Talk here about just about anything associated with British comics or story papers and the industry that does not fit in any other forum.
There are separate fora open to registered members for discussing specific comics, artists, websites etc.
chrissmillie wrote:I think Blue Beetle was due to a copyright issue. The previous one was actually public domain due to being a golden-age character, whilst the new one is a different character/design. Mind you, it (and so many others) are only officially public domain in the USA, even though they are distributed in the UK (whereas Conan is PD in the UK but not in the US).
No, the Dan Garret Blue Beetle was possibly public domain, but the second version (Ted Kord) never was-he was created in the sixties by Charlton and then sold to DC. Actually, it's arguable that Charlton's 'Dan Garrett' Blue Beetle was a different character from the Fox/Holyoake GA version anyway; different spelling, different origin, revised costume...
I don't see that this is necessarily a jumping-off point. The amount of comics around makes it so difficult to follow a title that I do think there's an argument for re-starting the universe occasionally. Crisis on Infinite Earths was great. Infinite Crisis was confusing rubbish.
But it's not confusing if you're an existing reader of thirty years standing, since you've followed the continuity. What incentive do those readers have to start from scratch?
chrissmillie wrote:
I don't see that this is necessarily a jumping-off point. The amount of comics around makes it so difficult to follow a title that I do think there's an argument for re-starting the universe occasionally.
There're still going to be 52, though!
Are they really likely to be any less impenetrable to brand new readers (or even some longtime readers!) than they are today - or any more affordable to keep up with?
Are they going to drop the multiple issue crossovers, where people have to buy lots of expensive titles to simply complete or understand a story? Will they drop the post-Watchmen depressing nihilism and violence that have taken these comics so far from when they had an almost universal appeal and popularity?
There are various reasons why sales are collapsing and I don't think restarting everything from issue one addresses them; it just seems another gimmick event, with 52 issue ones in one month flooding the market.
Last edited by Raven on 05 Jun 2011, 23:22, edited 2 times in total.
Given the mess DC have made of the Charlton Action Heroes it's a shame they didn't give Alan Moore the green light to use them in his original conception of Watchmen. At least they'd have gone out in a true blaze of glory (unlike the gratuitously sensational death of poor old Ted Kord! ).
And now I see they're making the same dog's dinner of THUNDER Agents...!
- Phil Rushton
(Incidentally I can't help but feel that the decision to make their stories available for instant download may yet turn out to be the most important aspect of the new policy.)
tony ingram wrote:
But it's not confusing if you're an existing reader of thirty years standing, since you've followed the continuity. What incentive do those readers have to start from scratch?
Speaking as an old DC Comics reader who stopped following them because of too many crossovers and impenetrable event issues I'll be picking up some of these relaunches. Perhaps that's DC's plan; to bring back readers they've lost with the paper comics and appeal to younger readers through the digital versions?
We'll know more when the comics appear but I hope they don't jump straight into crossovers. They need to do stand-alone series, not expect people to buy a dozen different titles to follow the plot. And the title character needs to be seen to be doing things within the issue, not a story where the title character doesn't appear until the final page as a cliffhanger to issue 2.
Lew Stringer wrote:They need to do stand-alone series, not expect people to buy a dozen different titles to follow the plot. And the title character needs to be seen to be doing things within the issue, not a story where the title character doesn't appear until the final page as a cliffhanger to issue 2.
I agree. Given that People might be tempted to pick up a Green Lantern comic for the first time after seeing the new film they're much more likely to become regular readers if it stands on its own merits without years of impenetrable backstory. (Come to think of it I seem to remember that Crisis on Infinite Earths was originally intended to relaunch the entire line with new number ones for the same reason)
I'm cautiously optimistic about the DC relaunch. There are some things I'll miss (does this mean Grant Morrison's 24-issue plan for Batman Inc has been cut short, for example?) but it's also a great way to clear out the crap and - yes - to pull in new readers. Hell, as someone who makes the trip to his LCS most weeks, even I wouldn't know where to start with most DC books.
To the readers complaining that 30+ years of continuity are going down the swannee - I hear you. But comics aren't - and can't be - just for people who've been reading for several decades. The relaunch plus day-and-date digital issues COULD well bring in da kidz who've just seen the Green Lantern movie and want more. A few clicks on their iPhone and - presto! - a new GL story to enjoy, and one that's not saddled with years of confusing backstory that would confuse a quantum physicist.
Er, Green Lantern appears to be about the only title not being touched (aside from the renumbering), and since it's in the middle of a storyline, it will still be totally impenetrable to new readers...
Jay wrote:DC are always 'rebooting' their universe but I can't imagine them starting Action Comics and Detective Comics afresh from No.1. Detective Comics must be the longest running comic in the world right?
877 monthly issues, as of the July 2011 issue. As Tony said, Detective Comics is the longest running in terms of time - but in terms of number of issues, I think it's Commando.
Well, I bought #1 & 2 of Flashpoint (you might well think MUG) but it looked intriguing. Then in #2, the reader discovers that this is a completely different world, one, I am assured by serious DC fans, which will be the template for the new DC universe. Aquaman at war with W.W. and the Amazons (who, by the way are in charge in G.B.). And the world off to hell in a handcart.
I could care less about W.W. and Arthur (if this is still the original Arthur Curry) but it would be a task. I really don't want to know any more and so, I'm thinking about jumping off. Especially having had a glimpse of those awful, new, Jim Lee designed costumes.
As for the digital releases, will younger, tech savvy kids really want this? A G.L. movie will be more likely to shunt them to the video game. And disposable incomes will reduce for the majority in the next couple of years, so, a game or a comic? Not a real choice for younger punters.
To all of you who suggested a return to newstand, great idea and one which wont happen, in my opinion. Were it to happen, I'd also like to add to that, a return to newsprint, rather than that glossy paper we have now which can stick to the fingers, is easily marked and crumpled and reflects light thereby making it less comfortable to read. There is definately an argument to be made for newsprint style, cheaper comics and one part of that is that they are not flash. Or is it that I grew up with American and British comics which were cheap and printed on low quality paper. Didn't affect the content, after all, we're just after praising the content of many Charlton titles, which were printed on poor paper and were more like thin pulps than comics.
Yes, I'm glad DC didn't get their hands on E-Man. They're messing up Thunder Agents and I noticed in Previews that Justice Machine is back, fortunately not at DC.
paw broon wrote:
To all of you who suggested a return to newstand, great idea and one which wont happen, in my opinion. Were it to happen, I'd also like to add to that, a return to newsprint, rather than that glossy paper we have now which can stick to the fingers, is easily marked and crumpled and reflects light thereby making it less comfortable to read. There is definately an argument to be made for newsprint style, cheaper comics and one part of that is that they are not flash.
Agree with most of that. As for newsprint, I think you have to have a large print quantity to make it feasible as the print process is different, but I may be mistaken.
Even if they switched to cheaper paper I don't think the logistics would allow prices to drop as overheads such as retail costs, distribution etc would remain the same. Ideally, keeping the price the same, using cheaper paper, and doubling the pages might provide a more attractive value-for-money package.
However, I understand that the thin glossy stock DC and Marvel use is cheaper than heavier matt stock anyway so they're already cutting costs.
Lew, I think you could be correct. I hadn't taken volume into account. Thinking about British newspapers, especially the lower circulation ones, I'd also forgotten that they publish 6/7 days a week, or with weeklies, many companies have a number of publications. I suppose with the days of huge comic print runs long gone, there aren't the economies of scale available. Newsprint certainly used to be relatively cheap and even now, with the huge hikes in cost of recent years, it still must be cheaper than a glossy stock, or newspaper publishers would switch. It would be good if anyone on here had a sound knowledge of the subject and could share it.
I think I'll go and sniff a few old comics pages - ust for the nostalgia, you understand.
Marvel at least, in the past, have indicated that the high prices (especially the $3.99 regular comics) are also related to the prices they have to pay to secure the "superstar" writer and artist talent. A big mistake, I think, that creators can be considered to be bigger and more important than the long-lived comics and iconic characters themselves; it leads to that kind of egotism where this year's most hip/notorious writer or team demands carte blanche to rewrite the canon in their own image; to kill off the big stars and/or reinvent them; to crank up the nihilism and violence; to try to wipe out everything that's gone before them and create the new universe. Which can take these characters further away from their roots and established models of success and popularity.
Not a lot to disagree with there, Raven. I really got fed up with the likes of Millar and Morrison changing for the sake of change and thinking they were smart and edgy. I don't need my superhero comics to be so controversial, sweary, horribly adult, etcetera. Of course, Byrne started this years ago when he decided he knew better than enyone else how Superman should be done.
paw broon wrote: Of course, Byrne started this years ago when he decided he knew better than enyone else how Superman should be done.
Good example of "the year's hot writer/artist" being treated as more important than the company's most universal icon there, paw. To be poached from Marvel, he got a Superman reboot, everything that had gone before now changed, and the Superman comic itself renumbered from issue one after fifty years (Adventures of Superman taking over the old numbering).
I recall one particularly unpleasant example of that kind of egotism being Grant Morrison reviving the likes of the Leopard of Lime Street and Steel Claw, to be maimed and killed in Zenith. The big ego seemingly must destroy what's gone before; not that these characters might actually have meant something to anyone.
Last edited by Raven on 06 Jun 2011, 17:19, edited 2 times in total.
paw broon wrote: Of course, Byrne started this years ago when he decided he knew better than enyone else how Superman should be done.
Good example of "the year's hot writer/artist" being treated as more important than the comic's most universal icon there, paw. To be poached from Marvel, he got a Superman reboot, everything that had gone before now changed, and the Superman comic itself renumbered from issue one after fifty years (Adventures of Superman taking over the old numbering).
I recall one particularly unpleasant example of that kind of egotism being Grant Morrison reviving the likes of the Leopard of Lime Street and Steel Claw, to be maimed and killed in Zenith. The big ego seemingly must destroy what's gone before; not that these characters might actually have meant something to anyone.
Actually, I look at the Zenith situation completely differently: like Alan moore in Captain Britain before him, and indeed Leah Moore, John Reppion and Shane Oakley in Albion years later, Morrison basically brought those characters back because they meant something to him, and it seemed the only way they were ever likely to be seen in print again. Sad, but true.
