|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 7, 2018 18:07:41 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by nero9000 on Mar 7, 2018 18:18:41 GMT -5
Iris was revealed to be alive, in the future, and Barry joins here, for a short time, before the beginning of Crisis. Yep, death had just become un-permanent. Well, more than usual. I was never a fan of bringing the WW2 characters into the main DCU. They had been treated separately, until Sgt Rock turned up in Brave and the Bold (Blackhawk's a bit different). Despite a good Superman and Rock crossover (DC Comics Presents #10), it robbed those characters of what made them interesting. Same with Warlord, though that was a bit less jarring, in the end. Beetle isn't gone for good and was the one Charlton character who got any screen time in all of this. The idea for the Charlton characters was originally to be a weekly anthology title, until that was killed. We see the rest, in the series; but, Beetle gets the most screen time. I assume he was Wolfman's favorite, as Captain Atom is more powerful; but, doesn't get to do much in tho whole thing. A lot of the appearances within Crisis were two-fold: one to show the characters from across their history (since it was the 50th Anniversary of the company) and two, to keep the trademarks alive. Who's Who in the DC Universe, which acted as a companion to this (and beyond), served this purpose even more. I've never read any Charlton, but even I can tell the Beetle is the standout character. So were some of these filler characters like guys that hadn't been seen for 50 years or something? Do even hardcore DC fans go "who are these guys"? |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 7, 2018 18:37:11 GMT -5
I think one of the aims was to feature every DC character, even if it was just a cameo. Heck, the Ten-Eyed Man makes an appearance as a guy trapped in rubble with his arms in the air (at least that's what Marv said, but he might have been joking.) And keep your eyes peeled because Peter Parker makes an appearance at one point.  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 7, 2018 19:38:04 GMT -5
Iris was revealed to be alive, in the future, and Barry joins here, for a short time, before the beginning of Crisis. Yep, death had just become un-permanent. Well, more than usual. I was never a fan of bringing the WW2 characters into the main DCU. They had been treated separately, until Sgt Rock turned up in Brave and the Bold (Blackhawk's a bit different). Despite a good Superman and Rock crossover (DC Comics Presents #10), it robbed those characters of what made them interesting. Same with Warlord, though that was a bit less jarring, in the end. Beetle isn't gone for good and was the one Charlton character who got any screen time in all of this. The idea for the Charlton characters was originally to be a weekly anthology title, until that was killed. We see the rest, in the series; but, Beetle gets the most screen time. I assume he was Wolfman's favorite, as Captain Atom is more powerful; but, doesn't get to do much in tho whole thing. A lot of the appearances within Crisis were two-fold: one to show the characters from across their history (since it was the 50th Anniversary of the company) and two, to keep the trademarks alive. Who's Who in the DC Universe, which acted as a companion to this (and beyond), served this purpose even more. I've never read any Charlton, but even I can tell the Beetle is the standout character. So were some of these filler characters like guys that hadn't been seen for 50 years or something? Do even hardcore DC fans go "who are these guys"? Yeah, there were quite a few who hadn't been seen in a while. Anthro debuted in Showcase #74, in 1968, then had 6 issues of his own comic, form 68-69. He didn't appear again until Showcase #100, in 1978 (Showcase was cancelled in 1970, with #93, then revived in 1977, with #94 and ending in 1978, with #104), which was a big event comic, with every character who had appeared in Showcase. His next appearance would be in Crisis, in 1985. Some characters had seen appearances in things like Justice League, with some of the JLA/JSA crossovers (like issues 159 and 160, which had historical characters, like The Viking Prince, Miss Liberty, Jonah Hex and Enemy Ace), or in the Dollar Comic versions of some of the DC titles, in the late 70s. Others had popped up in the team-up books or similar spots, like World's Finest or Adventure Comics. Not necessarily every DC character appeared in Crisis, though all of the major ones did. The rest turned up in Who's Who. There were plenty, at the time, that had to be reintroduced to fans who started reading comics in the 70s and Who's Who was filled with characters that hadn't been seen since the 40s and left out even more. Later updates caught up some of them. Marvel had beaten DC to the punch, with Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (OHOTMU); but, Who's Who had greater depth and breadth, not to mention a greater variety in the art. OHOTMU used a fairly unified look to each entry, while DC went for more unique presentations. Some entries featured art from guys who hadn't graced a DC comic in years, like Superman artist Wayne Boring, or Martin Nodell. Others were done by indie darlings, like Los Bros Hernandez and Dave Stevens. Who's Who made a great reference book for all those characters you didn't know, in Crisis, without having to go back and read every DC comic, since 1935. As for the Charlton Heroes, it's pretty subjective as to whether Blue Beetle was the standout; he was certainly popular, as he was created by Ditko, fresh after quitting Spider-Man, and has a similar dynamic style. The Question was one of the more original, mixing elements of the Spirit and other detective-based comics, with the Marvel style of things, plus Ditko's fascination with Ayn Rand. Peter Cannon was a cult favorite, with Pete Morisi mixing old school pulp adventure with superheroes, with both classic and modern touches. Captain Atom was as popular as Blue Beetle. Pretty mcuh all of the Ditko characters were the stars, with others hovering around them. Beetle definitely had the most well-rounded and fully formed personality, from his Charlton days. Captain Atom was never particularly well developed and the Question had just a few appearances; but, he was more of an urban hero and didn't fit into Crisis well. He and the other Action Heroes share a few scenes in one issue of Crisis, then he mostly disappears (as do the others, except BB and Captain Atom). He took a little time to re-emerge, after Crisis, as Denny O'Neil retooled him into a somewhat less dogmatic version than Ditko, while still retaining that urban crime thriller aspect. really, if it weren't for the gimmick mask, the Question would be a detective series. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 8, 2018 2:28:33 GMT -5
Ohh, ok. I thought everyone knew this stuff by heart. Or at least owned the issues. I'll try to be more descriptive. You could do a lot worse than check out shaxper's Review Thread Tips & Tricks here: classiccomics.org/thread/3806/creating-review-thread-tips-tricksI've never read COIE myself, and I'm finding these reviews of yours to be lacking, in terms of informing me about the quality or lack thereof of the series. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the standard of review threads here at the CCF is very, very high. I get that you're trying to be funny and lighthearted, which is fine and potentially fun to read, but these aren't really reviews: they're just a series of flippantly delivered subjective statements with no context. As such, I'm struggling to see what there is in this thread for me to follow I can certainly except that you found the events of COIE to be dumb or boring, but you've gotta give me more context if you want me to be interested. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 8, 2018 12:39:40 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point. Agreeing 100%. The first issue introduced the main... 12(?) characters and I figured that E 2 Superman and Solivar and Killer Frost et. al were going to be the POV team, but that didn't happen. I've heard that the NOVEL version of Crisis makes an attempt to fix this problem (and many of COIE other huyge storytelling issues) and has Barry Allen as the main character - which means he doesn't show up to die. I've never read it myself, though. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 8, 2018 14:02:17 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point. COIE did not need an "everyman" POV character as the superheroes (and associated allies) lives in relation to the crisis was the point of the story--how their lives were being radically altered by forces beyond their control., and how each would need to find their own way of dealing with it. In each issue, several characters (e.g., Earth 1 and 2 Superman, the Flash, Luthor(s), Batgirl, et al.) had their view of the events and their place in it explored. The only way a series of this magnitude succeeded was for character involvement to be personalized, rather than some "big event" jus tossing heroes and villains at each other for power showcases ( Secret Wars and a number of Marvel "events" to follow). COIE would have been a disaster and largely forgotten (instead of what it was/is--one of comic history's key moments/publications) if this was the comic equivalent of the loud, thoughtless FX-bursting sci-fi movie "extravaganzas" of the 90s ( Starship Troopers, Independence Day, Total Recall and Terminator 2 instantly come to mind). Or... Secret Wars. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 8, 2018 15:11:51 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point. COIE did not need an "everyman" POV character as the superheroes (and associated allies) lives in relation to the crisis was the point of the story--how their lives were being radically altered by forces beyond their control., and how each would need to find their own way of dealing with it. In each issue, several characters (e.g., Earth 1 and 2 Superman, the Flash, Luthor(s), Batgirl, et al.) had their view of the events and their place in it explored. The only way a series of this magnitude succeeded was for character involvement to be personalized, rather than some "big event" jus tossing heroes and villains at each other for power showcases ( Secret Wars and a number of Marvel "events" to follow). COIE would have been a disaster and largely forgotten (instead of what it was/is--one of comic history's key moments/publications) if this was the comic equivalent of the loud, thoughtless FX-bursting sci-fi movie "extravaganzas" of the 90s ( Starship Troopers, Independence Day, Total Recall and Terminator 2 instantly come to mind). Or... Secret Wars. I certainly don't want COIE to be thoughtless! A fish-out-of-water everyman is a useful plot device when exploring a new world, because you have an automatic reader surrogate who can receive exposition, ask questions that the reader is wondering about, and provide a point of contact in an alien environment. Luke Skywalker makes a great everyman in Star Wars, for instance. Or Bilbo Baggins. "There and Back Again," the journey into faerie and out, is one of the most basic fantasy stories, seen in everything from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" to "The Wizard of Oz" to "Spirited Away" to "Stranger Things." Yes, a seasoned author can tell a good fantasy story without an everyman. I can tell you all the things that happen to Jean Grey over the course of Dark Phoenix, and she's about as super as they come. The focal character of COIE could have been Blue Beetle or Pariah or Psycho-Pirate, for all I care. (I would have gone with Pariah, since his story is at least entangled with the Crisis already.) But I do think that the narrative of COIE suffers from the lack of a central character. As I said above, I simply don't have a good overall grasp of what happens in Crisis beyond the big picture, and the lack of a coherent, character-driven central narrative seems like a big part of that. It would have taken up pages that could have been used for more obscure Silver Age cameos. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 8, 2018 16:00:45 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point. COIE did not need an "everyman" POV character as the superheroes (and associated allies) lives in relation to the crisis was the point of the story--how their lives were being radically altered by forces beyond their control., and how each would need to find their own way of dealing with it. In each issue, several characters (e.g., Earth 1 and 2 Superman, the Flash, Luthor(s), Batgirl, et al.) had their view of the events and their place in it explored. The only way a series of this magnitude succeeded was for character involvement to be personalized, rather than some "big event" jus tossing heroes and villains at each other for power showcases ( Secret Wars and a number of Marvel "events" to follow). COIE would have been a disaster and largely forgotten (instead of what it was/is--one of comic history's key moments/publications) if this was the comic equivalent of the loud, thoughtless FX-bursting sci-fi movie "extravaganzas" of the 90s ( Starship Troopers, Independence Day, Total Recall and Terminator 2 instantly come to mind). Or... Secret Wars. What you've described here seems cool. I just didn't get anything like that from Crisis. I don't think the 1 and a half panels (Tops!) any character got in any given issue was enough to personalize the characters. They have a couple lines, a power showcase... then it's onto the next group of 3,056 characters! There's very little character depth, no thematic depth at all. I grant you that it FEELS epic and it takes a lot of intellectual work to follow the needlesdd complexities of the plot, but there's no real content to Crisis. I can't imagine how you could possibly get more out of Crisis than you would out of Blade Runner which is dumbed down Phillip K. Dick but still Phillip K. Dick! Unlike (again!) Secret Wars which had several strong character driven stories that weren't just Good Guys Punching Bad Shadow Demons and then someone dies and then the villains show up for no reason or whatever. Doctor Doom coming to terms with ultimate power, the X-men's uneasy alliance with Magneto and with the other heroes. Crisis gets some points for attempting continuity-based superhero storytelling on a scale that had never been done before (and never has been again) but the actual narrative was a mess. If you care deeply about continuity as a concept I can see how Crisis works for you. If you care about "Is the writing good?" Well.... it's not. (And, okay, as much as I respect his work ethic, originality, and amazing design sense... I just don't generally like George Perez' stuff that much. Sorry!) |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 8, 2018 17:01:39 GMT -5
Unlike (again!) Secret Wars which had several strong character driven stories that weren't just Good Guys Punching Bad Shadow Demons and then someone dies and then the villains show up for no reason or whatever. Doctor Doom coming to terms with ultimate power, the X-men's uneasy alliance with Magneto and with the other heroes. Yes. I was thinking about how Secret Wars built off of the Magneto rehabilitation project begun in the late 140s issues of Uncanny X-Men. His romance with Wasp, forced as it seemed, helped to legitimize Magneto as a potential good guy, not just a Lawful Evil noble villain like Dr. Doom. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 8, 2018 18:04:38 GMT -5
COIE did not need an "everyman" POV character as the superheroes (and associated allies) lives in relation to the crisis was the point of the story--how their lives were being radically altered by forces beyond their control., and how each would need to find their own way of dealing with it. In each issue, several characters (e.g., Earth 1 and 2 Superman, the Flash, Luthor(s), Batgirl, et al.) had their view of the events and their place in it explored. The only way a series of this magnitude succeeded was for character involvement to be personalized, rather than some "big event" jus tossing heroes and villains at each other for power showcases ( Secret Wars and a number of Marvel "events" to follow). COIE would have been a disaster and largely forgotten (instead of what it was/is--one of comic history's key moments/publications) if this was the comic equivalent of the loud, thoughtless FX-bursting sci-fi movie "extravaganzas" of the 90s ( Starship Troopers, Independence Day, Total Recall and Terminator 2 instantly come to mind). Or... Secret Wars. What you've described here seems cool. .................................... Crisis gets some points for attempting continuity-based superhero storytelling on a scale that had never been done before (and never has been again) but the actual narrative was a mess. If you care deeply about continuity as a concept I can see how Crisis works for you. If you care about "Is the writing good?" Well.... it's not. (And, okay, as much as I respect his work ethic, originality, and amazing design sense... I just don't generally like George Perez' stuff that much. Sorry!) I would argue strongly against that. There are a lot of narratives at work in Crisis and the central one is the most powerful band of figures within this fictional world coming to terms with the fact that they aren't powerful enough; and, yet, they still press on, because that is the nature of heroism. I found Crisis to be one of the best explorations of what truly makes a person heroic. It more fully captures what combat is like to a military combat veteran. It is a collection of sacrifices, acts of bravery, acts of inspiration, small kindnesses from unlikely places, and the "coming of the dawn." It is the same kind of epic storytelling to be found in Tolkien, Moorcock, and Homer. I agree that certain components of it do not work well and many characters are cannon fodder or just plain cameos; but others shine brightly on their panel and a half. Prince Gavyn removes his robe of state, takes up his staff and launches himself against oblivion, even though he has seen that it is probably futile. It's just a few panels. Supergirl says a few words to her friend, Batgirl, who is losing faith, in the face of the magnitude of what they are dealing with. Those words inspire her and she carries those words to others, that hope exists while people still live and breath. There is powerful writing in there. There are moments of terror that read as strongly as anything from Erich Remarque, from soldiers (superheroes)who have fought many battles. There are acts of bravery from those who have spent their lives taking from the weak, as the Crime Syndicate act to protect their world. There are moments where greed takes hold, among the death and chaos. There is loss and there is triumph. There is love lost and found. Really, I think Crisis is one of those works where you bring to it a lot of what you get from it. It is so expansive it covers a lot of narrative territory. I love heroes and myth and it shows heroes in an epic struggle, against the end that claims all, which is really what most myth is about: birth, life and death. As for Perez, I do think he goes overboard; but, I think he captures the chaos of the events far better than just about anyone could. He also captures the human moments, the terror and the triumph, the "Oh my god..." and the "F--- , yeah!" For that time period, I don't think there was an artist who could have done the job. Many could capture parts of it; but, not the whole. Maybe John Byrne, though when he got his chance in Legends, I don't feel he rose to the occasion. After Crisis, I think his worst tendencies started taking over, as he got into a mode of trying to top what he had done. I felt Infinity Gauntlet had a lot of that (aided by Starlin's rather derivative story). |
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 9, 2018 9:24:37 GMT -5
I don't remember feeling like Crisis had a single POV character. That's a problem. Kurt Busiek knew when he wrote "Marvels" that it was better to show a large cast of characters bouncing off of the same central figure (photographer Phil Sheldon) rather than just having their own disjointed adventures in their own continuities. Similarly, Mark Waid kept the dozens of heroes of "Kingdom Come" manageable by making pastor Norman McCay the everyman focal point. But there's nothing really like that in Crisis, no central thread of "What happens to this guy next?" Without that clear, simple plot thread, I can't seem to think of the whole series as anything except "lots of heroes fought in vain against encroaching darkness, but they finally won." Maybe there's more to it if I went back to re-read, but that's my distant memory of the whole thing at this point. Agreeing 100%. The first issue introduced the main... 12(?) characters and I figured that E 2 Superman and Solivar and Killer Frost et. al were going to be the POV team, but that didn't happen. I've heard that the NOVEL version of Crisis makes an attempt to fix this problem (and many of COIE other huyge storytelling issues) and has Barry Allen as the main character - which means he doesn't show up to die. I've never read it myself, though. Barry Allen is indeed one of the focal POV characters in the novel and for me, in certain ways, that made the story better. The idea that Crisis doesn't need a POV character loses some steam for me in that regard. Wolfman didn't just include Average Joe's view on these cosmic events, he focused on Barry, one of the central heroes in this conflict. Thus, we learn more of his fears and concerns about what is happening around him and to his comrades (especially where it concerns Iris) and well as his feelings of confusion about what exactly is happening or trying to find the most effective way to help stop it. I think such a view can be seen as necessary, especially if you are a new reader without the in-depth knowledge of DC's canon that this series required. It helps build a better emotional connection for the new reader to invest towards in lieu of such knowledge. Otherwise, why should we really care about what happens to whomever? The two major deaths of Crisis are only highlighted simply because of their status. The other deaths, of minor characters of whom I've never read of previously, meant nothing. The large cast is unwieldy (particularly since they are highlighting these minor characters for the anniversary) and lacks proper focus as they try to give every character some decent panel time. Footnote pages ala Avengers Forever would have been nice, detailing where new readers could learn more about these characters and prior events. It's bothersome that DC built this event to cater to long-time fans without some consideration for new readers who decided to see what the big fuss was all about. To borrow from today's sales pitch, Crisis is hardly 'the perfect jumping-on point.' Whereas Secret Wars is more straight-forward, more character-driven, and provides an engaging snapshot of the Marvel Universe at that point in time. And as a reader, it did feel more personal, from the exploration of Doom's hunger for ultimate power to the personal changes affected unto the heroes. As for the talk of 'The changes from Secret Wars were just superficial', stop, just stop. The changes there allowed for some interesting stories and character arcs later on and then they moved on to something different, that's all, nothing earth-shattering. Meanwhile, after Crisis, DC needed editorial band-aids and quite a few of their own line-wide events to try and rectify the flaws that Crisis created. Even today, the biggest change created by Crisis has been undone, the DC multiverse has been back for about a decade now.Supergirl is back. Barry Allen is back. It may have taken longer but those changes were eventually overturned as well. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 9, 2018 10:53:05 GMT -5
Agreeing 100%. The first issue introduced the main... 12(?) characters and I figured that E 2 Superman and Solivar and Killer Frost et. al were going to be the POV team, but that didn't happen. I've heard that the NOVEL version of Crisis makes an attempt to fix this problem (and many of COIE other huyge storytelling issues) and has Barry Allen as the main character - which means he doesn't show up to die. I've never read it myself, though. Barry Allen is indeed one of the focal POV characters in the novel and for me, in certain ways, that made the story better. The idea that Crisis doesn't need a POV character loses some steam for me in that regard. Wolfman didn't just include Average Joe's view on these cosmic events, he focused on Barry, one of the central heroes in this conflict. Thus, we learn more of his fears and concerns about what is happening around him and to his comrades (especially where it concerns Iris) and well as his feelings of confusion about what exactly is happening or trying to find the most effective way to help stop it. I think such a view can be seen as necessary, especially if you are a new reader without the in-depth knowledge of DC's canon that this series required. It helps build a better emotional connection for the new reader to invest towards in lieu of such knowledge. Otherwise, why should we really care about what happens to whomever? The two major deaths of Crisis are only highlighted simply because of their status. The other deaths, of minor characters of whom I've never read of previously, meant nothing. The large cast is unwieldy (particularly since they are highlighting these minor characters for the anniversary) and lacks proper focus as they try to give every character some decent panel time. Footnote pages ala Avengers Forever would have been nice, detailing where new readers could learn more about these characters and prior events. It's bothersome that DC built this event to cater to long-time fans without some consideration for new readers who decided to see what the big fuss was all about. To borrow from today's sales pitch, Crisis is hardly 'the perfect jumping-on point.' Whereas Secret Wars is more straight-forward, more character-driven, and provides an engaging snapshot of the Marvel Universe at that point in time. And as a reader, it did feel more personal, from the exploration of Doom's hunger for ultimate power to the personal changes affected unto the heroes. As for the talk of 'The changes from Secret Wars were just superficial', stop, just stop. The changes there allowed for some interesting stories and character arcs later on and then they moved on to something different, that's all, nothing earth-shattering. Meanwhile, after Crisis, DC needed editorial band-aids and quite a few of their own line-wide events to try and rectify the flaws that Crisis created. Even today, the biggest change created by Crisis has been undone, the DC multiverse has been back for about a decade now.Supergirl is back. Barry Allen is back. It may have taken longer but those changes were eventually overturned as well. We're kind of missing the point here. Crisis was never meant to draw in new fans; it was a celebration of DC's 50 years as a publisher. Secret Wars was intended to be a toy tie-in, so it was kept simpler. Those were the marching orders for the series. Crisis then became a place to supposedly create a new, streamlined continuity so that the ex-Marvel writers could do Marvel-style stories, without tons of research and editorial footnotes. Secret Wars, since it pulled characters out of normal continuity, let Shooter and others play around a bit with characters. Some things stuck, some were abandoned. Post-Crisis was meant to draw new fans, with revamps and new characters, relaunches of books and new ideas and that is where DC put its efforts. It paid off in spades, as their sales skyrocketed; but, it also created headaches for individuals and some fans. Since each editor had their little fiefdom, you lost some of that unified focus from Crisis. Some handled it well, some didn't. However, things rans relatively smoothly for about the next 5-7 years, which is about the average reader lifespan for comics. Then, you get more and more of the "band-aids," and stunt-events, trying to duplicate past success. Editorial decisions were reversed, nostalgia for old ideas took hold, etc, etc... A lot of that was a by-product of abandoning the mainstream for the collector market and catering to speculators.. That's where DC & Marvel ran off the rails, with routine "new directions," and stunts for short term sales bumps, necessitating new changes to fix a bad idea or try to bump sales again. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 9, 2018 10:55:30 GMT -5
<abbr class="o-timestamp time" data-timestamp="1520550278000" title="Mar 8, 2018 18:04:38 GMT -5">Mar 8, 2018 18:04:38 GMT -5</abbr> codystarbuck said: I would argue strongly against that. There are a lot of narratives at work in Crisis and the central one is the most powerful band of figures within this fictional world coming to terms with the fact that they aren't powerful enough; and, yet, they still press on, because that is the nature of heroism. I found Crisis to be one of the best explorations of what truly makes a person heroic. It more fully captures what combat is like to a military combat veteran. It is a collection of sacrifices, acts of bravery, acts of inspiration, small kindnesses from unlikely places, and the "coming of the dawn." It is the same kind of epic storytelling to be found in Tolkien, Moorcock, and Homer. I agree that certain components of it do not work well and many characters are cannon fodder or just plain cameos; but others shine brightly on their panel and a half. Prince Gavyn removes his robe of state, takes up his staff and launches himself against oblivion, even though he has seen that it is probably futile. It's just a few panels. Supergirl says a few words to her friend, Batgirl, who is losing faith, in the face of the magnitude of what they are dealing with. Those words inspire her and she carries those words to others, that hope exists while people still live and breath. There is powerful writing in there. There are moments of terror that read as strongly as anything from Erich Remarque, from soldiers (superheroes)who have fought many battles. There are acts of bravery from those who have spent their lives taking from the weak, as the Crime Syndicate act to protect their world. There are moments where greed takes hold, among the death and chaos. There is loss and there is triumph. There is love lost and found. Really, I think Crisis is one of those works where you bring to it a lot of what you get from it. It is so expansive it covers a lot of narrative territory. I love heroes and myth and it shows heroes in an epic struggle, against the end that claims all, which is really what most myth is about: birth, life and death. Well said! |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 9, 2018 12:22:04 GMT -5
We're kind of missing the point here. Crisis was never meant to draw in new fans; it was a celebration of DC's 50 years as a publisher. Secret Wars was intended to be a toy tie-in, so it was kept simpler. Those were the marching orders for the series. Crisis then became a place to supposedly create a new, streamlined continuity so that the ex-Marvel writers could do Marvel-style stories, without tons of research and editorial footnotes. Secret Wars, since it pulled characters out of normal continuity, let Shooter and others play around a bit with characters. Some things stuck, some were abandoned. Huh. I thought of Marvel as the place for continuity and editorial footnotes to rival a college thesis. Avengers, FF, and X-Men were always talking about stuff that had happened in the past. John Byrne and Chris Claremont seemed sometimes to be on a mission from God to correct continuity errors and injustices of the past. |
|
