Hey. If you don't like him, more power to you. Your passion on the topic made me laugh.
But yes, I remember both Batman and Superman with Lee. I only remember one specific cover that was similar and I felt that was done on purpose since they eventually posterized them together.
But there are many comic artists whose drawings I find very ugly. Just never heard anyone say it about Lee.
When you say it's one of the worst covers you've ever seen, are you saying its in the top 5 or is it more broad like top 100. Just curious how ugly you truly think it is.
There's a few Liedeld covers that in terms of how ridiculous they are I would definently place them in my top 10 worst.
That may be one of the worst covers I have ever seen. The two figures don't look like they are in the same drawing, and the placement of the faces looks like horrible photoshop.
Why do people like Jim Lee's art again?
Exagerration much?
Nope. Look at the faces...now imagine human faces in that position. You can't, because they wouldn't BE like that. You'd be smashing your cheeks together kind of like when a cat rubs against a chair. I won't even get into how Superman's legs could not be possibly connected to his torso the way he's drawn. He also has done a poor job on Superman's arms, with one having a forearm that seem 1 and 1/2 times as long as it should be, and the other arm just doesn't exist.
Kirby did exaggeration to give a drawing drama and impact. Lee's just shows laziness and the drawing has NO drama or excitement. It's a mess and really looks like he drew Wonder Woman, and then photoshopped a different Superman drawing onto it, stretching and distorting the figure to fit with what had already been drawn.
I know that people like him, and he's very popular, but I just can't get past how his art just doesn't work when you look at it closely. He uses stock figures, stock faces and can't do characters interacting with each other or their environments.
Like I said, "Typical stiff*, lifeless, over-posed Jim Lee."
But we're ignoring the real topic at hand here. If a Superman/Wonder Woman relationship is taken to the ultimate level, will we be seeing a child come from the union? And will that child be the most powerful being in the known universe? Particularly if he/she becomes a Green Lantern?
Time to dust off my trusty issues of DK2 to determine the precedent.
But we're ignoring the real topic at hand here. If a Superman/Wonder Woman relationship is taken to the ultimate level, will we be seeing a child come from the union? And will that child be the most powerful being in the known universe? Particularly if he/she becomes a Green Lantern?
Time to dust off my trusty issues of DK2 to determine the precedent.
I don't think they'll do that. A LOT of the New52 has been to put genies back in bottles. Superman is single again, Flash is Barry Allen again, and so on. It's a short term story that may or may not be any good.
It's too bad, since I think Superman should be the ultimate Wish Fulfillment character:
He can fly! He's really strong! He's able to do cool things! When they put too much on that clothesline is when the character drags.
He likes Lois, Lois likes Superman and Clark has the "If she only knew the real me, she'd love me" formula that made the early stories in the 30's so powerful and worked so well in the first movie.
Based on what I've read so far, these two characters are even more mismatched then in the old DCU. Basically the only reason that writers keep putting these two togather is World's strongest man and world's strongest woman= good couple right?? WRONG As a dc animated universe fan, I think a wonderwoman/batman relationship would be an interesting and dynamic change from the same crap we've had for years. The trials and tribulations those two go through could make for some great stories.
Wow. I literally lol'd at how much you dislike him. Never heard anyone say that about him. Liefeld, yes. Lee, no.
Among fans who value storytelling, Lee has pretty much always been disliked, and on a number of discussion groups populated by people who study the art form, he's used as an example of WHY comics are hard to read and how the art of storytelling went away in the 90's.
He's an illustrator, not a storyteller, and I don't care for his illustrations. You want an example of why I dislike him, look at his Batman and Superman covers when he did his 12 issue runs...he drew Superman and Batman almost exactly the same, same facial features, same pose, and only the background and costume were different.
Boy, do I remember those. I bought the entire 12-issue Hush storyline and was greatly disappointed by it, both story and art. I didn't even bother with the Superman story.
Hush was horrible. I got it cause of the great review the CGS crew gave it. Read it once and then earlier this year sold the two trades to someone on this forum for the price of shipping. The story read like badly written fan-fic and the artwork looks like Jim Lee was drawing a bunch of pin ups or posters.
But we're ignoring the real topic at hand here. If a Superman/Wonder Woman relationship is taken to the ultimate level, will we be seeing a child come from the union?
No. Because there are no committed relationships in the New 52.
Because that would, you know, limit story potential...*
*When I told my last girlfriend she was limiting my story potential, she kicked me in the fork.
Based on what I've read so far, these two characters are even more mismatched then in the old DCU. Basically the only reason that writers keep putting these two togather is World's strongest man and world's strongest woman= good couple right??
Hush was horrible. I got it cause of the great review the CGS crew gave it. Read it once and then earlier this year sold the two trades to someone on this forum for the price of shipping. The story read like badly written fan-fic and the artwork looks like Jim Lee was drawing a bunch of pin ups or posters.
First sign of story trouble: Protagonist suddenly has longtime best friend who we've never heard of before.
13 year old me loves some Jim Lee. 22 year old me wants to run away from DC books and just do his whole "I wanna be Stan Lee" gimmick.
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
I'm not sure calculated publicity stunts count as change or variety.
From the EW article: This isn’t to say that fans will understand or support the hook-up. In fact, Johns and Lee expect some outcry and certainly some debate. Actually, they’re counting on it. "Hopefully this will raise a lot of eyebrows,” Lee says. “We welcome the watercooler chatter.”
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
I'm not sure calculated publicity stunts count as change or variety.
From the EW article: This isn’t to say that fans will understand or support the hook-up. In fact, Johns and Lee expect some outcry and certainly some debate. Actually, they’re counting on it. "Hopefully this will raise a lot of eyebrows,” Lee says. “We welcome the watercooler chatter.”
Of course I understand why you are skeptical.
But, in terms of quality, of course we won't really know what it is until we read it. There is how the publishers talk about the story to the media, and then there is the work itself.
As for variety, I am not saying it is novelty or something new under the sun. But it is variety relative to the opinion that it is sickening if he so much as makes kissyface with anyone but his first love or eventual (presumptive) wife.
To be fair, I don't read much Superman, so I don't have a dog in the fight. But in general I find that to be a pretty limiting set of rules for a character appearing in upwards of three comics a month. I think for stories to keep getting told, our expectations might need to not be quite that restrictive. That was the opinion I was commenting on.
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
I'm not sure calculated publicity stunts count as change or variety.
From the EW article: This isn’t to say that fans will understand or support the hook-up. In fact, Johns and Lee expect some outcry and certainly some debate. Actually, they’re counting on it. "Hopefully this will raise a lot of eyebrows,” Lee says. “We welcome the watercooler chatter.”
Of course I understand why you are skeptical.
But, in terms of quality, of course we won't really know what it is until we read it. There is how the publishers talk about the story to the media, and then there is the work itself.
As for variety, I am not saying it is novelty or something new under the sun. But it is variety relative to the opinion of 'I am sickened if he makes kissyface with anyone but his high school sweetheart or his eventual wife!'. I find that to be a pretty limiting set of rules for a character appearing in upwards of three comics a month. I think for stories to keep getting told, our expectations might need to not be quite that restrictive. That was the opinion I was commenting on.
Judging from the body of work of the "creators"* involved, I can make a pretty good guess at the quality.
And I can certainly judge the quality of the lifeless, soulless teaser art.
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
I'm not sure calculated publicity stunts count as change or variety.
From the EW article: This isn’t to say that fans will understand or support the hook-up. In fact, Johns and Lee expect some outcry and certainly some debate. Actually, they’re counting on it. "Hopefully this will raise a lot of eyebrows,” Lee says. “We welcome the watercooler chatter.”
Of course I understand why you are skeptical.
But, in terms of quality, of course we won't really know what it is until we read it. There is how the publishers talk about the story to the media, and then there is the work itself.
As for variety, I am not saying it is novelty or something new under the sun. But it is variety relative to the opinion of 'I am sickened if he makes kissyface with anyone but his high school sweetheart or his eventual wife!'. I find that to be a pretty limiting set of rules for a character appearing in upwards of three comics a month. I think for stories to keep getting told, our expectations might need to not be quite that restrictive. That was the opinion I was commenting on.
Judging from the body of work of the "creators"* involved, I can make a pretty good guess at the quality.
And I can certainly judge the quality of the lifeless, soulless teaser art.
Hence the title of this thread. ;)
*Perhaps "regurgitators" would be more apt?
Fair enough. And, again, at this point we can only guess at what the quality will be, which I was never really commenting about anyway. My argument was not what would or wouldn't be good. Rather, that I don't see the gain in limiting the options of what can even be tried.
Fair enough. And, again, at this point we can only guess at what the quality will be, which I was never really commenting about anyway. My argument was not what would or wouldn't be good. Rather, that I don't see the gain in limiting the options of what can even be tried.
Again, my (now ex-) girlfriend was unimpressed by that reasoning. ;)
Fair enough. And, again, at this point we can only guess at what the quality will be, which I was never really commenting about anyway. My argument was not what would or wouldn't be good. Rather, that I don't see the gain in limiting the options of what can even be tried.
Again, my (now ex-) girlfriend was unimpressed by that reasoning. ;)
Based on what I've read so far, these two characters are even more mismatched then in the old DCU. Basically the only reason that writers keep putting these two togather is World's strongest man and world's strongest woman= good couple right??
Two words: Flying F***!
I-)
I really do hope the Invisible Man is not involved in this one. :-O
Fair enough. And, again, at this point we can only guess at what the quality will be, which I was never really commenting about anyway. My argument was not what would or wouldn't be good. Rather, that I don't see the gain in limiting the options of what can even be tried.
Again, my (now ex-) girlfriend was unimpressed by that reasoning. ;)
Well... hopefully the reboot will go better!
The reboot happened when I turned to leave and she kicked me again!
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
Well, if you want to be completely safe from change or variety, you could always read your old comics over, and over, and over again. And then they will be only what you think they should be.
DavidD, as I have criticized the DCNU, I constantly have this argument thrown back at me... "Why don't you just read your old comics... all the stuff you love is still there".
It's because I want there to be goddam comics around when I have grandchildren. The artform has survived almost a hundred years. Probably thousands of concepts and characters have fallen by the wayside, or are remembered only ironically, or as camp, because of their pandering to very specific points in time. Their "trendiness" led to their own demise. Concepts like Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, the Justice League, etc. have reached a level of timelessness that survives the occasional lapse into trendiness. Look at Batman... look at what the character has gone through, and how he has evolved (and sometimes devolved) through the years. But the CORE CONCEPTS always guided him back to who he is, and back to popularity.
Now, once you start to screw around with those core concepts, the concepts suffer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MYTHOLOGIES OF THE DC CHARACTERS, AS THEY WERE. The problems, in my opinion, were a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial staff of DC, and the fact that the writers were (and still are) mandated to write to the 35 year old comics readers, already familiar with 70 years of back story. How to fix this? Not by screwing around with the basic premises that made the characters popular in the first place. And DC is continuing to write, despite what their DCNU press releases said, to the fanboy audience. This is the proverbial snake eating its own tail, that will eventually consume itself, whether digital, paper, or whatever.
I hope my grandhildren ALSO like the comics of my youth, because that is probably going to be the only source for comics in the future. The industry is hopelessly doomed, unless it changes.
And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
DavidD, as I have criticized the DCNU, I constantly have this argument thrown back at me... "Why don't you just read your old comics... all the stuff you love is still there".
It's because I want there to be goddam comics around when I have grandchildren. The artform has survived almost a hundred years. Probably thousands of concepts and characters have fallen by the wayside, or are remembered only ironically, or as camp, because of their pandering to very specific points in time. Their "trendiness" led to their own demise. Concepts like Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, the Justice League, etc. have reached a level of timelessness that survives the occasional lapse into trendiness. Look at Batman... look at what the character has gone through, and how he has evolved (and sometimes devolved) through the years. But the CORE CONCEPTS always guided him back to who he is, and back to popularity.
Now, once you start to screw around with those core concepts, the concepts suffer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MYTHOLOGIES OF THE DC CHARACTERS, AS THEY WERE. The problems, in my opinion, were a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial staff of DC, and the fact that the writers were (and still are) mandated to write to the 35 year old comics readers, already familiar with 70 years of back story. How to fix this? Not by screwing around with the basic premises that made the characters popular in the first place. And DC is continuing to write, despite what their DCNU press releases said, to the fanboy audience. This is the proverbial snake eating its own tail, that will eventually consume itself, whether digital, paper, or whatever.
I hope my grandhildren ALSO like the comics of my youth, because that is probably going to be the only source for comics in the future. The industry is hopelessly doomed, unless it changes.
And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
Fair enough, and I see where you are coming from. What you are quoting from, though, was I will admit a strong statement, but it was in response to this (not from you), which I found a little overly rigid:
"I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap."
I am not trying to say that people who, for example, disagree with what DC is doing right now have no stake in it, or should not have an opinion about it. I am sorry if I have come off as saying 'accept it or leave it'. Of course you do have a stake, and of course you should have an opinion about it.
But when I see something like the above, my reaction is honestly that if someone is going to be so conservative (with the little "c", not the capital one) in their thinking about what new comics about the characters they love can try, then maybe they would actually be happier with their old comics. I think the "how dare they" impulse in longtime comics fans, even though it comes from a place of loving and wanting to protect the characters, often works against the ongoing success and development of the things we love.
And I am all for our grandchildren still being able to enjoy comics, as we do, if they decide they want to read them. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But what I question is the idea- like @JCB's that I was responding to and, yes, yours at times- that for them to survive or be as enjoyable to our kids and grandkids as they are to us, that they have to stay the same. There is a difference between timeless and inert.
Now that is not at all to say that all change or experiment is good. Like all creative, sometimes it is terrible, but I am wary when we get so nostalgic about what we love that any change, be it in costume or story, is immediately met with so much hostility. Especially before we even read the stories and give them a chance. You know what I mean?
All sorts of stories we grew up loving may have been as offensive to our elders as our music was to them. To keep this medium vibrant for our grandkids, we have to be game to let it experiment, change, and try things-- even if at times they look like fads or publicity stunts at the time. Again, great stories long remembered now and praised in hindsight were considered publicity stunts at their time. Now I am not saying I expect Superman and Wonder Woman making kissyface to be the next GL/GA Hard Traveling Heroes or something like that. But I also don't want to automatically reject it as crap before it is even out because it violates some Superman rule. If there is one thing nearly 100 year old characters don't need, it is more rules about what is or isn't in the brand. If I am arguing for anything, it is, "why not give them a chance?". These characters have survived this long, and endured some terrible ideas that were tried, and survived. And some great ideas got picked up along the way, too. These characters are not fragile.
At the end of the day, if we want comics, and even specifically these characters, to be of interest to our grandchildren, I think we need to encourage risk and trying new things (even with the inevitable, embarrassing failures along the way) more vigorously than we defend what they used to be. The former is supporting an ongoing story in the now, the latter is maintaining a museum.
Now, once you start to screw around with those core concepts, the concepts suffer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MYTHOLOGIES OF THE DC CHARACTERS, AS THEY WERE. The problems, in my opinion, were a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial staff of DC, and the fact that the writers were (and still are) mandated to write to the 35 year old comics readers, already familiar with 70 years of back story. How to fix this? Not by screwing around with the basic premises that made the characters popular in the first place. And DC is continuing to write, despite what their DCNU press releases said, to the fanboy audience. This is the proverbial snake eating its own tail, that will eventually consume itself, whether digital, paper, or whatever.
For the record this is the part I was specifically Amen-ing.
I also really liked this line: And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
Continuing to target comics to the 35+-year-old longtime reader, rather than genuinely trying to find new readers is a doomed enterprise.
The NewDCU project, seems pretty clearly to be targeting lapsed readers from the 90s boom, while also trying to appease the readers they had left and yet claiming to be be aimed at new readers. As such, it increasingly seems to be crumbling as the "years of planning" turn out to be a bunch of half-considered concepts which are in a constant state of revision.
This latest stunt smells of desperation to me, as do the Zero issues. And as the new Wonder Woman series, which has been one of the few bright points for me in this mess, is likely to be interfered with, I'm especially annoyed.
For years, I was one of the beneficiaries of the trend of writing for older readers, and I loved it. But now that I am older than the "older reader" who is currently being written for, I can see how a lot of the magic and wonder and fun were tossed aside when comics "matured." And I think that was a mistake. Now the magic and wonder and fun are relegated to the "kiddie comics" ghetto. That makes me sad.
Now, once you start to screw around with those core concepts, the concepts suffer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MYTHOLOGIES OF THE DC CHARACTERS, AS THEY WERE. The problems, in my opinion, were a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial staff of DC, and the fact that the writers were (and still are) mandated to write to the 35 year old comics readers, already familiar with 70 years of back story. How to fix this? Not by screwing around with the basic premises that made the characters popular in the first place. And DC is continuing to write, despite what their DCNU press releases said, to the fanboy audience. This is the proverbial snake eating its own tail, that will eventually consume itself, whether digital, paper, or whatever.
For the record this is the part I was specifically Amen-ing.
I also really liked this line: And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
Continuing to target comics to the 35+-year-old longtime reader, rather than genuinely trying to find new readers is a doomed enterprise.
The NewDCU project, seems pretty clearly to be targeting lapsed readers from the 90s boom, while also trying to appease the readers they had left and yet claiming to be be aimed at new readers. As such, it increasingly seems to be crumbling as the "years of planning" turn out to be a bunch of half-considered concepts which are in a constant state of revision.
This latest stunt smells of desperation to me, as do the Zero issues. And as the new Wonder Woman series, which has been one of the few bright points for me in this mess, is likely to be interfered with, I'm especially annoyed.
For years, I was one of the beneficiaries of the trend of writing for older readers, and I loved it. But now that I am older than the "older reader" who is currently being written for, I can see how a lot of the magic and wonder and fun were tossed aside when comics "matured." And I think that was a mistake. Now the magic and wonder and fun are relegated to the "kiddie comics" ghetto. That makes me sad.
And I hear that. But sometimes to come up with stories, you've got to step outside of the expectations of the characters. Shake things up a bit. Have a romance that might turn out to be a mistake, etc. I don't know that the core concept gets threatened by that, as the core concept it strong enough to withstand the temporary dramas and reversals of a story. Or, if a new idea is so strong that it actually affects or changes the core concept and develops it further, then great. Even an old character can grow a bit.
Now, of course, different is not always better. But it is not always worse. And, like any idea that doesn't get traction, it will likely fall away over time if it isn't good.
I think it was on CGS a long time ago that Matt Fraction said that the gig of writing for the Big Two was to "Break the toys as artfully as possible before putting them back together again".
EDIT- By the way, I was curious, given the reaction that the Superman/Wonder Woman image has attracted here and other places, just how rare it is- just how outside of the core concept- it is for Superman to make kissyface with anyone but Lois and Lana. So I asked the Google, simply, who has superman kissed. And got this answer from Comic Vine: http://www.comicvine.com/superman/29-1807/how-many-women-has-superman-kissed/92-651237/
(I don't post it as proof of anything, especially given that it is eclectic set of continuities and media. I guess if it shows anything, it is a reminder of how easily some things can fall away and be forgotten. How not vulnerable the core concept is.)
(I also think Drunk Cap would be jealous he got to kiss a fish lady.)
Comments
But yes, I remember both Batman and Superman with Lee. I only remember one specific cover that was similar and I felt that was done on purpose since they eventually posterized them together.
But there are many comic artists whose drawings I find very ugly. Just never heard anyone say it about Lee.
When you say it's one of the worst covers you've ever seen, are you saying its in the top 5 or is it more broad like top 100. Just curious how ugly you truly think it is.
There's a few Liedeld covers that in terms of how ridiculous they are I would definently place them in my top 10 worst.
I have never understood his popularity.
But we're ignoring the real topic at hand here. If a Superman/Wonder Woman relationship is taken to the ultimate level, will we be seeing a child come from the union? And will that child be the most powerful being in the known universe? Particularly if he/she becomes a Green Lantern?
Time to dust off my trusty issues of DK2 to determine the precedent.
It's too bad, since I think Superman should be the ultimate Wish Fulfillment character:
He can fly! He's really strong! He's able to do cool things! When they put too much on that clothesline is when the character drags.
He likes Lois, Lois likes Superman and Clark has the "If she only knew the real me, she'd love me" formula that made the early stories in the 30's so powerful and worked so well in the first movie.
Basically the only reason that writers keep putting these two togather is
World's strongest man and world's strongest woman= good couple right??
WRONG
As a dc animated universe fan, I think a wonderwoman/batman relationship would be an interesting and dynamic change from the same crap we've had for years.
The trials and tribulations those two go through could make for some great stories.
Because that would, you know, limit story potential...*
*When I told my last girlfriend she was limiting my story potential, she kicked me in the fork.
I-)
I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap.
From the EW article: This isn’t to say that fans will understand or support the hook-up. In fact, Johns and Lee expect some outcry and certainly some debate. Actually, they’re counting on it. "Hopefully this will raise a lot of eyebrows,” Lee says. “We welcome the watercooler chatter.”
But, in terms of quality, of course we won't really know what it is until we read it. There is how the publishers talk about the story to the media, and then there is the work itself.
As for variety, I am not saying it is novelty or something new under the sun. But it is variety relative to the opinion that it is sickening if he so much as makes kissyface with anyone but his first love or eventual (presumptive) wife.
To be fair, I don't read much Superman, so I don't have a dog in the fight. But in general I find that to be a pretty limiting set of rules for a character appearing in upwards of three comics a month. I think for stories to keep getting told, our expectations might need to not be quite that restrictive. That was the opinion I was commenting on.
And I can certainly judge the quality of the lifeless, soulless teaser art.
Hence the title of this thread. ;)
*Perhaps "regurgitators" would be more apt?
lol, I am just now starting to appreciate Jack's works. I understand if you do not. Each to your own...
I suppose I could try again sometime.
Variety's good for the soul. Or something.
It's because I want there to be goddam comics around when I have grandchildren. The artform has survived almost a hundred years. Probably thousands of concepts and characters have fallen by the wayside, or are remembered only ironically, or as camp, because of their pandering to very specific points in time. Their "trendiness" led to their own demise. Concepts like Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, the Justice League, etc. have reached a level of timelessness that survives the occasional lapse into trendiness. Look at Batman... look at what the character has gone through, and how he has evolved (and sometimes devolved) through the years. But the CORE CONCEPTS always guided him back to who he is, and back to popularity.
Now, once you start to screw around with those core concepts, the concepts suffer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE MYTHOLOGIES OF THE DC CHARACTERS, AS THEY WERE. The problems, in my opinion, were a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial staff of DC, and the fact that the writers were (and still are) mandated to write to the 35 year old comics readers, already familiar with 70 years of back story. How to fix this? Not by screwing around with the basic premises that made the characters popular in the first place. And DC is continuing to write, despite what their DCNU press releases said, to the fanboy audience. This is the proverbial snake eating its own tail, that will eventually consume itself, whether digital, paper, or whatever.
I hope my grandhildren ALSO like the comics of my youth, because that is probably going to be the only source for comics in the future. The industry is hopelessly doomed, unless it changes.
And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
Well-said, sir!
Fair enough, and I see where you are coming from. What you are quoting from, though, was I will admit a strong statement, but it was in response to this (not from you), which I found a little overly rigid:
"I also think that anytime I see Kal making goo-goo eyes at a woman that isn't Lois or Lana freaking Lang, I vomit inside on my very soul. It's as bad as Barry not being with Iris anymore. Stupid DCNU crap."
I am not trying to say that people who, for example, disagree with what DC is doing right now have no stake in it, or should not have an opinion about it. I am sorry if I have come off as saying 'accept it or leave it'. Of course you do have a stake, and of course you should have an opinion about it.
But when I see something like the above, my reaction is honestly that if someone is going to be so conservative (with the little "c", not the capital one) in their thinking about what new comics about the characters they love can try, then maybe they would actually be happier with their old comics. I think the "how dare they" impulse in longtime comics fans, even though it comes from a place of loving and wanting to protect the characters, often works against the ongoing success and development of the things we love.
And I am all for our grandchildren still being able to enjoy comics, as we do, if they decide they want to read them. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But what I question is the idea- like @JCB's that I was responding to and, yes, yours at times- that for them to survive or be as enjoyable to our kids and grandkids as they are to us, that they have to stay the same. There is a difference between timeless and inert.
Now that is not at all to say that all change or experiment is good. Like all creative, sometimes it is terrible, but I am wary when we get so nostalgic about what we love that any change, be it in costume or story, is immediately met with so much hostility. Especially before we even read the stories and give them a chance. You know what I mean?
All sorts of stories we grew up loving may have been as offensive to our elders as our music was to them. To keep this medium vibrant for our grandkids, we have to be game to let it experiment, change, and try things-- even if at times they look like fads or publicity stunts at the time. Again, great stories long remembered now and praised in hindsight were considered publicity stunts at their time. Now I am not saying I expect Superman and Wonder Woman making kissyface to be the next GL/GA Hard Traveling Heroes or something like that. But I also don't want to automatically reject it as crap before it is even out because it violates some Superman rule. If there is one thing nearly 100 year old characters don't need, it is more rules about what is or isn't in the brand. If I am arguing for anything, it is, "why not give them a chance?". These characters have survived this long, and endured some terrible ideas that were tried, and survived. And some great ideas got picked up along the way, too. These characters are not fragile.
At the end of the day, if we want comics, and even specifically these characters, to be of interest to our grandchildren, I think we need to encourage risk and trying new things (even with the inevitable, embarrassing failures along the way) more vigorously than we defend what they used to be. The former is supporting an ongoing story in the now, the latter is maintaining a museum.
I also really liked this line: And the reason I pine for the comics of my past? It's because they had a future.
Continuing to target comics to the 35+-year-old longtime reader, rather than genuinely trying to find new readers is a doomed enterprise.
The NewDCU project, seems pretty clearly to be targeting lapsed readers from the 90s boom, while also trying to appease the readers they had left and yet claiming to be be aimed at new readers. As such, it increasingly seems to be crumbling as the "years of planning" turn out to be a bunch of half-considered concepts which are in a constant state of revision.
This latest stunt smells of desperation to me, as do the Zero issues. And as the new Wonder Woman series, which has been one of the few bright points for me in this mess, is likely to be interfered with, I'm especially annoyed.
For years, I was one of the beneficiaries of the trend of writing for older readers, and I loved it. But now that I am older than the "older reader" who is currently being written for, I can see how a lot of the magic and wonder and fun were tossed aside when comics "matured." And I think that was a mistake. Now the magic and wonder and fun are relegated to the "kiddie comics" ghetto. That makes me sad.
Now, of course, different is not always better. But it is not always worse. And, like any idea that doesn't get traction, it will likely fall away over time if it isn't good.
I think it was on CGS a long time ago that Matt Fraction said that the gig of writing for the Big Two was to "Break the toys as artfully as possible before putting them back together again".
EDIT- By the way, I was curious, given the reaction that the Superman/Wonder Woman image has attracted here and other places, just how rare it is- just how outside of the core concept- it is for Superman to make kissyface with anyone but Lois and Lana. So I asked the Google, simply, who has superman kissed. And got this answer from Comic Vine: http://www.comicvine.com/superman/29-1807/how-many-women-has-superman-kissed/92-651237/
(I don't post it as proof of anything, especially given that it is eclectic set of continuities and media. I guess if it shows anything, it is a reminder of how easily some things can fall away and be forgotten. How not vulnerable the core concept is.)
(I also think Drunk Cap would be jealous he got to kiss a fish lady.)