PDA

View Full Version : huge DC comics news



Dominic Guglieme
01-17-2007, 10:28 PM
This is enormous DC comics news that broke today.


As you all know, I am not one to hype this sort of thing. But, if this is accurate, and DC follows through, it could be the biggest editorial shift at the company in 20+ years.





Somebody over at comicbookresources.com credits newsarama for this. Hot freakin' dang!


the multiverse is back
DC Nation: #44
January 17, 2007
This column often hints at many essential facts, but some secrets are ever important to conceal in our retention of the element of surprise. Therefore, above all objections, our one foremost thought is finally recognized and imaginatively coming to fruition. Right here this stands before you, the heart thumping meaning to what waits at our awe-inspired ending is about to see light. So that there is hardly any confusion, a code was transcribed, one easily translated as a harbinger of facts essential to those multitudes who have unilaterally followed the lives of our tenacious heroes from introduction to their various adventures and efforts. We have rallied around these said heroes, whose existence is the stuff of legend. This column's prime information is to let anyone who loves 52 have essential information to x-ecute a very informed opinion to select simply all the clues for summation.
So there you have it, the secret of 52. All you need to know about the stunning conclusion to our groundbreaking series is stated clearly in the paragraph above. Of course it doesn't touch upon the heartwrenching conclusion to Ralph Dibny's journey, the ramifications of World War Three or the ultimate fate of the space team, but it does give you an essential key to the direction of the DC Universe for the foreseeable future and where many future stories lie.
decoding from newsarama forums in talk
part 1
Okay, so here's what you do. Take every third word, and you get this:
This hints essential some ever conceal retention element therefore objections foremost finally imaginatively fruition this you thumping what our is see that hardly a transcribed translated harbinger essential multitudes unilaterally lives tenacious introduction various efforts rallied said existence stuff this information let loves essential x-ecute informed select the summation
Part 2
Now take the first letter of each word, and you get this:
"The secret of fifty two is that the multiverse still exists"

Rocketboy
01-18-2007, 12:06 AM
What the hell is the multiverse?

darthvyn
01-18-2007, 10:30 AM
and if you play it backwards, it says "paul is dead".

El Chuxter
01-18-2007, 10:58 AM
They just can't let Earth-2 die, can they?

I'm sure that makes Daibolical, viynsane, jjraeson, Rogue II, and CaptianSolo1138 very happy.

Sorry, inside joke, couldn't resist.

Dominic Guglieme
01-18-2007, 11:48 AM
multiverse= any and all alternate time-lines and such in a franchise



The original Crisis on Infinite Earths was a bold experiment. But, as proven by the full reboot and floundering of Superman in the late 80s, it was a failure. Be it a single cohesive timeline, or a multiverse, editorial discipline is important.

Bringing back the multiple Earths may keep sloppy editors mistakes from getting so far out of control. Or, it could make a bigger mess.


One possible outcome would be to give each Earth a seperate editorial policy. For example, Earth 2 would be written in one style, Earth X another. I do not mean aesthetics and contextual minutia, but in terms of tone and quality. Mindless action or pretense at maturity on Earth Ennis, with straight forward comics on Earth Dixon. Self-indulgent nostalgia on Earth Waid. Idea based comics on......erm, does DC have any idea based writers.......


Hmmm.....mayber a "real-time" Earth?

Kidhuman
01-18-2007, 11:56 AM
They just can't let Earth-2 die, can they?

I'm sure that makes Daibolical, viynsane, jjraeson, Rogue II, and CaptianSolo1138 very happy.

Sorry, inside joke, couldn't resist.


What about K1dhuman, arnaky and El Chuxter?



Sorry, continuing the inside joke, couldn't resist.

El Chuxter
01-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Idea based comics on......erm, does DC have any idea based writers.......

There were Denny O'Neil, Neil Gaiman, and Alan Moore, back in the day.

So this is the third time they've tried to fix all the massive problems brought about by having all these multiple earths, and they've given up less than a year later (or planned to have it secretly fail all along)?

Marvel doesn't need an Ultimate Universe nearly as bad as DC does. And I don't mean the half-baked "All-Star" line, either. That universe needs a total reboot, maybe with an editorial team systematically going through past stories and saying, "This one happened. This one didn't." It's the biggest mess imaginable, as demonstrated by the Identity Crisis mini-series.

JetsAndHeels
01-18-2007, 06:05 PM
Ok, so down to the real heart of the matter here..what does this mean for Superman?

Bel-Cam Jos
01-18-2007, 07:20 PM
Ok, so down to the real heart of the matter here.. Forgiveness, forgiveness. Even if, even if, you don't love me anymore.

What? This wasn't the "Quick Question: Don Henley" thread. Dang!

Having alternate worlds is a tough pill to swallow, when you're trying to make a story "fresh" that's 70+ years old. :tired:

JediTricks
01-18-2007, 07:29 PM
I had read months ago that Infinite Crisis and 52 were going to lead back into the multiverse (well, they said it was going to basically reverse Crisis on Infinite Earths which did away with the multiverse), so I'm not entirely surprised. That said, I am not a current reader, but damn if I don't hate this idea with every core of my being. The DC multiverse was the sloppiest, most ridiculous, underwhelming, cheapest cop-out ever when they were really going full-bore. Superman dead? Just get a replacement! Lex Luthor too evil? His Earth-Two version is 30% less evil, he'll just fall through time and space to replace the one we can't write for anymore. Supergirl doesn't exist? I'm sure we've got one in the back we can let you have. The multiverse was good for 1 thing - taking the stupendous amount of fragmented character histories that didn't work within the canon and bringing them back into the fold - and that's no longer necessary.

The problem is that the multiverse idea is alright in of itself, it keeps the older material alive without contradicting current canon, but instead of treating it like a retirement home, the writers use it like a rival high school with everybody visiting from time to time making it a gimmick to cheat the reader.

Dominic Guglieme
01-18-2007, 08:18 PM
There were Denny O'Neil, Neil Gaiman, and Alan Moore, back in the day.

So this is the third time they've tried to fix all the massive problems brought about by having all these multiple earths, and they've given up less than a year later (or planned to have it secretly fail all along)?

Marvel doesn't need an Ultimate Universe nearly as bad as DC does. And I don't mean the half-baked "All-Star" line, either. That universe needs a total reboot, maybe with an editorial team systematically going through past stories and saying, "This one happened. This one didn't." It's the biggest mess imaginable, as demonstrated by the Identity Crisis mini-series.


Okay, so many problems. :rolleyes:

I think O'Neil is dead. (Is he? I am thinking he is. But, I may be wrong here.) Len "To Kill a Legend" Wein has done some good, some bad on this front. Gaiman does in fact have his moments. Moore is the most pretensious man in comics. He writes self-referential parody and polemnics more than anything else. ("To Kill a Legend" by Wein tackled in a single issue much of what Moore dragged out in Watchmen's 12 issue run.)


And, while a total reboot is good in theory, it has to be good in practice.

DC had the kind of editorial discipline you are talking about, for about 2 years in the mid-80s. They did a cold reboot of a number of titles. They did the whole "this counts, this does not" type of editing.

And, it all fell apart.

The discipline you are talking about needs to be, and never in the history of the industry has been, maintained. Look at JT's examples of why a multiverse is bad. They all come down to lax editing standards. DC has had flashes of brilliance. (I miss the early 90s. Hyped Superman death aside, there was some really good stuff out there.)

If nothing else, I would prefer a badly edited multiverse to a badly edited coherent set of rules.


But, I am buying into a theory I saw on Howling Curmudgeons months back. Basically, the turn DC took in early '05 was a bit of "performance art" to show how bad things have gotten. Hence, Sue Dibny is raped and murdered. Mary Marvel gets the most sophmoric depowering in comics history. Blue Beetle takes a bullet in the head. Booster Gold dies stupidly.

Booster is back, in a very Silver Age way. Blue Beetle seems to be back. Animalman died and came back in the space of an issue. (Just where are the surviving original Freedom Fighters, Ray and Dollman? They are not in the current series, and Ray met an obscured fate in IC.) The Silver Age Mon-El/Valor is back in Legion. (The post CoIE Mon-El died just before Zero Hour.)

Heck, Emerals Twilight may as well have not happened. For all we know, another big time-hiccup, and it will not have happened. Maybe Mirrormaster being a coke-head will be retconned. Maybe the recent "Supergirl is a filthy slut" arc will be wiped out?

There is a real chance this will be worth reading.

Rocketboy
01-19-2007, 01:16 AM
I still don't understand what all this is about, but it sounds worse that the way Civil War is going.

El Chuxter
01-19-2007, 10:51 AM
If O'Neil is dead, it just happened and no one's been informed yet. He's retired, but that doesn't mean he wasn't good "back in the day."

For Gaiman, if "moments" can be used to refer to the entire run of Sandman, I think most writers would kill for a billionth of a nanosecond.

Moore: while I'm not going to argue about his pretentiousness for a moment, does that negate his accomplishments? Even if he'd never written Watchmen, wouldn't classic stories like "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" or his run on Swamp Thing still cement his place in comics history? Hell, The Killing Joke alone is more than most comics scribes will accomplish in their entire lifetimes. (If nothing else, he deserves a medal for taking Batgirl out of the picture.)

A bit off subject, but you hate Moore, seem mildly indifferent to O'Neil, find Ennis to be moronic, think Furman is spotty, believe Gaiman has "his moments," and probably wouldn't pee on Hama were he on fire. I'm rather curious who you'd say are the "great" writers of comics, past and present.

Dominic Guglieme
01-19-2007, 02:10 PM
If O'Neil is dead, it just happened and no one's been informed yet. He's retired, but that doesn't mean he wasn't good "back in the day."

For Gaiman, if "moments" can be used to refer to the entire run of Sandman, I think most writers would kill for a billionth of a nanosecond.

Moore: while I'm not going to argue about his pretentiousness for a moment, does that negate his accomplishments? Even if he'd never written Watchmen, wouldn't classic stories like "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" or his run on Swamp Thing still cement his place in comics history? Hell, The Killing Joke alone is more than most comics scribes will accomplish in their entire lifetimes. (If nothing else, he deserves a medal for taking Batgirl out of the picture.)

A bit off subject, but you hate Moore, seem mildly indifferent to O'Neil, find Ennis to be moronic, think Furman is spotty, believe Gaiman has "his moments," and probably wouldn't pee on Hama were he on fire. I'm rather curious who you'd say are the "great" writers of comics, past and present.

If O'Neil is alive, great. If he is still able to right, better still.

"What-ever Happened to the Man of Tommorow" is probably the first example of deliberate and over fan-wank in post Crisis DC. It was not bad, but really, it was a gimme job. It was the comics equivalent of patronage. Anyone could do the job, but not everyone knows the editor. And, I have read most, if not all, of his Swamp-thing run. It goes south after a time.

Gaiman is far to much a humanist. He has his moments yes. But, for the most part, he is far too humanist and/or trying too hard to be the benign cynic. Morrison is not too far different.


Contrary to what you think, I do not hate Hama. But, I do not think of him as a master. His plots are contrived if nothing else.

And, I may wind up down-grading Furman from "spotty" to "crappy", I dunno. Get back to me after Escalation ends.

I do like Dan Abnett. He does pretty well, and with a wide range of characters. Dixon is at least competant.

Before reading "Syndicate Rules", I would have said Kurt Busiek. But, he got stupidly political with that one (ref: Batman sounding off like a NeoCon). So, so much for that.

I remember David Michelinie's work as being excellent. (He as much as Mark Gruenwald hooked me on Marvel as a kid, even before I learned to look for writers.)

Hell, Mark Gruenwald *was* great. I still miss him.

And, what the heck, Jim Starlin. Yes, his work can be redundant, but darned if it is not a good place to start at any time.


Back on topic: Civil War is dressed up noise. This change at DC is likely a real shift in editorial direction.

jjreason
01-19-2007, 05:35 PM
It's all more "everything old is new again" bs. I'm sick of everyone working in every area of every business dragging up the old stuff as inspiration for the new (except for Caesar digging up old threads, mind you - that's comedic gold).

Retro-Nouveau has GOT to stop somewhere. :upset:

There is nothing - NOTHING - in comics, even the most classic stories, that can't be undone by some meddling, middle-aged & bored executive that desperately needs one bright idea to sell books in this floundering new-comic market.

Why the **** can't people just leave the good stuff alone out of respect to the original creators? New comics are pretty to look at, and interesting to read a small fraction of the time..... but it's ALL been done before.

RB - I'm no DC fan, but they used to have a bunch of different earths, each with a different set of heroes. The Superman from one planet would interact with his counterpart from other earths from time to time, to illustrate how this situation might be used in a story arc. In the 1980s George Perez drew (and I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember who wrote - Marv Wolfman?) a 10 issue limited series called "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" which did away with all but one earth in the DC universe. Many classic heroes died, including the original Supergirl and the Silver Age Flash. It was done for the purposes of rebooting their continuity, so they could restart a bunch of core titles and try to tighten things up a little bit (in my opinion, make their universe more like Marvel's - which was working a lot better back in those days). I think most people would say it worked, for a time. Now, like everything else in mainstream comics, it would appear that this great story needs to be made a moot point, to make way for something else completely mundane and uneventful (that the industry will hype until there's no tomorrow). Too bad, really.

Dominic Guglieme
01-19-2007, 06:28 PM
I agree with most of that, but for a few points. Some of those points being informational.

Wolfman did in fact write CoIE. But, it was 12, not 10 issues.


More importantly, it was not a "great" story by any stretch. I re-read it recently. To be honest, it is rather tedious and event driven. While efficient by today's standards, it is objectively decompressed and event driven. Crisis was noteworthy largely because it was the first time that a story had been set to the editing process.

And, editing to story has been done since, more efficiently. (Say what you will about "Zero Hour", but it was very efficiently handled.)

Unless you are a huge fan of Perez or Wolfman unto themselves, (and I am a huge Perez fan), there is nothing special about Crisis that was not done (probably better) since.

Yes, DC has definetly taken to undoing itself a bit more than it should. But, in this case, what they are undoing are a series of edits that, for the most part, have not delivered on what was promised. There were alternate timelines within a year or 2, in both Superman and Justice League. Characters who simply should have been wiped out stuck around with clumsily tweaked origins.

If DC pulls out of the morasse it has been in over recent years, I will be pefectly happy to see CoIE undone.

jjreason
01-20-2007, 09:04 AM
It falls into the scope of "great" stories in my mind, Dom, just because of what they did with it and because of the art. It was done to effect long-term change at DC (which it did). I don't care about DC at all, but this is just another example of idiot comic book executives and their "nothing is sacred" mentality - cashing in on shock value at the expense of years of established continuity. Bucky Barnes, Jean Grey and Mar Vell (who's to be brought back to life here shortly) are 3 other examples of people just not leaving well enough alone (just so it doesn't look like I'm hacking on DC only).

I'm really not sure what I should do at this point. I've been buying new comics for so long, and have so many "runs" in place that I don't want to sacrifice - but I'm really starting to get sour with the repetitiveness, and with the refusal leave the "sacred" things alone.

JediTricks
01-20-2007, 06:26 PM
"What-ever Happened to the Man of Tommorow" is probably the first example of deliberate and over fan-wank in post Crisis DC. It was not bad, but really, it was a gimme job. It was the comics equivalent of patronage. Anyone could do the job, but not everyone knows the editor. And, I have read most, if not all, of his Swamp-thing run. It goes south after a time. Any comic that kills Lana, Jimmy, and Mr Mxyzptlk can't be all that bad. :p I dunno if it's "fan-wank" just because the wrapped up all supes' rogues gallery guys, is it pandering to the fans to wrap up the pre-Crisis Superman tales of Superman? It actually gives Superman a story arc with an ending after all, that's pretty much the opposite of fan-wank, though I will admit bringing the Legion in, and killing Bizarro and Lex and Brainiac is a tad close to fan-wankery but at least it's tying itself up with a real reason and a real antagonist behind it.



In the 1980s George Perez drew (and I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember who wrote - Marv Wolfman?) a 10 issue limited series called "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" which did away with all but one earth in the DC universe.It says right on the top of the book, "12 PART MAXI-SERIES" :p (sorry dom, didn't see your post till after I typed that)


It was done for the purposes of rebooting their continuity, so they could restart a bunch of core titles and try to tighten things up a little bit (in my opinion, make their universe more like Marvel's - which was working a lot better back in those days). I think most people would say it worked, for a time. Now, like everything else in mainstream comics, it would appear that this great story needs to be made a moot point, to make way for something else completely mundane and uneventful (that the industry will hype until there's no tomorrow). Too bad, really.You are right, it was to be more like Marvel's universe. Most folks I know feel it didn't work because DC's editors didn't engage the changes in all the regular titles at once, it took almost a year, so Superman would be a post-crisis title while Green Lantern might still be a pre-crisis title even though they'd exist in the same universe as each other so pre-crisis GL's story would have to exist in post-crisis Superman's story. As it says on Wikipedia:

The character of Hawkman was one of the most problematic, as the new version did not appear until 1989; this raised questions about the "Hawkman" who had been operating with the post-Crisis heroes since 1986. Similar problems faced the Legion of Super-Heroes, which had been affected by the removal of Superboy from DC continuity; successive attempts to "repair" it were implemented.

El Chuxter
01-21-2007, 12:23 AM
Hawkman should be totally forgotten. He does not work. Period.

Hawkgirl on the JL cartoon isn't half-bad, though. But she should never exist outside that particular continuity.

JediTricks
01-21-2007, 04:17 AM
Hawkgirl on the JL cartoon isn't half-bad, though. But she should never exist outside that particular continuity.And she doesn't, not that version of her anyway, not since the silver age.