Longform 

Multiversity 101: What Can DC Do?

By | February 26th, 2014
Posted in Longform | 11 Comments

Despite having a huge year at the box office, DC’s highest profile comics have really suffered lately. Their three most popular team books are either currently cancelled, under the pen of a visionary with, perhaps, too large of a scope in mind, or are being mired down in crossovers that no one really cares for. In addition, one of their iconic talents just jumped ship to Marvel, and their latest foray into television has been, at best, coldly received.

Oh wait…scratch that – that’s actually Marvel’s reality right now. “Fantastic Four”, perhaps the most iconic Marvel title of all, was cancelled last month and being relaunched by a former symbol of DC’s renaissance. The Hickman-written Avengers books have been described by casual fans and diehards alike as a little impenetrable, and did not capitalize on the fun, blockbuster-y Avengers that all the world knows and loves thanks to the film. As for the X-line, a few of the books remain excellent but, unfortunately, patience is growing thin for a lot of hardcore fans, especially in the sea of crossovers. Maybe the most iconic Marvel artist of the past 30 years, John Romita, Jr, just left to draw “Superman.” And, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is hardly a runaway hit.

Yet, if you asked anyone with any sense of the modern comics industry which company is having a worse year, the answer is simple: DC, of course.

Now, I don’t disagree with that statement. DC is floundering in many ways, but that isn’t what this article is about. I’m less interested in DC’s reality as I am DC’s perception right now. No matter what DC does right now, the perception remains the same: LOL DC. Whether it is staff jumping ship, or odd decisions about what books stay or go, or the way they handle themselves publicly, DC just can’t seem to make a PR win to save their lives. Why is that? And, more importantly, how can the content of their books begin to overshadow the errors of their staff?

But first, let me share a story.

The reason I was first inspired to write this piece was the excellent Robots from Tomorrow podcast. This particular episode featured my pal Chad Bowers, and involved Chad, Mike and Greg scouring the Previews catalog for April releases. Before hitting the DC section, all three made (appropriately) snarky comments about DC and their lack of direction/fun/good comics. But then, as if a switch was flipped, the merits of “Action Comics,” “Batman,” “Wonder Woman,” “Aquaman” and more were being praised.

Mike, Greg, and Chad are three of the smartest comic fans I know, and are not the type of guys to fall victim to following public opinion when they don’t agree, and yet, in this instance, it was almost as if they couldn’t reconcile the joke that DC has become with the good that can, and in some cases does, come from their offices. That is what this article hopes to do – to find a path back to the books being the focal point of the discussion, and not the jack-assery of the front office staff.

First, let’s look at what DC is actually doing, both in terms of sales, critical reception, and overall quality of work. On the sales side, DC is clearly in second place to Marvel, but not in the ways you’d expect. In January, according to Comichron, DC had 5 of the top 10 books – that’s good! – but only 13 in the top 40. That’s an arbitrary end point, yes (especially because DC has 8 between 40 and 50), but it illustrates the point pretty well: their top tier books sell like hotcakes. The rest? Not so much.

Critically, the story isn’t all that different: according to Comic Book Roundup, DC’s books have averaged a review rating of 6.89 out of 10 over the course of their runs. That means that their books are, at least in the eyes of critics, good, but not great.

Continued below

House Style, Exemplified

In my opinion, DC’s books suffer from the fatigue of sameness. Whether or not they admit it, DC has a house style right now, both in terms of writing and in terms of art. I understand the concept of a house style – uniformity makes it easy to identify the books as a cohesive universe, as well as let people know, without consulting the upper left hand corner, that it is a DC book. What that does, however, is it dilutes the contributions of everyone but upper level editorial to being merely a typeset or a border upon which to view the story. If you aren’t giving creators the chance to do their own thing, reading their books feel like reading a TV Guide – you get the synopsis of the story without creativity or surprise.

If you compound that with the sheer glut of Bat-books, tie-in books, and the (currently improving) lame duck Superman line, it doesn’t leave a ton to be excited about.

Ok, so that is what DC is doing – but what has DC done to gain this reputation?

Well, plenty, actually. I’m not going to bore you by linking every single infraction DC has committed over the past few years, but let’s try out a few overarching themes: creators tired of meddling editorial staff, creative teams changing between solicitation and release frequently, terrible re-designs, and a general lack of respect given to their fans at conventions and online. I decided to poll some of the Multiversity staff on this, and asked, “what is the one thing DC has done, above all else, to turn you off from reading their comics?”

I got a few really interesting answers, but it all boils down to three things:

1. The lack of respect that the current product shows its audience

2. The lack of respect that the current editorial staff has shown the history and legacy of the company

3. The lack of stylistic diversity among the product

As to the first point, it was suggested by multiple staff members that the focus has long been shifted from putting out quality books to simply moving product. While I can understand this viewpoint, I think this presupposes that DC wasn’t always trying to move product above all else. Their old ways weren’t working out, so they shifted the way they do things. I don’t think today’s DC is any more cutthroat than in years past, except in one regard, and that is the near-total dismissal of late books. A book will be released on time come hell or high water, even if it means getting one artist to do three pages, one to do six, and one to do the remaining eleven.

I think the second and third points go hand in hand. As mentioned before, getting the books out on time has become the primary goal for everyone not named Jim Lee at DC. Because of that, there is a bullpen of similarly styled artists who can pop in to do fill in work at a moment’s notice. Because all of the work needs to be churned out quickly, there is little room for personal style of interpretation on the visual side of the books. Because writers have to write, to a degree, to the strength of their artists, the writers also constrict their skills to fit into the pre-determined box that DC gives them.

Because of the narrower vision of the books, some of DC’s more unusual or left-of-center ideas have gone by the wayside. Since the New 52, DC has confused “simple” with “dumb,” and so in an effort to simplify their, at times admittedly dense and confusing, history, they simply chucked it all out. Now, the only Teen Titans are the ones from Scott Lobdell, Clark Kent is barely a minor component of the larger Superman story, and there are multiple Lobos and Superboys running around, and none of them are all that good.

I think the dismantling of their history is actually the most hurtful part of their entire plan because, to a degree, it says that DC really has no interest in your memories, likes, dislikes, or history. For a guy like me, who cannot remember a time before Superman came into my life, I can’t help but see the old DC bullet logo and grin ear to ear. I recognize that if DC simply tried to please me, they’d go out of business 500 times over. I’m not looking for a team built around Kyle Rayner, Damage, Roy Harper and Wally West (I have that entire “New Titans” run already) – but what I am looking for is something that resembles some part of those halcyon days of yore. I want to be able to see a through line from my father’s Superman comics to my Green Lantern books to whatever comic my daughter will (hopefully) collect in a few years.

Continued below

The Good Old Days

Instead, DC told all of us that those memories ain’t worth shit, and that those stories, good as they may or may not have been, don’t matter anymore. Sure, they still exist in our longboxes and on our shelves, but those days are gone and, if you can believe Dan DiDio, never coming back. And if my tastes and opinions don’t matter at all, then why should I continue to support the company?

So, after all of that, what, if anything, can they do to right their ship?

As much as it would be easy to say “bring back the old continuity!” or “get rid of all the high collars!,” it just isn’t that simple. I really don’t think the problem can be addressed just by changing what happens in the books. That will help, surely, but that won’t get them back in the good graces of the public.

I’ve tried not to make this article a finger-pointing exercise, but I really think that it may be the only way to really solve anything. The option here is clear: they need to clean house at the top of their company. People associate certain names – Bob Harras, Dan DiDio, Jim Lee – with the failures of the past half decade at DC. Hell, even COO Geoff Johns, once the poster child for responsible comics making, is probably persona non great among many hardcore fans now. Until these people are gone, no one is going to take DC seriously.

The problem?

Even if Warner Bros (DC’s parent company) stepped in, shitcanned the lot of them, and put in place the best team money could buy, I honestly don’t know if people would come back in droves. The work could be great, the sales could pick up, and still the comics fan who reads sites like Multiversity or Comics Alliance or Newsarama probably still will look at the company as a joke. Is that fair? Absolutely not, especially considering all the great things that happened for DC under, basically, the same leadership. “52,” “Wednesday Comics,” Grant Morrison’s Batman run, “Green Lantern: Rebirth,” “Infinite Crisis” – all of those rank among my absolute favorite comics of the past decade, and all of them have Dan DiDio all over them. The guy can do good work at an editorial level, but since the New 52, he has consistently made the wrong choices and, even if he himself didn’t actually pull the trigger on some of that stuff, he is perceived to have.

And that is what this entire article is about: perception. It isn’t about what really goes on at DC because, frankly, I have no idea. I’ve heard stories, of course – some from credible sources – but we’ve all heard stories. And therein lies the problem. Whether or not they are true, they are becoming fact, and once they become fact, it’s over. No one cares that Humphrey Bogart never said “Play it again, Sam” in Casablanca, because they believe he said that. Whether or not DC is actually the hellish workplace many claim it is doesn’t really matter – it’s a story, and it is one that has taken hold.

But if nothing else, there are little things they can do to right the ship, ever so slightly. I can truly understand the lack of patience with late books – they are a problem that needs addressing in some manner or another. But there is a way to do it without a million fill in artists: loosen the editorial grip a little and commit to more long term planning.

There have been horror stories of 11th hour meddling in books, forcing quick re-writes and quicker new pages drawn. If that is the way the books will be edited, there’s no helping fill ins. But, if you cool it on the micromanaging, most artists can churn out a monthly book – especially if they’re given ample lead time. “Justice League United” launches in April, was solicited in January, and was teased back in August (as “Justice League Canada”). If Mike McKone started on the book late last year, he should, in theory, have no problem getting the book out monthly and on time.

Continued below

Similarly, if the creators/editorial teams have more autonomy, the books can get more unique in both their stories and in their look. The house style would disappear if there were firmer commitments to let people tell their stories. You wouldn’t need 5 guys who can ape Brett Booth, because Booth would have time to do his pages.

I’m not a Pollyanna; I know sometimes things go wrong. Look at “Hawkeye” from Marvel – a universally lauded book, by a solid creative team, with minor, if any, meddling, and the book is later than your girlfriend that one time in college when you were seriously considering selling your TV to buy a car seat for your unborn child. But Marvel understands that “Hawkeye” is something unique, and it can still be a net positive for their company to let it be.

But you can’t have a line of “Hawkeye”s, and I get that. You do need cornerstone books people can count on, month in and month out. They don’t need to look across the aisle to see an example of that working; they just have to look to “Batman.”

“Batman” looks different than all other DC books right now, due to the unique style of Greg Capullo. He has turned in his pages on time, and the book hasn’t been late to my knowledge. Others have done an issue here or there, but the story is adapted to fit their styles, not simply try to fit in with his. Capullo was an announcement very few people were thrilled with pre-New 52. They thought he would date the book with his 90s Spawn style and not complement Scott Snyder’s storytelling.

Newsflash: that didn’t happen. Capullo transcended expectations and worked the book into something totally fresh and successful. Sure, Snyder’s story has been great, but without the complementary artwork, it wouldn’t the runaway hit it is.

By respecting the creative process (hat tip to former Bat-editor Mike Marts, a near-universally beloved guy who steered that line into its current dominance), DC created a huge hit. But by not learning their lesson from “Batman,” they are disrespecting their audience. They are, essentially, saying that not all their books can be “Batman.” I get that – they can’t – but they can try.

Whenever Marvel launches a new title, you get the sense that they are cautiously optimistic about it becoming the next smash. Especially since the aforementioned “Hawkeye” came out, we’re seeing Marvel take more chances. “She Hulk” and “Black Widow” are perfect examples of this; no one would be shocked if each of those series ran 12 issues and bit the dust. But you’d never know that from the way Marvel has been marketing them. Marvel put together books that, even if they fall on their face, will do so gloriously.

When DC launches a new title, it seems that all bets are hedged already. They don’t do the one-word teasers that get fans excited – instead, they bury them in solicits or announce them, apropos of nothing, in USA Today. And, due to not focusing on those books, they die. In May, 28 of their 40 monthly titles are at #31 – that is, they are “original” New 52 books. 12 books are all that have survived their post-September 2011 launch. 30 have been launched since then, and 6 of those are in their second month, come may. So, 6 out of 24 have survived – what does that say about how DC launches books?

By focusing on launching new titles, as well as letting old titles be without so much extraordinary interference, they can begin to gain the trust of the public back. But one thing will still be missing: that history. DC used to have the market cornered on legacy characters and embracing their past. I recognize that this is the hardest of the problems to actually fix – you can fire Jim Lee, but you can’t just as easily snap your fingers and bring back all the continuity that has been diligently destroyed over the past three years.

Continued below

Or maybe – you just do it.

Look, let’s be real. Can we be real? (Turns around chair like Michelle Pfeiffer in the “Gangsta’s Paradise” video)

Continuity is always a mess. Always. Batman used to kill folks with a gun. Superman had electric powers for a spell. Dick Grayson was a teenager for, like, 50 years. None of it makes sense. When we bitch about continuity, we are arguing over which version of a fictional flying alien is correct. It is always a mess, and it is always contradicting itself.

Hell, even in the New 52 continuity is a mess! That is what continuity in superhero comics is – a ridiculously flawed concept that people (like me) care way too much about.

So, bring it all back. I don’t even care how you do it; say that Darkseid sent a gas through a Boom Tube that made everyone forget everything, but now it’s all better. I don’t care. Don’t trash these stories – let them exist in the same way that all those Hawkman stories exist. They’re “there,” but they aren’t really there. Until they are needed – then they are most certainly there.

IT’S COMICS. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE FUN. LET IT BE FUN AGAIN, DC.


//TAGS | Multiversity 101

Brian Salvatore

Brian Salvatore is an editor, podcaster, reviewer, writer at large, and general task master at Multiversity. When not writing, he can be found playing music, hanging out with his kids, or playing music with his kids. He also has a dog named Lola, a rowboat, and once met Jimmy Carter. Feel free to email him about good beer, the New York Mets, or the best way to make Chicken Parmagiana (add a thin slice of prosciutto under the cheese).

EMAIL | ARTICLES



  • -->