|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2022 10:45:23 GMT -5
The debate and division over Crisis on Infinite Earths will never end (though perhaps not in this thread), but I present an alternative query to the age old question of whether it was the right decision.
What if Crisis had not happened in the historic DC multiverse, but a completely different realm that conceptually mirrors what Marvel did with the "Ultimate Marvel" imprint. Marvel had no "continuity ending" upheaval, but rather a reinvigorating take on a flagship character (Spider-Man) that found a strong market and led to a rapidly growing continuity of new titles as creative teams came up with ideas for how to keep expanding. No disruption to the mainstream titles, and it gave a bit of "best of both worlds" flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 9, 2022 15:32:38 GMT -5
The debate and division over Crisis on Infinite Earths will never end, but I present an alternative query to the age old question of whether it was the right decision. What if Crisis had not happened in the historic DC multiverse, but a completely different realm that conceptually mirrors what Marvel did with the "Ultimate Marvel" imprint. Marvel had no "continuity ending" upheaval, but rather a reinvigorating take on a flagship character (Spider-Man) that found a strong market and led to a rapidly growing continuity of new titles as creative teams came up with ideas for how to keep expanding. No disruption to the mainstream titles, and it gave a bit of "best of both worlds" flexibility. In this scenario, Byrne's Superman may have been launched as an initial title for "Ultimate DC" if you will. Now, one problem I potentially see is if the regular Superman titles weren't selling well, would this just crowd the field more and lead to a quicker potential demise of the legacy titles. But on the flipside, if Byrne's version again took off, would it lead to renewed interest in the character overall and reinvigorate the creative teams on the mainstream titles? A logistical question for me as well is whether, even with the Direct Market going strong by that point in the mid-80's, could it handle a similar increased volume of titles like Marvel was able to achieve in the early 2000's. Yet the market did seem poised in the coming years to explode in "X titles" for Marvel, so it seems possible to me. Does this seem crazy? Just trying to think a little past "Crisis was blatantly good or bad" even though I often take the latter position, and other paths it could have taken to accomplish what it was intended to do. Using one of the biggest artists at that time on an ancillary title would kind of undermine DC's achievement of wrestling John Byrne away from Marvel. I think in this scenario, Byrne would still take over the two main titles, work within continuity, and someone else would get to do Ultimate Superman (Frank Miller had applied for the job after Crisis, so perhaps the series would go to him [shudder]). Over on his blog, Jim Shooter once mentioned that when there was talk of Marvel buying DC, Byrne had actually approached Shooter with an outline for what he'd do with the character. I don't remember all the details, but it did alter continuity (I believe he used his "Kal-El comes to Earth with his mother" idea which was the one change which DC didn't let him make with Man of Steel) so I suspect that with Byrne's penchant for putting his own stamp on things, we'd get, at the very least, a revamp which still incorporates a lot of the changes he did make (ie. we still get Wolfman's business Luthor since Eliot Maggin was already heading in this direction prior to Crisis even coming up with LexCorp only this time, it's along the lines of "Luthor has reformed and discovered the cure to some disease and is now making a fortune manufacturing his cure even though Superman knows he's still a bad guy). Superman could decide that Clark Kent no longer needs to be such a fuddy duddy and give him a new, ordinary guy personality; the stories could still take on a pervier tone ("I have to admit, Wonder Woman's stirring eulogy at Kara's funeral really made me appreciate how hot her body is!"); and if he really wanted to bring Ma and Pa back, I'm sure he could come up with a simple explanation for that ("robots" + "Pocket Universe" + "Time Travel" - "The Phantom Zone" x "Death of Earth 3 Kandor" + "Legion of Super-Heroes"). Any personality changes to the character could be dismissed in the same way that, say, Batman had become edgier, and more violent prior to Crisis despite ostensibly being the same guy he was during the Silver Age. As for Ultimate Superman? I have to assume that at some point, one universe would have subsumed the other. What this would have looked like I don't know. Was Byrne's Superman a hit? I mean, he certainly has his fans, but large enough to retain all his ideas after he leaves? Without Crisis, any changes wouldn't be written in stone and could be more easily picked through than in our world, but at some point, I think DC would have just tried to meld one series into the other. I mean, this is the same company which always seemed to think that anything involving duplicates had to be stamped out (from Earth One/Earth Two to "We can't have Alan Scott being called Green Lantern and Hal Jordan called Green Lantern! That's too confusing!") |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 10, 2022 18:28:38 GMT -5
Using one of the biggest artists at that time on an ancillary title would kind of undermine DC's achievement of wrestling John Byrne away from Marvel. I think in this scenario, Byrne would still take over the two main titles, work within continuity, and someone else would get to do Ultimate Superman (Frank Miller had applied for the job after Crisis, so perhaps the series would go to him [shudder]). Another thing supporting this idea is not just that DC wanted Byrne on Superman, but they also wanted Schwartz, Bates, Swan, and the rest off Superman. The idea was to show that they were making a clean start without the so-called baggage of the past. if he really wanted to bring Ma and Pa back, I'm sure he could come up with a simple explanation for that ("robots" + "Pocket Universe" + "Time Travel" - "The Phantom Zone" x "Death of Earth 3 Kandor" + "Legion of Super-Heroes"). This cracked me up. You have discovered the foundational mathematical proof for Silver Age Superman. Any personality changes to the character could be dismissed in the same way that, say, Batman had become edgier, and more violent prior to Crisis despite ostensibly being the same guy he was during the Silver Age. Byrne said the revamped Superman was the same guy who went through Crisis. I can't see it. Not that this is especially relevant to the thread at hand, but there it is anyway. As for Ultimate Superman? I have to assume that at some point, one universe would have subsumed the other. What this would have looked like I don't know. Was Byrne's Superman a hit? I mean, he certainly has his fans, but large enough to retain all his ideas after he leaves? Without Crisis, any changes wouldn't be written in stone and could be more easily picked through than in our world, but at some point, I think DC would have just tried to meld one series into the other. I mean, this is the same company which always seemed to think that anything involving duplicates had to be stamped out (from Earth One/Earth Two to "We can't have Alan Scott being called Green Lantern and Hal Jordan called Green Lantern! That's too confusing!") With the shrinking newsstand sales of the time, and the shifting to the direct market to serve hardcore fans, I can see Byrne's "original" Superman being reduced or even phased out entirely in favor of whatever the "New" Superman was. Or at least, Byrne's version being pushed less on newsstands and more in the direct market, so that the two superman versions would essentially be in competition with themselves. That's some Mort Weisinger level irony there. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 10, 2022 20:37:18 GMT -5
That's essentially what the New 52 was, only they committed to it, instead of publishing both together... that didn't work out so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 10, 2022 22:25:19 GMT -5
The debate and division over Crisis on Infinite Earths will never end, but I present an alternative query to the age old question of whether it was the right decision. What if Crisis had not happened in the historic DC multiverse, but a completely different realm that conceptually mirrors what Marvel did with the "Ultimate Marvel" imprint. Marvel had no "continuity ending" upheaval, but rather a reinvigorating take on a flagship character (Spider-Man) that found a strong market and led to a rapidly growing continuity of new titles as creative teams came up with ideas for how to keep expanding. No disruption to the mainstream titles, and it gave a bit of "best of both worlds" flexibility. In this scenario, Byrne's Superman may have been launched as an initial title for "Ultimate DC" if you will. Now, one problem I potentially see is if the regular Superman titles weren't selling well, would this just crowd the field more and lead to a quicker potential demise of the legacy titles. But on the flipside, if Byrne's version again took off, would it lead to renewed interest in the character overall and reinvigorate the creative teams on the mainstream titles? A logistical question for me as well is whether, even with the Direct Market going strong by that point in the mid-80's, could it handle a similar increased volume of titles like Marvel was able to achieve in the early 2000's. Yet the market did seem poised in the coming years to explode in "X titles" for Marvel, so it seems possible to me. Does this seem crazy? Just trying to think a little past "Crisis was blatantly good or bad" even though I often take the latter position, and other paths it could have taken to accomplish what it was intended to do. Using one of the biggest artists at that time on an ancillary title would kind of undermine DC's achievement of wrestling John Byrne away from Marvel. I think in this scenario, Byrne would still take over the two main titles, work within continuity, and someone else would get to do Ultimate Superman (Frank Miller had applied for the job after Crisis, so perhaps the series would go to him [shudder]). Over on his blog, Jim Shooter once mentioned that when there was talk of Marvel buying DC, Byrne had actually approached Shooter with an outline for what he'd do with the character. I don't remember all the details, but it did alter continuity (I believe he used his "Kal-El comes to Earth with his mother" idea which was the one change which DC didn't let him make with Man of Steel) so I suspect that with Byrne's penchant for putting his own stamp on things, we'd get, at the very least, a revamp which still incorporates a lot of the changes he did make (ie. we still get Wolfman's business Luthor since Eliot Maggin was already heading in this direction prior to Crisis even coming up with LexCorp only this time, it's along the lines of "Luthor has reformed and discovered the cure to some disease and is now making a fortune manufacturing his cure even though Superman knows he's still a bad guy). Superman could decide that Clark Kent no longer needs to be such a fuddy duddy and give him a new, ordinary guy personality; the stories could still take on a pervier tone ("I have to admit, Wonder Woman's stirring eulogy at Kara's funeral really made me appreciate how hot her body is!"); and if he really wanted to bring Ma and Pa back, I'm sure he could come up with a simple explanation for that ("robots" + "Pocket Universe" + "Time Travel" - "The Phantom Zone" x "Death of Earth 3 Kandor" + "Legion of Super-Heroes"). Any personality changes to the character could be dismissed in the same way that, say, Batman had become edgier, and more violent prior to Crisis despite ostensibly being the same guy he was during the Silver Age. As for Ultimate Superman? I have to assume that at some point, one universe would have subsumed the other. What this would have looked like I don't know. Was Byrne's Superman a hit? I mean, he certainly has his fans, but large enough to retain all his ideas after he leaves? Without Crisis, any changes wouldn't be written in stone and could be more easily picked through than in our world, but at some point, I think DC would have just tried to meld one series into the other. I mean, this is the same company which always seemed to think that anything involving duplicates had to be stamped out (from Earth One/Earth Two to "We can't have Alan Scott being called Green Lantern and Hal Jordan called Green Lantern! That's too confusing!") I think you are confused with an alleged scenario that I have only heard from Shooter: Someone at Warner allegedly approached Marvel about licensing the DC titles to them to produce, but nothing came of it. I believe the time frame he mentioned wasn't much later than 1980. It was not a sale on offer, but licensing the characters and producing the comics, instead of continuing in-house. I've never come across a comment from anyone at DC, at the time, to corroborate this and I take anything from Shooter with a grain of salt. My gut feeling is that someone from Warner, and not DC, sent out feelers to get an idea of the potential cost savings and revenue, vs what they had and either Jenette Kahn got wind of it and raised hell, or they figured out it wouldn't bring in enough movie to justify shuttering DC (which would incur large costs) and that they could also see that licensing of the characters outside of comics brought in tons of money and DC's sales were picking up, post-Implosion, as Kahn's changes start having effect. All speculation; because, again, no one at DC has commented, publicly, about this alleged incident, as far as I can find. I don't doubt Shooter saw an opportunity there and maybe solicited some ideas; but, the only finished stuff he has shown as evidence were some logos. I have trouble with the idea that Warner was looking to sell, as the characters were too valuable, even then. The first two Superman movies brought them a lot of cash, from merchandising and their licensing of the characters made more money than the comics. Warner had way more cash, even then, than Cadence Industries/Marvel Entertainment Group and DC was a strong asset. Warner also had Atari, until the video game crash of 1983 led to them selling it off, a year later. By that point, DC is doing way better; so, the timing of these talks sounds like it would have been earlier, but, again, nothing came of it. I'd really like to see someone do an investigative piece on this and produce more evidence and interviews than just Jim Shooter, especially the DC side of things, whatever the reality was. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 11, 2022 0:06:58 GMT -5
Using one of the biggest artists at that time on an ancillary title would kind of undermine DC's achievement of wrestling John Byrne away from Marvel. I think in this scenario, Byrne would still take over the two main titles, work within continuity, and someone else would get to do Ultimate Superman (Frank Miller had applied for the job after Crisis, so perhaps the series would go to him [shudder]). Over on his blog, Jim Shooter once mentioned that when there was talk of Marvel buying DC, Byrne had actually approached Shooter with an outline for what he'd do with the character. I don't remember all the details, but it did alter continuity (I believe he used his "Kal-El comes to Earth with his mother" idea which was the one change which DC didn't let him make with Man of Steel) so I suspect that with Byrne's penchant for putting his own stamp on things, we'd get, at the very least, a revamp which still incorporates a lot of the changes he did make (ie. we still get Wolfman's business Luthor since Eliot Maggin was already heading in this direction prior to Crisis even coming up with LexCorp only this time, it's along the lines of "Luthor has reformed and discovered the cure to some disease and is now making a fortune manufacturing his cure even though Superman knows he's still a bad guy). Superman could decide that Clark Kent no longer needs to be such a fuddy duddy and give him a new, ordinary guy personality; the stories could still take on a pervier tone ("I have to admit, Wonder Woman's stirring eulogy at Kara's funeral really made me appreciate how hot her body is!"); and if he really wanted to bring Ma and Pa back, I'm sure he could come up with a simple explanation for that ("robots" + "Pocket Universe" + "Time Travel" - "The Phantom Zone" x "Death of Earth 3 Kandor" + "Legion of Super-Heroes"). Any personality changes to the character could be dismissed in the same way that, say, Batman had become edgier, and more violent prior to Crisis despite ostensibly being the same guy he was during the Silver Age. As for Ultimate Superman? I have to assume that at some point, one universe would have subsumed the other. What this would have looked like I don't know. Was Byrne's Superman a hit? I mean, he certainly has his fans, but large enough to retain all his ideas after he leaves? Without Crisis, any changes wouldn't be written in stone and could be more easily picked through than in our world, but at some point, I think DC would have just tried to meld one series into the other. I mean, this is the same company which always seemed to think that anything involving duplicates had to be stamped out (from Earth One/Earth Two to "We can't have Alan Scott being called Green Lantern and Hal Jordan called Green Lantern! That's too confusing!") Someone at Warner allegedly approached Marvel about licensing the DC titles to them to produce, but nothing came of it. I believe the time frame he mentioned wasn't much later than 1980. It was not a sale on offer, but licensing the characters and producing the comics, instead of continuing in-house. I've never come across a comment from anyone at DC, at the time, to corroborate this and I take anything from Shooter with a grain of salt. My gut feeling is that someone from Warner, and not DC, sent out feelers to get an idea of the potential cost savings and revenue, vs what they had and either Jenette Kahn got wind of it and raised hell, or they figured out it wouldn't bring in enough movie to justify shuttering DC (which would incur large costs) and that they could also see that licensing of the characters outside of comics brought in tons of money and DC's sales were picking up, post-Implosion, as Kahn's changes start having effect. All speculation; because, again, no one at DC has commented, publicly, about this alleged incident, as far as I can find. I don't doubt Shooter saw an opportunity there and maybe solicited some ideas; but, the only finished stuff he has shown as evidence were some logos. I have trouble with the idea that Warner was looking to sell, as the characters were too valuable, even then. The first two Superman movies brought them a lot of cash, from merchandising and their licensing of the characters made more money than the comics. Warner had way more cash, even then, than Cadence Industries/Marvel Entertainment Group and DC was a strong asset. Warner also had Atari, until the video game crash of 1983 led to them selling it off, a year later. By that point, DC is doing way better; so, the timing of these talks sounds like it would have been earlier, but, again, nothing came of it. I'd really like to see someone do an investigative piece on this and produce more evidence and interviews than just Jim Shooter, especially the DC side of things, whatever the reality was. I'm not convinced this was ever a possibility myself, only that at some point, Jim Shooter thought it may have been. As far as Byrne's "proposal" to Shooter, Shooter presents it as if Byrne was auditioning for an opening which seemed possible/likely to be happening, whereas Byrne's response to Shooter's claim was that his "proposal" was just a mental exercise and not something to be taken as anything more. Regardless of how likely/unlikely Marvel buying/leasing/whatever DC, I brought it up because I think it showcases what Byrne's thoughts were with regards to "What would I do if I were in control of Superman" even before he had the chance. Incidentally, here's a link to Shooter describing Byrne's script which he says he was given in 1984. jimshooter.com/2011/10/superman-first-marvel-issue-byrnes-plo.html/It sounds very Man of Steelish even before Crisis would have given Byrne an excuse for changing the character around. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jan 11, 2022 0:20:37 GMT -5
That's essentially what the New 52 was, only they committed to it, instead of publishing both together... that didn't work out so well. They committed to it... except they didn't. For some idiotic reason, even though Morrison and Johns were at the end of their runs on Batman and Green Lantern respectively, it was decided to maintain the continuity in those titles because those runs were so popular. Except both of those runs were predicated on the post-Infinite Crisis concept of continuity, which is that every major story going back to the characters' inception happened in some way, which is diametrically opposed to the concept of a reboot. I'll add another thought: Frank Miller on Batman could have been the flagship for the "DC Ultimates" just like Bendis/Bagley did with Ultimate Spider-Man. Effectively, Miller had already captured everyone's attention with Batman via Dark Knight Returns (non-continuity) and then Year One. He had the lasting "modern imagination" of the Batman character that clearly set the tone for creators and the era to come. In a parallel universe somewhere, this is "Legends of the Dark Knight" was. Present-day stories carried on in Batman and Detective Comics as usual, while LOTDK focused entirely on rebuilding the entire chronology up to that point. Using Year One as a reference point and a stepping stone, completely free from outside continuity and crossovers, the series condensed, codified, adapted and updated the first ten years of Batman's history in a definitive, consistent manner.
Ah, a man can dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jan 11, 2022 14:23:10 GMT -5
I'm sure I would loathe it just as much as I do the Marvel version.
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Jan 11, 2022 15:45:56 GMT -5
Well Marvel's Ultimate Universe lasted 10-15 years and the only part that survived is Miles. So I'm betting Crisis would have been undone by the late 90's. Look at Man of Steel by Byrne. A lot of his changes were reversed within a decade returning some of Superman's pre-Crisis history.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 11, 2022 22:19:39 GMT -5
Well Marvel's Ultimate Universe lasted 10-15 years and the only part that survived is Miles. So I'm betting Crisis would have been undone by the late 90's. Look at Man of Steel by Byrne. A lot of his changes were reversed within a decade returning some of Superman's pre-Crisis history. That's not true.... Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is from the Ultimate Universe.. The Maker is still around...They brought Ned into the MCU (not sure he's got an equilvalent in the comics, I don't read much Spider-Man). Not sure if they're anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jan 12, 2022 16:01:30 GMT -5
Well Marvel's Ultimate Universe lasted 10-15 years and the only part that survived is Miles. So I'm betting Crisis would have been undone by the late 90's. Look at Man of Steel by Byrne. A lot of his changes were reversed within a decade returning some of Superman's pre-Crisis history. It's "done," but the legacy lives on big time. Just off the top of my head, some of the ideas Ultimate Marvel pioneered or popularized:
- Peter Parker being bitten by a genetically altered spider, rather than a radioactive spider - Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy and Harry Osborn being Peter's high school friends - Aunt May being much younger - The Avengers being a government-sponsored team - Nick Fury being Samuel L. Jackson - Nick Fury leading The Avengers
- The Hulk being a result of trying to replicate Captain America - Tony Stark's flippant, egotistical, and quippy personality - The Iron Man suit being a bulkier and more low-tech suit of armor rather than super sleek sci-fi tech
- Thor not being Don Blake, instead retaining his memories of Asgard but none of his powers, leading to the people around him to think he's insane - Captain America being a legitimate superhuman rather than merely "peak human potential"
|
|
