I... won't be double-dipping. But, I also don't see this second, more premium format release as flying in the face of what Didio said at Wondercon. This is not simply a second printing. This is a different edition and format, and my guess it is more targeted at the fans that loved this comic, and want a nicer, more collectible version of it.
And I am sure that shops ordered heavy (and DC printed heavy) on the regular format. So it is not that they are soaking a would-be reader at a higher price just so they can, as Didio said, "enjoy the comics". They already made Rebirth in a way that you can buy it. And you can still get 80 pages for $3 digitally. I don't think this square-bound $6 is about making the content accessible to readers that missed it the first time. I think this is targeting the collectors and double-dippers.
If you really want a nicer version of it, wait for the inevitable Rebirth Omnibus. If you want a more collectible version, why would you buy a second printing? Granted, the print run will surely be much smaller on this edition, but despite the nicer format, it's still a reprint. Still, some people just gotta catch them all.
That being said, I doubt DC made a huge profit on Rebirth #1, unless their printer gave them a tremendous price break. And that type of price break they wouldn't likely be able to get on a much smaller second printing.
This is not simply a second printing. This is a different edition and format, and my guess it is more targeted at the fans that loved this comic, and want a nicer, more collectible version of it.
Yes. I mentioned it was square bound, but other than that, this is still a second print in an altered format. And it's a second printing since it's being presented as such and wasn't originally solicited when the title was announced (as 'DKIII: Master Race' was). I also expect there will be an Absolute, a trade, and maybe an omnibus too for people who want more "collectible" versions than a square bound or a floppy.
If this works out well, perhaps some comic fans will think DC should do this for all second printings?
This is not simply a second printing. This is a different edition and format, and my guess it is more targeted at the fans that loved this comic, and want a nicer, more collectible version of it.
Yes. I mentioned it was square bound, but other than that, this is still a second print in an altered format. And it's a second printing since it's being presented as such and wasn't originally solicited when the title was announced (as 'DKIII: Master Race' was). I also expect there will be an Absolute, a trade, and maybe an omnibus too for people who want more "collectible" versions than a square bound or a floppy.
If this works out well, perhaps some comic fans will think DC should do this for all second printings?
Sure- and I am not looking to argue the definition of second printing. I only mean it is not the typical "because the first one sold out and you can't get it anymore" kind of second printing, which is usually the same format and price, and might have a different cover. This is snigger change of format.
And that is why, to me, this is not Didio going against what he said about access and affordability. As I don't think this square bound format printing is about getting the book out there to those that missed it. This is about getting a prestige format version out there of something that has buzz and people who loved it and might double dip. .
I don't think this square bound format printing is about getting the book out there to those that missed it. This is about getting a prestige format version out there of something that has buzz and people who loved it and might double dip. .
Hmm. I'm curious if anyone here knows whether or not these $5.99 reprints are also returnable?
You can see something hitting the batcave wall as Wally is sucked back into his limbo. I think that may be the button.
I want to live in the DC universe. Not just for the potential super powers, but because everything is better. Including buttons.
Show me a button/pin in our world that would survive the rigors of the Speed Force, being hurtled out of it, and EMBEDDED IN STONE and still look perfectly intact.
DCU: Magic, superpowers, aliens, cosmic crises, and indestructible buttons.
You can see something hitting the batcave wall as Wally is sucked back into his limbo. I think that may be the button.
I want to live in the DC universe. Not just for the potential super powers, but because everything is better. Including buttons.
Show me a button/pin in our world that would survive the rigors of the Speed Force, being hurtled out of it, and EMBEDDED IN STONE and still look perfectly intact.
DCU: Magic, superpowers, aliens, cosmic crises, and indestructible buttons.
Outside of the occasional collapse, merging, and destruction of realities, Super Hero universes appear to be generally good places to live.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Thank goodness people can still make money off of his work, though.
The more I think about it, the more the whole "Dr Manhattan as the evil force who stole the happiness from our comics" doesn't work for me. The character was never evil or even malicious.
The last time Johns brought back a "Holy crap!" character (the Anti-Monitor) it turned out to be nothing. He stood around and looked impressive and that's about it.
I guess for the next reboot, Tom Strong will be the character that has screwed up the DCU and not the editorial staff.
So I ask again, other than Lois & Clark, what was the point of Convergence?
They were pretty clear up front that there was no real point to Convergence, it just existed to fill a void while they moved offices. I'm not sure why people are holding Convergence against them.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate Moore for the many magificent things that he's done, but a good bit of his career has been about building on or reinterpreting the existing creations of others, be it Swamp Thing, the Charleton characters or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
He got a raw deal on Watchmen, but I'm not so sure that the deal was constructed to be intentionally raw or if trades were enough on anyone's radar to have even considered putting a specific limitation on them. I don't see it being substantially different than the way compensation for new electronic media forms has been an issue for screenwriters and other performance artists.
I do, however, see a difference in the way that he's approached the issue. I also think that there's a distinction in the way he's responded to questions about other people building on his work (Sodam Yat, Black Mercy...) - particularly when he's called other creators into question for building on anything that he's done.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
So you think they should stop writing Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman comics? All Harley Quinn and Static Shock it should be?
I actually don't see how that has anything to do with what I am saying, though I am happy to listen if you want to explain it.
What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees. In fact, he seems to think that Moore and Gibbons's Watchmen is still so relevant that it can somehow be blamed for the cynicism and lack of love in comics even he himself has written in the last 20 years. So much so that he feels that DC in 2016 must 'confront the legacy of Watchmen'. So Johns seems to not only see that old work as relevant, but he seems to feel the victim of it.
Personally, I disagree. I see this as cashing in on the continuing interest in Watchmen, but there he and I disagree.
But, whether you like his work on not, to simply dismiss Moore as irrelevant for the last 20 years just doesn't seem factual. Given how much has even been made of his old work in the last 20 years, not to mention his work since. Though, to be fair, you and I might define "relevance" differently.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
Publishing prequels to other, still-living authors work, to be racked along side them by the same publisher, with the same trade dress? I think that is a pretty different thing than, say, putting Captain Nemo into a comic almost 100 years after Jules Verne dies, and that comic doesn't even have "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" in the title. I don't there will be any confusion among readers which is the "real" Nemo, and which are later authors playing around with a classic character.
PS- What Ellison works are you talking about regarding Moore?
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
I'm pretty sure Ditko and some the other Charleton creators were still alive, and quite possibly not pleased with Moore's interpretation (I'm looking at you Rorschach). Perhaps that's different because those creators had signed contracts?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?
Honestly, who cares, he hasn't been relevant in 20 years.
Yes. His and Gibbon's work is so irrelevant that DC is leaning on it (yet again) for their most high profile comic of 2016.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
I kind of wish that Moore would do the same thing with the works of Doyle, Shelley, Wilde, Stevenson, Ellison, Haggard and Welles amongst others.
There is a longstanding literary tradition in borrowing characters from dead authors.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
I'm pretty sure Ditko and some the other Charleton creators were still alive, and quite possibly not pleased with Moore's interpretation (I'm looking at you Rorschach). Perhaps that's different because those creators had signed contracts?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
I also see analogues as a very different thing. For example, I would not say that Roy Thomas and John Buscema did not create new characters when they created the Squadron Supreme, even though they are clearly based on the Justice League.
Also, I would be interested to see where Moore actually decried the idea that no authors should build on classic ideas or characters of the past.
But I think what I am seeing in that quote is not a belief that there is never a reason for people to play with existing ideas or classic characters. Rather, he was surprised that a whole DC crossover seemed to be getting made out of a 7 or 8 page strip he'd done in the early '80s that he felt wasn't even very good. There is a difference between making use of classic, genre-defining literary characters from the past two centuries... and making sure that every last idea to be found in those Collected DC Stories of Alan Moore trades are still being put to use somewhere in the DCU, given how many other great creators are already working there.
Now, what is unfair in his statements-and I am not saying his responses to these questions are always fair, civil, or polite- is that he hasn't read these comics. He is going off of hearsay. But unless there is some quotes somewhere else where he takes a stand against ever making use of classic characters, then I personally don't see the equivalency, or the hypocrisy. Though I respect that others do.
And now Alan Moore has completely taken over the DC: Rebirth thread. Reminds me of the good old days when Batman took over the Man of Steel thread. Ahhh, memories.
And now Alan Moore has completely taken over the DC: Rebirth thread. Reminds me of the good old days when Batman took over the Man of Steel thread. Ahhh, memories.
I take your point. And this is not the place to re-litigate it all.
Of course, Batman wasn't actually in Man of Steel. I wouldn't say talking about Watchmen, or Moore, is off-topic from Rebirth. Johns chose to make it relevant, for all that he is supposedly wanting to get away from that particular legacy.
Well... as I would tell Geoff Johns, if what he really wanted to do was to get the DCU out from the 'shadow of Watchmen', then maybe the best bet would have been to not put Watchmen in it, you know what I mean? I think if he hadn't, I would be very surprised if Moore's name would have even come up.
We still don't know how this DCU/Watchmen crossover will end. Dr. Manhattan appears to have influenced the current Multiverse, but we don't know that for sure; and if he has, we don't know why, or if it was his own doing, etc.
Oh, I didn’t mean to suggest it was off-topic (though it was a bit drifty), but I've already seen this debate—even participated in it once—two or three times on this forum. Just trying to head things off at the pass.
What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees.
Ah, you misinterpreted what I said, then. What you originally said (and what I was replying to) was "I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?"
What I'm saying is that Moore's opinion on mainstream comics isn't relevant today, and hasn't been for a long time, because he doesn't write mainstream comics any more. He only writes weird esoteric stuff that absolutely no one reads or thinks is very good.
What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees.
Ah, you misinterpreted what I said, then. What you originally said (and what I was replying to) was "I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?"
What I'm saying is that Moore's opinion on mainstream comics isn't relevant today, and hasn't been for a long time, because he doesn't write mainstream comics any more. He only writes weird esoteric stuff that absolutely no one reads or thinks is very good.
There’s a reason Alan Moore won’t deal with DC anymore.
The weird part is DC didn’t even have to use the Watchmen cast. Grant Morrison set it up perfectly in his Multiversity series - whose stated purpose was to tell a story while also creating new playgrounds for future stories. The point was to actually allow other creators to use the toys he left behind. Mutliversity‘s one shots took place on different parallel worlds, where a single threat being faced in the two bookend issues was having various effects on the heroes and villains of those respective worlds. One of those one-shots, Pax Americana, was set on Earth 4, home of the Charlton characters.
Yep, the same Charlton characters Alan Moore originally wanted to use for Watchmen but was denied. So he made new characters, knock-offs of the originals. Morrison’s Earth 4 was essentially an homage to Watchmen. Artist Frank Quietly even did some very Watchmen-esque layouts. Did the DC editors even pay attention to it?
Anyone notice who Captain Atom looked like in that one-shot? DC could have told the same story with those characters without dragging the characters of Watchmen into the DCU.
What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees.
Ah, you misinterpreted what I said, then. What you originally said (and what I was replying to) was "I'm sure Alan Moore is down with it. I mean, why wouldn't he be?"
What I'm saying is that Moore's opinion on mainstream comics isn't relevant today, and hasn't been for a long time, because he doesn't write mainstream comics any more. He only writes weird esoteric stuff that absolutely no one reads or thinks is very good.
That explains my confusion, then-- what you were replying to was something @bralinator said, not me.
Comments
And I am sure that shops ordered heavy (and DC printed heavy) on the regular format. So it is not that they are soaking a would-be reader at a higher price just so they can, as Didio said, "enjoy the comics". They already made Rebirth in a way that you can buy it. And you can still get 80 pages for $3 digitally. I don't think this square-bound $6 is about making the content accessible to readers that missed it the first time. I think this is targeting the collectors and double-dippers.
That being said, I doubt DC made a huge profit on Rebirth #1, unless their printer gave them a tremendous price break. And that type of price break they wouldn't likely be able to get on a much smaller second printing.
I'm going to be waiting for the trade now, or the afterbirth as it were. The placenta edition?
Thanks for that, @Caliban. Made me smile.
If this works out well, perhaps some comic fans will think DC should do this for all second printings?
And that is why, to me, this is not Didio going against what he said about access and affordability. As I don't think this square bound format printing is about getting the book out there to those that missed it. This is about getting a prestige format version out there of something that has buzz and people who loved it and might double dip. .
/Runs like hell...ducking tomatoes...
Show me a button/pin in our world that would survive the rigors of the Speed Force, being hurtled out of it, and EMBEDDED IN STONE and still look perfectly intact.
DCU: Magic, superpowers, aliens, cosmic crises, and indestructible buttons.
The more I think about it, the more the whole "Dr Manhattan as the evil force who stole the happiness from our comics" doesn't work for me. The character was never evil or even malicious.
The last time Johns brought back a "Holy crap!" character (the Anti-Monitor) it turned out to be nothing. He stood around and looked impressive and that's about it.
I guess for the next reboot, Tom Strong will be the character that has screwed up the DCU and not the editorial staff.
Personally, I wish Geoff Johns found Moore and Gibbons 30 year old work less relevant. And got in with more of his own ideas. But, so it goes.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate Moore for the many magificent things that he's done, but a good bit of his career has been about building on or reinterpreting the existing creations of others, be it Swamp Thing, the Charleton characters or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
He got a raw deal on Watchmen, but I'm not so sure that the deal was constructed to be intentionally raw or if trades were enough on anyone's radar to have even considered putting a specific limitation on them. I don't see it being substantially different than the way compensation for new electronic media forms has been an issue for screenwriters and other performance artists.
I do, however, see a difference in the way that he's approached the issue. I also think that there's a distinction in the way he's responded to questions about other people building on his work (Sodam Yat, Black Mercy...) - particularly when he's called other creators into question for building on anything that he's done.
What I actually am saying is that, even if you feel that Moore is no longer relevant, it would seem that the Chief Creative Officer of DC disagrees. In fact, he seems to think that Moore and Gibbons's Watchmen is still so relevant that it can somehow be blamed for the cynicism and lack of love in comics even he himself has written in the last 20 years. So much so that he feels that DC in 2016 must 'confront the legacy of Watchmen'. So Johns seems to not only see that old work as relevant, but he seems to feel the victim of it.
Personally, I disagree. I see this as cashing in on the continuing interest in Watchmen, but there he and I disagree.
But, whether you like his work on not, to simply dismiss Moore as irrelevant for the last 20 years just doesn't seem factual. Given how much has even been made of his old work in the last 20 years, not to mention his work since. Though, to be fair, you and I might define "relevance" differently.
There is a difference in doing so against the stated wishes of a still-living author.
I respect that some don't see a difference there, I do.
It doesn't mean that Moore and Gibbons shouldn't have been smarter about the deals they signed, they should have.
But to me, there is a false equivalency in guessing what a long dead H. G. Welles or Oscar Wilde might think, and knowing what a living author prefers.
Which is why LOEG takes part in a longstanding literary tradition of borrowing from sources that are old enough, and whose authors are dead enough, to make things feel fair game (and, in many cases, even public domain).
Publishing prequels to other, still-living authors work, to be racked along side them by the same publisher, with the same trade dress? I think that is a pretty different thing than, say, putting Captain Nemo into a comic almost 100 years after Jules Verne dies, and that comic doesn't even have "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" in the title. I don't there will be any confusion among readers which is the "real" Nemo, and which are later authors playing around with a classic character.
PS- What Ellison works are you talking about regarding Moore?
Regardless, long literary tradition or not, Moore has been quoted to decry creators that are so unoriginal as to need to reference or build off of his work? Those works that in turn build off of the works of others? That's a kettle of the same color as the pot.
Also, I would be interested to see where Moore actually decried the idea that no authors should build on classic ideas or characters of the past.
The only quotes I can remember making the rounds, that people tried to make some hypocrisy hay of at the time, were these bits in relation to Blackest Night.
But I think what I am seeing in that quote is not a belief that there is never a reason for people to play with existing ideas or classic characters. Rather, he was surprised that a whole DC crossover seemed to be getting made out of a 7 or 8 page strip he'd done in the early '80s that he felt wasn't even very good. There is a difference between making use of classic, genre-defining literary characters from the past two centuries... and making sure that every last idea to be found in those Collected DC Stories of Alan Moore trades are still being put to use somewhere in the DCU, given how many other great creators are already working there.
Now, what is unfair in his statements-and I am not saying his responses to these questions are always fair, civil, or polite- is that he hasn't read these comics. He is going off of hearsay. But unless there is some quotes somewhere else where he takes a stand against ever making use of classic characters, then I personally don't see the equivalency, or the hypocrisy. Though I respect that others do.
Of course, Batman wasn't actually in Man of Steel. I wouldn't say talking about Watchmen, or Moore, is off-topic from Rebirth. Johns chose to make it relevant, for all that he is supposedly wanting to get away from that particular legacy.
Well... as I would tell Geoff Johns, if what he really wanted to do was to get the DCU out from the 'shadow of Watchmen', then maybe the best bet would have been to not put Watchmen in it, you know what I mean? I think if he hadn't, I would be very surprised if Moore's name would have even come up.
What I'm saying is that Moore's opinion on mainstream comics isn't relevant today, and hasn't been for a long time, because he doesn't write mainstream comics any more. He only writes weird esoteric stuff that absolutely no one reads or thinks is very good.
M
The weird part is DC didn’t even have to use the Watchmen cast. Grant Morrison set it up perfectly in his Multiversity series - whose stated purpose was to tell a story while also creating new playgrounds for future stories. The point was to actually allow other creators to use the toys he left behind. Mutliversity‘s one shots took place on different parallel worlds, where a single threat being faced in the two bookend issues was having various effects on the heroes and villains of those respective worlds. One of those one-shots, Pax Americana, was set on Earth 4, home of the Charlton characters.
Yep, the same Charlton characters Alan Moore originally wanted to use for Watchmen but was denied. So he made new characters, knock-offs of the originals. Morrison’s Earth 4 was essentially an homage to Watchmen. Artist Frank Quietly even did some very Watchmen-esque layouts. Did the DC editors even pay attention to it?
Anyone notice who Captain Atom looked like in that one-shot? DC could have told the same story with those characters without dragging the characters of Watchmen into the DCU.