No, the Masked Manhunter won't be killed off

It looks like Dan DiDio has been forced to dispel the rumours:

Didio tells the New York Daily News, "He's not dead, though he'll definitely be gone for a while.

But does that make this any more worthwhile? Nope, and certainly not under his regime as editor.

In the NYDN's article, they say:

Comic book fans have become jaded over the years over as they've watched a who's who of super heroes bite the proverbial speeding bullet - only to return a few months later.

[...]

"Fans have an unspoken understanding with the publisher," said Matt Brady, a writer for newsarama.com, a comic book news Web site.

"You can take [Batman] off the stage for a while, but you can't put him in the ground."

That hasn't stopped customers from coming into Forbidden Plant, a Manhattan comics store, to buy several copies of the issue on the mistaken assumption Batman is gone forever, store manager Jeff Ayers said.

Let me see if I have this right: killing off heroes is what gets people to actually buy these books? Wow, is that the wrong way to think. Killing them off is not, and should not be the reason to buy the book.

And the article overlooks how more minor cast members are not as lucky as the major ones: has Jade, the daughter of the Golden Age Green Lantern, been as lucky? Have Elongated Man and Sue Dibny been as lucky? Has Ted Kord been any more so? Far from it. That doesn't mean they won't come back, nor does it mean that Ray Palmer and Jean Loring won't be exonerated/redeemed, but a big problem with lesser heroes suffer from is that their publishers see them as easy targets for that reason, and think that no one will care if they trash them.

Update: The Toronto Star is asking:

But is his death just a marketing ploy, or is it symbolic of a growing trend in the dwindling world of monthly comic books?

Believe it or not, it is a ploy by now. As far as trends go, it certainly is when it's foisted on lesser heroes.

Batman RIP may not be doing as well as DC hoping for

Broken Frontier says that the oh-so eventful Batman RIP isn't making headlines as big as what they might've hoped for:

Batman R.I.P. was supposed generate buzz about Batman. But fans spent too much time trying to figure out what was going on to talk about it.

Well, the mistake they made to begin with was trying to stir controversy instead of telling a simple enough story, and building around a character's death is becoming way overused as a plot lately.

The result is an event that feels like a non-event. If Bruce Wayne is to join the choir invisible at the end of this arc, no indication has been given in the story. If DC does intend to kill off its current Batman, it will be quite anticlimactic. Having Bruce giving up the cape and cowl? That seems logical from the story at this point. Having Bruce die? Not so much.

Maybe a decade ago, this kind of story could've worked, but under Dan DiDio, I have no faith in anything. What's more, the sales-by-controversy tactic has overshadowed everything.

We can see some of the planned after effect of this storyline already. Batman is conspicuously absent in future DC solicitations. Bat-titles such as Robin, Nightwing and Birds of Prey are being cancelled. Batman and Detective Comics are rumored to join them.

I'm sure the 2 flagship titles won't be cancelled, but the editorial mandate is obvious, and that's one more reason why this umpteenth "event" does not impress me.

Even the Comics Reporter has "event fatigue"

Some have called it event fatigue to describe when we're tired of company-wide events like Final Crisis. Now, even the veteran writer of the Comics Reporter has been affected by it (via The Beat):

Where I now see the primary weakness of Final Crisis is that the DC universe itself isn’t vital enough or interesting enough or dependable enough as a starting point or filled with enough creative energy for me to give a crap as it all slips away. It’s hard to take seriously a crisis paired with an adjective, even an alarming one.

Well, more precisely, it's because the current editorial won't allow it to be vital, interesting and dependable enough. Plenty of storytelling possibilities are out there, and they throw them all away for the sake of pointlessness.

Something along the lines of Mary Marvel deteriorating into a crazed, hyperviolent super-villain might have been a wrenching thing for fans to see in 1948 or 1968 or even 1988. It isn't anymore, particularly not when it's just been done to goofier, duller effect over the last year.

Seeing Mary Marvel depicted like that would be truly despicable at any time. It also throws away a big opportunity to provide her with a chance to shine on her own in the spotlight.

Roger Stern depresses me

Roger Stern recently gave an interview to Comicon's Pulse, where he said:

I myself had been reading Spider-Man for about twenty years -- and had written Spider-Man for four of those years -- when Marvel decided that Pete and Mary Jane should marry. Right around that time, Jim Salicrup -- who was then the editor of the Spider-Man titles -- offered me work on SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN. That was during a period when no one else at Marvel would even return my phone calls, and I needed the work. But I regretfully had to turn Jim down. I saw the marriage as so wrong-headed that I didn't want to be a regular part of it.

It's certainly sad to read that Stern, a writer/editor whom I'd long admired, balked at writing Spectacular Spider-Man just because of the marriage. And then he may have been one of the writers who brought Clark Kent and Lois Lane to the alter years later. Honestly, I can't see where he gets off by belittling the Spider-Marriage, so his logic is very peculiar indeed.

Marc Guggenheim blabbers away blindly

The pretentious writer, in an interview about Spider-Man's Brand New Day on Newsarama, doesn't seem to know what he's doing:

All the stories that took place—happened. It’s unfortunate that people think otherwise; the plan wasn’t to undo twenty years of continuity—Marvel Comics just chose a different direction for Spider-Man. If you want to still complain about ‘One More Day’—go ahead, I get it—but I’d rather you beat us up for what the story really is. If you want to quibble about Peter Parker making a deal with the devil then so be it. But don’t go saying that hundreds of issues of comics “didn’t happen” because they did.

It really doesn't matter whether they retconned away 2 decades of continuity or not, the problem with this editorial fiat is that it depicts Peter and Mary Jane out-of-character, makes Peter look like a slacker, and if it really didn't undo continuity, then Peter and MJ are otherwise committing adultery.

I am surprised though that he admits the deal with Mephisto is a problem. Or does he?

NRAMA: But isn’t that sort of “deal” a natural human reaction—Spider-Man is just like you and I when it comes down to brass tacks, right?

MG: Well, it’s still a fair criticism—even though I don’t agree with it. I definitely understand why it’s still being discussed. But when someone says, “You’ve negated all these years of stories,” that’s simply not true.

So he, and come to think of it, the interviewer, don't think anything's wrong with making a deal with the devil? Ah well, that's the problem with people who put money over common sense.

In a sane world, Guggenheim would be shooed out the door and not permitted to write comics ever again, and certainly not to give silly interviews like this.

Marvel cancels She-Hulk

DC has quite a few cancelations coming, and now Marvel has some around the corner too: they've canceled She-Hulk. Not that they've been very supportive of Jenny Walters' latest go at a series of her own, preferring to put more of their energy into promoting their crossovers instead, so that could explain why it's now gone, as well as Spider-Girl.

Sales slipped again last month

ICV2 reports that comic sales appear to have gone down again. Looking at the sales chart here, even those still selling above 100,000 have dropped considerably. Secret Invasion went down to 154,675 copies, while Final Crisis went down to just 115,666, making it one of the lowest selling crossovers to date. It's to be seen whether it'll be selling over 100,000 by the time its done.

I see that New Avengers has dropped below 100,000 copies for possibly the first time since Brian Bendis began writing it, which hopefully suggests that Bendis is losing influence. Some of the books shown cost nearly 4 dollars, which could be another factor in the sad but understandable decline of the pamphlet.

Stan Lee wins Medal of Arts Award

Amazon's Omnivoracious blog reports that Stan the Man Lee has won the National Medal of Arts Award. Many congratulations!

H/T: Soccerdad and Instapundit.

Superman being sent off into space

At around the same time as there's to be a fight over the cowl in Batman, post RIP, the Man of Steel is being sent into outer space in what's likely the next publicity stunt being pulled by Dan DiDio:

GB: And what about the Man of Steel?

DD: Simultaneous to “Battle for the Cowl,” we’re going to be making changes in Superman’s world as well. Superman has been the star of "Action Comics" for its entire run, essentially, and he will be leaving it and handing it over to new characters. The only time he hasn’t appeared in the book, I believe, was after “The Death of Superman,” in those years. So this is a lot of fun for us. I think that’s going to get people excited and scratching their heads and wondering what’s going on. In his own book, "Superman," there will be a dramatic turn as the hero leaves Earth and it seems like he’s leaving for good. We’ll follow his adventures in space more so than his adventures on Earth, and that’s a big and exciting thing.

Ha ha ha. It may be fun for the writers, but that doesn't garuntee it'll be the same for the audience. Does this mean that he'll be breaking up with Lois Lane too? And let me guess: this has what to do with the contrived division between them seen in DCU: Decisions?

A short time ago, they made what has to be a mistake by bringing Kandor's citizens into Metropolis, which decreases Superman's own uniqueness on Earth. But sending him almost entirely into space doesn't improve anything either.

How successful is it to begin with?

USA Today writes about Neil Gaiman's penning "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?" as part of the whole needless Batman RIP storyline. They ask at the start:

Will success kill Batman?

Maybe not, but if editorial keeps on doing things like this that are only publicity-stunt quality, that certainly could, sooner or later.

What makes this "death" go beyond the usual circulation booster is the talent involved. Helping to bury Batman will be best-selling novelist Neil Gaiman, who created the goth-cult Sandman comic 20 years ago.

Gaiman is writing a two-issue tribute to the character, starting with Batman #686 and tentatively titled Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?, due in February.

"This is my last Batman story," he says. "And in some ways, it could be seen as every last Batman story."

In that case, why bother? Gaiman was undoubtably hired just for name value, but after all these years, there's less chance he'll be as much of a sales draw as Alan Moore might've been when he wrote "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" back in 1986. Mainly because, the editorial mandate behind this is far less likely to allow for a really good story.

Learning Linux software with Hackett and Bankwell comic

Here's an article on Geek.Com about a comic book called Hackett & Bankwell whose purpose is to teach how to use Linux and Ubuntu computer software.

And the latest DC cancelation is...Blue Beetle

In this interview with Dan DiDio (which, not surprisingly, really doesn't ask anything challenging), he tells that the new Blue Beetle title is ended. Which brings to an end the last recent series I know of that was really only built upon diversity instead of good storytelling. The others were Firestorm and All-New Atom.

If it hadn't been for the very cavalier way DC offed Ted Kord, they could've gotten somewhere with the new protagonist they introduced, Jaime Reyes. But because they just had to be so nasty to Ted...that's why this deserved to fail.

I doubt though that the new Blue Beetle will have much luck being a member of Teen Titans, as that title may be well on its way to cancelation too, thanks to its own surprisingly nasty form of storytelling. And since very little of the original Young Justice cast is left, that's one more reason why TT is likely losing an audience.

Superman being opposed to any killing is getting embarrassing

Comics Should Be Good recently looked at a list of times when Wonder Woman had used deadly force, which shows that Superman and others doubtlessly knew for many years that she had killed criminals, whether in severe circumstances or otherwise, and how her terminating Max Lord in WW 219 was clearly contrived and forced for the sake of putting her into a pointless conflict with Superman and Batman.

As bad as it was to destroy Max's character to begin with, what's also disturbing here is that Superman seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he was mind-controlled into senseless violence, and here, WW was trying to save him from exploitation. For the Man of Steel to make it sound as though he'd rather be a tool than do what it takes to stop the puppet master seems more than a bit forced.

And the main problem is that it's the kind of story that just shouldn't have been done, since it was all at the expense of good characters, including Diana and even Max Lord.

Brian Bendis' blundering 2004 interview

I found an old interview Brian Bendis gave to AvengersForever.Org back in 2004, where he really made himself look laughable. Copying anything here to comment on wasn't easy, because the ASP software they use here is downright weird, but I managed to overcome the odds and get some things. For example:

Q) Your mission is to take the concept of the Avengers as we know it into the future and that fans can look forward to this real step forward without fear of Marvel losing sight of where the title came from. Continuity is quite a hot topic in the comics industry these days and so I am compelled to ask how you feel this destruction and then resurrection of the Avengers title will take into consideration as well as respect that which has transpired over the last 40 years or so? A pretty daunting task . . .
A) Absolutely, and I adore it. It's so much fun. I take continuity very seriously, first as a respect to the characters, but also as respect to the writers that came before me. I would never contradict what has come before.

Maybe he wouldn't contradict, but, as he's proven already, he sure hasn't done much to respect the cast. As for respect, it's most unfortunate that it had to be, if anything, for John Byrne's abysmal run on West Coast Avengers in 1989-90, where Scarlet Witch was put through the wringer, turned into a one-dimensional cartoon villianess.

Q) What do you think longtime Avengers fans from the 1960's, 1970's, and even the 1980's think of your upcoming work on Avengers Disassemble?
A) I have learned long ago that it is 1000% impossible to make everyone happy, it can not be done. What I can do, is make a comic I would buy. And I am a huge snob, I need to be dazzled, or I am gone. I am a tough audience for myself.

When this first was announced, I got hammered by Avenger's fans. One email header said: "Kill She-Hulk, I hate her." The next said: "Do not touch She-Hulk." And that says it all. I cannot make everyone happy. And that is very freeing.

This is where I want to take a moment to note how the kind of mentality signaled in an email calling for the death of She-Hulk is something that really shocks me: what exact kind of people are reading comics, who would want someone to write a book for the sake of killing off any of the heroes? Those are exactly the kind of people comicdom can do without. It makes no sense to me why anyone who would call for killing off heroes and even their supporting cast members bothers to read these comics in the first place.

Or was Bendis just putting words in people's mouths?

Now, here's where Bendis really blows:

Q) What about favorite Avengers, Brian? Who are they and why? I am not asking for spoilers but rather wondering about the characters you enjoyed and or identified most with when you were reading the Avengers title.
A) I love Hawkeye, I love Scarlet Witch - all time best costume. Big fan of the power three, Cap, Thor, Iron Man, I like the dynamic between them. Janet, on the other hand, was a horrible costume designer.

Since then, it's been proven that Bendis does not like Clint Barton nor Wanda Maximoff, and certainly isn't writing this book out of true love. And from what he says about the Wasp, I guess he doesn't like her either, if he can't acknowledge that if she was a lousy costume designer, it's the writer's fault, not hers.

Q) On the other side of the coin, there have just plain been a lot of heroes added to the Avengers roster over the years – some good and some not so good. Now don't be shy Brian, you can tell us, in your opinion which Avengers should have never been granted team membership?
A) Hank should have been kicked out after the first Janet slap and never heard from again. Also, the Ultron f*** up should have been the end of him. Jack of Hearts was an asshole too.

And here's something that I find very bothersome about writers like him of recent: that they dislike certain characters to the point where, instead of trying to improve them, they'd rather maim and hassle them, and they certainly don't try to criticize past writers for their faults. Why couldn't Bendis have said that the slap to Jan was a bad idea to begin with that should never have been written? And why must he even say that Jack of Hearts was an ass? A lousy costume the guy has, but again, that's the fault of the writers and artists, not the characters.

If he doesn't have the courage to criticize the earlier writers and editors for their faults, it just shows what weakling he is.

Milestone cast joins DCU. What else is new?

The Colorado Springs Gazette writes a sugary article about the debut of the Milestone cast as part of the DCU:

DC Comics is getting some fresh blood.

First up: the introduction of Milestone Comics characters into the DC line.

Milestone Media, a black-owned company, created its ethnically diverse characters in the early 1990s. DC published the Milestone titles though a special agreement, but the two remained separate companies and the Milestone adventures occurred in a universe apart from DC's. The Milestone line ended in 1997.

Now Milestone is returning as part of a new agreement between the two companies. And this time, the Milestone characters will be part of the DC line. Icon and Hardware, among Milestone's earliest characters, will show up in "Justice League of America" next month.

And Static Shock - who was the star of his own cartoon series as well as a comic book - will appear in "Teen Titans" before long.

It won't be a matter of universes colliding, says DC executive editor Dan DiDio.

"The goal is to say they're not coming from another universe but that they existed in the DC universe and this is ours and our heroes' first introduction to them."

What else is new? This is just another case of diversity run amok, and judging from sales figures, I'm skeptical that many are going to care.

Judging from the covers to upcoming issues of "Justice League," which show Justice Leaguers squaring off against the Milestone characters, those first meetings may not be friendly ones.

"You know, the first thing heroes do is they fight before they team up," says DiDio, citing what he calls a tried-and-true method of introducing heroes.

Why do I get the feeling it's going to be contrived and forced here?

If readers clamor for it, look for the Milestone characters to star in their own titles.

"I'm going to see which ones break out," DiDio says, "but when you have characters like Icon, Hardware and Static, you'd be surprised if they didn't have series."

Or maybe not. This sounds like it's got "publicity stunt" written all over it, and a case of putting diversity before good writing. In any case, it's not novel anymore, and it's not as important as tasteful storytelling.

The DC universe is also becoming home to the old Archie Comics superheroes - characters that harken back to as long ago as the 1940s in their original incarnations.

While Archie Comics is known obviously for Archie, Jughead and the gang, the company also produced heroes such as The Shield, The Fly and Black Hood.

Those heroes will blend into the DC universe starting next year via "The Brave and the Bold," a team-up title that's being taken over by writer J. Michael Straczynski.

[...]

As with the Milestone characters, there's a chance these new/old heroes could end up with their own titles.

"My goal," DiDio says, "is to make sure that every one of these has the best chance possible to succeed and also, more importantly, they have a chance to stand out on their own without just working under the light of the DC heroes."

I'm afraid that it may be just too late for them now either. The chances that anyone cares now about these almost obscure heroes formerly published by Archie is close to nil too, and it's possible that even J. Michael Straczynski may not have an easy time selling this. All they're doing is overcrowding the DCU with more superheroes than needed, and possibly at the expense of their own flagship heroes to boot.

And most importantly, no matter what DiDio says, none of this sounds like it's being done as part of good writing, but rather, for the sake of diversity, which has gotten way out of hand already.

The audience made its decision about DC's political miniseries

It looks like DC has not had much success with their political-allegory miniseries. The sales chart analysis here at The Beat shows that it only sold 29,713 copies. The analyst says:

The cake for the most ham-fisted attempt at topicality this month goes to DC Universe: Decisions, a four-issue series created for the express purpose of having several long-standing DC characters spill out their political leanings, because, um… well, because it happens to be an election year, apparently.

Yep, I guess that could sum it up well. I discovered that Superman plays the part of a liberal, while Lois Lane plays the part of a conservative in this mini! Hmm, this really does sound similar to Civil War, with Superman playing the part of Capt. America, and Lois playing the part of Iron Man. One thing's for certain though: no matter what the political leanings they're depicted with, no sale here.

But, the analyst flubs with the following:

This is very uncharacteristic for DC, who usually shy away from anything that might cause any offense at all to anyone in their mainstream line of comics; in other words, they usually leave this sort of thing to Marvel. Perhaps that explains why they’re so clumsy at it, too. This being DC and not Marvel, for instance, the presidential candidates in the book are not called Obama and McCain, but are entirely made-up. Which undercuts whatever attention they were hoping to grab with a stunt like this one in the first place, of course, and makes you wonder what the point of the exercise is meant to be.

Gee, where's that guy been all these years? DC has done anything BUT shy away from anything that could offend in their mainstream line these past five years. A possible difference they have from Marvel is that they're more likely to camouflage the political themes in more metaphorical disguises. And wasn't Identity Crisis cause for offense? That seems to completely elude him.

Looking at the numbers, retailers seem to agree. While I didn’t expect the book to set the charts on fire, mind you, I didn’t quite expect it to tank so horribly, either.

But now that it has, all I can say is, good. Those who avoided it have done the right thing. Most likely that it's all just another cynical, slapdash attempt at a morally-equivalent story that doesn't help anybody.

DC cans 3 Batman-related series

Robin, Nightwing and Birds of Prey: all gone come their February issues.

Low sales could be one cause of their cancelation, but then, DC did do what to torpedo their sales and discourage their audience in the past couple years. Another may be Batman RIP, and the possibility that they are going to turn either Dick or Tim into the Masked Manhunter instead of Bruce, which by now fails to interest me. What's laughable is how, all these years, they supposedly had a problem with Batman being a control freak, so they allegedly try to make him human again, and then that apparently isn't enough for them either, so now, they try to create more interest by tossing him out of the picture. Sorry, but if they're going to claim that the Justice League actually wiped his mind while at the same time making it seem as though he's more concerned about what they're going to do in reaction to a rapist and less about how the victim feels, then they haven't rehumanized him at all, and I have no interest in this if it only furthers the joke.

I do get the feeling this could be one more sign of the slow demise of the pamphlet series, as even sales on Batman could be declining. Could this be another reason why Chuck Dixon left?

Comic Book Carnival Twenty-Six

Welcome to the November 6, 2008 edition of the comic book carnival. Here are the entries for this month.

Mangablog presents Monday update posted at MangaBlog.

Seb presents Superman?s Pal Jimmy Olsen Special #1 posted at Comics Daily.

Ryan presents Face it Tiger, you just went bust posted at The Avengers' Files.

CAMB presents Friday Night Fights posted at Comics Ate My Brain.

Kelson presents Speed Reading: Rebirth, Crimson Lightning, Turner Tribute and More posted at Speed Force.

Keira presents Review: Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog posted at Love Romance Passion.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
the comic book carnival
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our
blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

the comic book carnival, blog carnival.

Comics and the economic recession

The Comics Reporter writes several points about why the economic recession does not bode well for the future of comics:

1. Comics clearly aren't recession proof. I would argue they never were. Some of comics' darkest days came during recessionary periods in the '50, '70s and '80s.

2. There are a number of reasons to believe that comics are currently more susceptible than ever before to drastic effects resulting from economic downturn.

3. One reason comics may be at greater risk right now, and this has been noted just about everywhere, is that comic books no longer cost a thin dime. They frequently cost $2.99, and soon may cost between $3.50 and $3.99 for a single issue. Trade collections and original graphic novels commonly sell at price points between $7.99 and $24.99. Specialty volumes can go all the way up to $200. Together I think those figures disqualify comics from any and all assertions based on their being cheap and disposable entertainment. The act of buying comics in the 21st Century is a conscious, expensive and involved consumer choice. It is exactly those kinds of choices that are at risk during times of economic distress.

Reading this at a time after learning about the sad loss of the GOP in the election, I'm going to have to note myself that - under an Obama-led government, the economy is not likely to improve, and if not, then comics cannot expect to do much better. And with prices going up, I think it's possible that, in another 2 years, pamphlets will certainly fade out, because who's going to pay 4 dollars for so little story content?

No, comics are not recession-proof, and with this kind of US government being elected, it's not likely to get any better.

Geoff Johns's gross lanterns

Geoff Johns continues to show why he's overrated:

This week we got our first real look at the newest group of ring wielders in the "Rage of the Red Lanterns."

[...]

With the Red Lanterns, Johns has created a terrifying new enemy.

Vomiting blood and rampaging through space killing anything in their way, the Red Lanterns look more like the infected zombies from the movie "28 Days Later" than a cosmic army of aliens.

Yeah, and they certainly don't sound very polite in their table manners either. Gee, that's terrifying - not! More like gross. Belching blood has "shock tactic" written all over it, hardly at all the most appealing thing I've ever heard of.

Anti-gang comics

An article on NY's News10Now about Oneida County distributing special comic books aimed at teaching youth not to join up with gangs.

Superman actor may get it

Some time ago, Warner announced plans to make another Superman movie that's darker, signaling that they misperceive why the audience went to see the Dark Knight this summer. However, it looks like now, the star of the previous Superman movie may understand what's wrong with this:

But Routh is adamant that plans to make the franchise much "darker" than Superman's previous incarnations should not go ahead - because the Man of Steel will always be a clean-cut character.

He tells Moviehole.net, "I don't know how much darker you want to make it necessarily. You make the stakes higher, you make the villain darker, I think that's a way to do it. But I don't think Superman himself needs to be darker. He definitely has to struggle.

"But I don't think Superman should ever be dark and brooding, that's not his nature. And that's now what people want to see."

Not everyone wants to see the Man of Steel as a brooder. What works for Batman does not work for Superman, and vice versa. Warner's producers, from what I can tell, may have used that as an excuse to obscure how audiences avoided Superman Returns because it was simply dull, and also deliberately omitted anything clearly identifying it as American. Why can't they be honest and admit to failure out of PC-absurdity?