The Four Color Media Monitor

Dan DiDio is interviewed by Captain Comics in the Comics Buyer's Guide, and channels some of the same sentiments that his beloved writer-for-hire, Brad Meltzer did in some of his own interviews. Let's see what we have here. For starters, here's the writer's own intro, as fluffcoated as can be:

Before joining DC in January 2002, DiDio’s career had been in television and computer animation. From CBS to Mainframe Entertainment, with a number of stops in between, DiDio has developed a variety of shows, from daytime dramas to children’s programming, and served as a story editor, scriptwriter, public relations manager, and as a vice president of creative affairs at Mainframe, overseeing development, distribution, marketing, and promotions. Some of the programs he’s been associated with include Tales from the Cryptkeeper, After School Specials, Hypernauts, and Weird-Ohs.

But none of that experience was in publishing, which makes his three years at DC all the more impressive. In that time he’s been considered the driving force behind a number of well-received projects at DC, including the re-launch of Outsiders and Teen Titans, the revamp of the Green Lantern franchise, and last year’s groundbreaking Identity Crisis.

Now comes the jewel in the crown, Infinite Crisis. This massive company crossover will redefine many of DC’s major and minor characters, and set the direction for the DCU for years to come by leaping all the characters a year ahead at the end, with the back story filled in with a weekly, one-year series called 52. Reason enough to have a conversation with him, wouldn’t you say?

Not really. And despite the date Capt. Comics cites as when DiDio joined, I think he'd actually been with them a bit longer, or earlier, than 2002. And Identity Crap was well-received, you say? Tell me about it. Because truly, it's only the Main-Stream Media sources Capt. Comics comes from that receive it as well as he claims.

Now, here's where DiDio take about the same misleading route Meltzer took in some of his own interviews:

CBG: Why is the superhero genre exploding in popularity?

DiDio: Wow, you go right to the heart of it right from the start! (Laughs.)
It’s a great question. It’s a sign of the times. As I like to say, what we’re gearing our books to -- because we tell superhero stories – (is) the concept of what a hero is today. And the heroics of the average person, everything from Sept. 11 to soldiers in Iraq, creates the need … the inherent desire of people to see those stories (of) people fighting against the odds and trying to achieve for a greater good. And in these days I think there’s a desire on everybody’s behalf to help out. We’re just a reflection of those times. And I think what we do is we tell stories on a fantasy level, but I think they still resonate with people on a common level.

You don't say. Nor do you say, and certainly don't admit, that Identity Crisis was intended as an allegorical attack on supporters of the war against terrorism and the raid on Iraq, as an earlier newspaper article I dissected here pretty much shows.

That said, DiDio actually did make his own positions clear back in early 2005 in an interview with Newsarama, where the following exchange of dialogue was given:

NRAMA: Where did the desire for a shift in tonality within the DCU come from?

DD: A lot of this actually came following September 11th. After everything that occurred in New York City, I was coming to work at DC, and going through the Port Authority. At that time, you would walk into the Port Authority, and you would have National Guardsmen standing there with machine guns. He’s standing there holding his machine gun, and is supposed to be making me feel better and more protected, but somehow, that gave me a greater sense of dread – it put me more on edge.

NRAMA: It brings the danger to a visible point…

DD: Absolutely. Honestly, when I looked at that, I felt that was an attitude that we had to bring to our heroes. There should be two reactions when a superhero walks into a room. The first reaction is, “Oh shit, they’re here for something,” and the second reaction is, “Oh shit, I hope they’re not here for me.” No one should be taking a step forward to pat them on the back – they should be taking a step backward, thinking, “Something bad is about to happen here.”

DiDio may have been resorting to "scare tactics" of his own to annoy the fans back then, but what's really damaging in his words here is the incredible political correctness for PC's sake he's employing: in other words, he's saying that having security personnel around attracts menace like a magnet to the pole, not keeps it away, is that it?

What a shame that DiDio apparently does not seem to have any thanks to his country's army for trying to protect his life from more such attacks. That aside, what's really appalling is that this seems to have become a leading precedent for how people in showbiz approach entertainment as of recent, which not only takes away a lot of ability to enjoy the finished product, but also reduces a considerable amount of creativity as well. Something that's got to stop.

Let's get back to the CBG interview now. Next in the text:

CBG: Is that reflected in sales?

DiDio: Yes, we’ve been seeing an increase in sales, and an increase in excitement and an increase in an understanding of who our characters and what their purposes are and what they serve.

Ambiguity at its finest, I'm afraid. Logic suggests that increase in sales comes more from trade paperback sales, not standard monthly pamphlets. And while I don't know about excitement, I do have to question what he says about understandings of the characters, their purposes, and what they serve. Because words alone don't prove it.

CBG: Do you think the public has any trouble differentiating between those various interpretations in different media?

DiDio: None whatsoever. I think that variety is the spice of life. And we try to show different interpretations of our characters just in the publishing alone. I think that everything just adds to the allure and the strength of what we’re doing.

What's hilarious about the above is that it's being asked by someone who's a MSM journalist himself, and considering that he doesn't seem to have any genuine problems with IC and what it did, it's funny he should ask a question like that. Less funny, however, is DiDio's decidedly naive reply.

CBG: Let me ask about this “new tonality” you referred to -- was there something wrong with the old tonality that needed fixing?

DiDio: No… (there’s always) a point where you need to re-examine and refocus, and contemporize stories as you go forward. Our characters have been in existence, a number of those characters, from the ‘30s and ‘40s. The fact that they exist today is a testament to the strength of those characters, and what we need to do is always find ways to create stories that can attract a new audience. And bring people in. We’ve always walked that fine line of trying to create stories that not only attract new people or excite today’s fans, but also appeal to and satisfy our older fans.

Well, Mr. DiDio, that's certainly saying a lot, but the truth is that it's easier said than done. And while bringing in new fans is something everybody's in favor of doing, what's not welcomed or appropriate is pandering to low denominators, as Identity Crisis did with the pointless, tasteless violence and vulgarity it featured, such as in the rape of Sue Dibny and in the clash with Deathstroke, who was in the book based solely on popularity as a character in image, not because he added to the "story" that was being foisted upon the unsuspecting audience.

Not that any of this matters to Capt. Comics, however, as the following indicates:

CBG: Let’s talk about those new people. One of the few complaints I read about Infinite Crisis is that issue #1 was inaccessible to new readers. But the people I see complaining about that usually aren’t new readers -- they’re older fans. The actual new readers don’t seem to mind. So my question is, do you agree or disagree with those who say every comic book has to be written like a primer, even one that specifically deals with history and continuity?

DiDio: One of my all-time favorite questions. Let me turn it back on you. What was your first comic?

CBG: Uhh … gosh, that’s a tough one. Something on papyrus, I imagine, or cave paintings.

DiDio: Anybody who asks me if comics are inaccessible I ask them what their first comic was.

Okay, so it appears that DiDio is basically trying to change the subject, in a manner of speaking. But if Infinite is inaccessible to newbies, what about Identity, then? With only so many forced, out-of-character presentations, one would surely expect an explanation for that, no?

That aside, what's dismaying about the above is that it obscures some fairly valid points that can be made regarding either miniseries, in that, were there really any new readers taking to Identity in 2004, and even Infinite now, to begin with? I seem to remember that such claims were made on Identity when it was being published, but now, you don't even hear about that anymore, and it's pretty apparent by now that if there's anyone DC is trying to appeal to, it's otherwise just the currently existing fanbase, not the people who are new to the scene.

CBG: I see where you’re going. OK, in terms of this conversation then, I’ll say I do remember reading the original “Crisis on Earth-One” and “Crisis on Earth-Two” when they came out in 1963, and wondering who those Justice Society guys were, and being excited about them. I wasn’t turned off because I didn’t know them; I just wanted to know more about them. And that led me to buying Showcase with Dr. Fate and Hourman, and Flash team-ups, and anything I could get my hands on to find out more about them.

DiDio: Everything you just said, use for my quote, and we’re done. (Laughter) There’s your answer.

You know what it was for me? I bought comics sporadically. Just here and there. I read a lot of the anthology books, the horror books that DC Comics put out, because I enjoyed them. But when I was sampling superhero stuff, one of the ones that made the most impression on me, the one that made me a person who wanted to buy and read more, was Avengers #100. Why? Because it had the most characters on the cover, and it seemed I got the most value for my money. (Laughter.)

CBG: Right, it was a Spandex love-in! Every character who was ever an Avenger was in that book.

DiDio: Exactly. All these characters on the cover, and I didn’t know who the hell everybody was, but I bought it because there was a bunch of ‘em. And I opened up the book, I didn’t know what was going on, and I didn’t know who was going on, it was the third part of a three-part story -- but boy did it look like an exciting world. And I wanted to. Know. More.

And that’s my answer to everybody. You know how you make comics accessible? You make ‘em good. Simple as that. We make good comics, they will be accessible to everybody. We make bad comics, it doesn’t matter if I come in with 16 primer pages, with five pages of pictures and bios, it doesn’t matter. All they have to be is good and exciting and people will read them and want to read more.

CBG: Obviously, I agree with that answer.

DiDio: It’s the simplest answer in the world. And if people are complaining, it’s because they forgot what made excited them about comics in the first place.

Yep, look who's talking. Because that's exactly the problem he's suffering from: he forgot, and also forgot to take what he speaks of into consideration to begin with. Is it any wonder that seeing Captain Carrot and his Amazing Zoo Crew resurface in Teen Titans turned out to be such a botch job? Let's be clear, when bringing an old bunch of characters into the spotlight again, you make it something that the audience can really look forward to, and can come away smiling with enjoyment from afterwards, NOT some depressing insult that makes them feel as if the company were insulting them from behind their backs.

CBG: Let’s get back to the tonality you mentioned. In general, can you give me an idea what that tone will be post-Crisis, what you’re shooting for?

DiDio: I’ve always described DC characters and DC heroes as being extremely pro-active. Contrary to Marvel characters, Marvel characters are rather reactive, they have personal problems, and trouble and disaster comes towards them and seeks them out. Our characters are pro-active in the sense that they’re out there trying to do what I call the greater good.

DiDio and CBG simultaneously: They go on patrol.

DiDio: They’re on patrol, they’re on guard, they’re always trying to protect. What we’re trying to do is really help define what every individual character’s interpretation is of the greater good, so that we have a better understanding of what they are and why they do what they do.

(Also), I love the idea of secret identities. We’re trying to get back to that again, because I think there’s something unique and special with (that concept). And I want to show the level of sacrifice that each individual character makes in his personal life in order to better mankind. Because that’s a message lost. And I think it helps to define what a hero means, at least in the DCU.

So, is that what all this crap over the past year was for? Just so that they could get back around to secret IDs? I'm sorry, I'm not impressed. And having a better understanding of the characters? Ho, I'll bet. When thinking of how things were done, it's not easy to be enthused by a sugary interview like this.

And what he says about Marvel's own characters actually sounds rather misleading and biased. Like a putdown, to say the least. And even the part about sacrifice sounds rather cryptic.

CBG: That’s very similar to what Brad Meltzer said on National Public Radio the other day about what he was doing in Identity Crisis. Bringing a sense of danger back to super-heroes, and that the real danger is what they expose their families to.

DiDio: Brad’s book was so important to me because when he came in with that story we realized that that was the type of theme that we were trying to put in place and trying to set in motion. And his story was so clear in putting that forward, that it really became a great lightning rod to say of his work, “Here’s what we should be reaching for.” It became the mark all of us (were) reaching for in that type of idealism, of what it takes to be a hero.

Oh yeah, what a laugh riot. "Bringing a sense of danger back" and then what does Meltzer do? He misuses a character who could have some potential anew (Jean Loring), and features no actual villain, ends the whole book in super-farcicality, to say nothing short of stereotyping, and offensiveness aside, that's what they call a sense of danger? Please. That's not sense of danger, nor even the least bit good storytelling, rather, that's vulgarity and insulting the audience.

CBG: So it just kinda dovetailed – you didn’t ask him to go that way.

DiDio: No, it was serendipity that everything came together the way it did. We knew the story we had to tell and we were very lucky to get a person like Brad to be the person to tell it.

Tell me about it.

CBG: Let’s talk about how this will affect the characters, like Batman. Mark Waid told the website monitorroom.com that Batman was “broken” and that Crisis writers had been given leave to fix him. Would you agree with that interpretation?

DiDio: Probably not. I don’t consider any of our characters broken. If a character is broken, then it’s part of the story. And part of the direction of the character. Every character has to be broken at some point or another.

Whoops, looks like DiDio's given away something that smells very unpleasant. It's like implying that they undergo torture (perhaps a la Nineteen Eighty-Four), which, sadly enough, they did. And while Batman does need some repairs, it's true, the way that they've been getting around to it is simply wretched.

And, predictably, no hard questions were asked in all this, and for me at least, nothing new or really encouraging could be found in here either. So, just another surface-skimming interview that offers virtually nothing deep.

While we're on the subject, I found on Newsarama, in one of the Journey into Comics columns published there, astoundingly enough, that the guy who wrote the column once tried to pitch an idea for a special story starring the second Atom, Ray Palmer, to Dan DiDio, and was turned down, thanks to what goes on in Identity Crisis and even Infinite Crisis.

"DiDio said he liked it, but that there were things in the works for the Atom that made him unusable for a while. In fact, he said there were some things coming up over the next two years or so that would make it pretty hard for incoming writers to pitch anything.

After reading Identity Crisis last year, I understood what he meant.

Can you believe this? Simply put, it's astonishing as to how DC, and even Marvel, have thrown away a lot of potential and missed considerable opportunities all for the sake of some company-spanning ideas of theirs that overall clamp down on creative freedom, and make it almost impossible for many writers to offer ideas of any kind for who knows how long.

Also, on Incomplete Thoughts, the webmaster has a good idea of what Dan Didio is like, and why he seems to think that making the heroes "scary" is the way to go, even at the cost of enjoyability, and all stemming from political motivations. And he's quite right, that DiDio had best remember what Stan Lee said in his time: "With great power, must come great responsibility!" The same goes with what you handle as someone in charge of a major corporation.

Labels: Atom, bad editors, dc comics, msm propaganda