a total restart. Superman mostly totally restarted, but legacy numbering was employed, and John Byrne ultimately brought back a lot of Pre-Crisis aspects to the character within the first year. Batman never had a clear restart point, and yet the character certainly changed. Justice League brought in a whole near team and a whole new approach, and yet the old continuity was mostly left intact. It was a total mess, but it was a fascinating mess. A company-wide total reset would have been less satisfying for me, personally. What Shax says. All the potential of an existence-threatening "crisis" in the mold of the traditional summer crossovers between the JLA and JSA, which would ahve been genuinely exciting was lost in the welter of confusion that resulted.
Crisis might have been better if the less important worlds had been vaporized, perhaps, and a few characters had paid the ultimate price, but really, was it so frikkin' tough for readers to realize that Earths 1, 2, 3, S, X and whatever the cartoon world was, were separate? Who would argue with a straight face and a sane mind that the resulting DC Universe was any less confusing than the supposedly confusing universe it replaced? Especially when multiple universes return regualrly in even more confusing guises, at DC and Marvel. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 5, 2018 12:15:24 GMT -5
The biggest problem with Crisis was how poorly the rebooting was executed. I've read before (I wish I could recall where) that rebooting the DCU in the wake of Crisis was a last minute decision. As a result, not only were the reboots in no way uniform, but none took place until a full year later, in the wake of Legends. 1986 is rough reading pretty much across the DCU, because no one seemed to know where their particular franchise was heading. In at least two instances, writers seemed ready to reboot their franchises at the beginning of 1986 to coordinate with Crisis, but then the brakes were applied for a full year. I do continue to find it interesting how different offices applied the reboot differently: Wonder Woman got a total restart. Superman mostly totally restarted, but legacy numbering was employed, and John Byrne ultimately brought back a lot of Pre-Crisis aspects to the character within the first year. Batman never had a clear restart point, and yet the character certainly changed. Justice League brought in a whole near team and a whole new approach, and yet the old continuity was mostly left intact. It was a total mess, but it was a fascinating mess. A company-wide total reset would have been less satisfying for me, personally. What Shax says. All the potential of an existence-threatening "crisis" in the mold of the traditional summer crossovers between the JLA and JSA, which would ahve been genuinely exciting was lost in the welter of confusion that resulted.
Crisis might have been better if the less important worlds had been vaporized, perhaps, and a few characters had paid the ultimate price, but really, was it so frikkin' tough for readers to realize that Earths 1, 2, 3, S, X and whatever the cartoon world was, were separate?No. It wasn't. As I've said multiple times two of the earlier comics I bought were an issue of All-Star Comics and an issue of the JLA-JSA crossover with the Fawcett characters. I was, I think, nine years old at the time. It took a whole five or ten minutes for me to understand it. The problem was that DC's writers and/or editors couldn't seem to understand or keep it straight. And then the continuity obsessed fans would write in and be butt-hurt. So rather than actually editing the books or saying "oops we messed up" they decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. The multiple earths thing was one of the few things that DC had that made it different than Marvel as the creator crossover between the two companies started to make them feel increasingly similar. So, of course, they got rid of that in order to further homogenize things. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 5, 2018 12:36:29 GMT -5
Again, I was a long way from any comics shop. But I definitely remember seeing this promo at the time and I'd be shocked if it didn't go out as a promo poster. Yes, in their comics, which is the same kind of advertising they sent out to Amazing Heroes and the like; but, not promotional giveaways. DC didn't really start doing that kind of thing until Watchmen and Dark Knight were already on the stands. The Watchmen buttons came out after the series had already had a few issues out; the Dark Knight poster was after it hit stands. It took DC a bit of time to really start marketing new series beyond just in-house ads and press releases (and ads) in fan press. Remember, DC was a bit slow out of the gate when it came to the Direct Market. However, they embraced it fully, from that point and started doing more of it, such as posters for Howard Chaykin's Blackhawk and JLI. 1986ish is when you really start seeing heavy promotional merchandise from DC, as that is when they really start pushing the post-Crisis revamps and new series. Man of Steel and Wonder Woman had posters, before launch. That became the standard from then on. Steve Gerber was quoted in Comics Interview #38 (in reference to Crisis): "got virtually no promotion ... How many handouts did you see? How many posters did you see in people's windows? How much information was really distributed to the press and how much was gotten just by individual reporters going to Marv Wolfman and [Crisis artist] George Pérez?" Crisis isn't just a dividing line for DC continuity; it is a major mile marker in DC's revival. Prior to that, it continued to act like a traditional comic book publisher, focused on the newsstand. Camelot 3000 was it's first major project aimed at the Direct Market. They promoted that heavily in-house and in the fan press. I can't speak to promotional flyers or posters, as I didn't have a comic shop, at the time. Camelot 3000 did well (until delays started to derail momentum) and DC started putting out more product aimed at the Direct Market, though more reprint material. Then, they touted Frank Miller's Ronin, making it their first project since Kirby's 4th World to really be sold on the strength of the creator's name. Meanwhile, DC decided to do something big for their 50th Anniversary, which evolved into Crisis. The marketing, though, is still the traditional channels. Crisis was very strong in shops, which prompted DC to focus even more in that arena, which you see with Dark Knight and Watchmen and the revamps and new series that followed. 1986 is when the gloves starting coming off and 1987 is where they kicked the gloves to the side. From that point on, you routinely see promotional posters, give-away flyers in shops, tie-in merchandise; all available at launch (not just after the series is getting noticed). Watchmen had the promotional illustrations in the comics and in places like Amazing Heroes; but, the portfolio came much later. Same with the buttons. In fact, I went to college with one of the guys who pitched the idea of promotional Watchmen buttons to DC. That's when DC starts looking more at what they could do within shops. Every event after Crisis had a promotional poster and other marketing materials, including stuff like the Daily Planet Extra, for Invasion. |
|
