Yesterday was a rough day for DC Comics, as two highly touted new writers walked off of their series before a single issue had been released. Andy Diggle walked off of “Action Comics,” where his artist, Tony Daniel will assume scripting duties through the end of the arc before departing himself, and Joshua Hale Fialkov left both “Green Lantern Corps” and “Red Lanterns” well ahead of their June release dates. Two of Multiveristy’s associate editors, David Harper and Brian Salvatore, frequently discuss this stuff over G-Chat while they’re at work, when they’re supposed to be doing “real” work. Instead of just chatting between the two of them, they’ve decided to share their thoughts with you, the loyal Multiversity reader. Please share in the comments what you think happened, and where you see DC going from here.
David: Brian, you’re Multiversity’s resident DC lover, but even you have to admit yesterday was truly a dark day. It’s been getting worse and worse for those who are long-time DC lovers, as you and I both are, but both inside the industry and Multiversity’s email thread, the news of Andy Diggle departing Action Comics and the ongoing word of editorial disagreements and potential other creators leaving books is spiraling things to an unhealthy and hard to respect level.
What the hell is going on with DC, and are you worried as a fan and as a journalist?
Brian: As a journalist, this is fascinating stuff – the amount of conspiracy theories and crackpot ideas I’ve heard tossed around (including some in my head) are plentiful.
However, as a fan who had DC characters painted on the walls of his childhood bedroom, this bums me out on so many levels. Both Diggle and the recently confirmed to be quitting Joshua Hale Fialkov are writers I would call myself a fan of, and both seemed to have strong ideas as to where they saw their books going. To see these writers, both of whom were working on the highest profile work on their careers, walk away from the opportunity is upsetting.
What about you? What are your thoughts on this latest shake up?
David: Honestly, it’s just so strange to me. I think it is really kind of obvious as to what is going on: editorial is trying to drive a connection to a theoretical film market. So they want the characters from the movies and the comics to be roughly the same, but the problem is, you just have to let people tell stories. Fialkov came out and shared his thoughts, and I truly believe he isn’t bitter about it. It seems to me he understands the why, but he can’t go about making comics that he personally does not want to write. Throughout the New 52, DC Editorial has been portrayed as a villain, a driver of the creator equivalent of the anti-life equation, and it just keeps appearing to be real.
It’s strange to me, but not surprising. Real quick: do you know what the Tyson Zone is?
Brian: I do, but explain it for our readers.
David: It’s something sportswriter Bill Simmons created to explain, effectively, famous people/organizations going insane. Or, as the Urban Dictionary definition says: “The point at which a celebrity’s behavior becomes so insane, that there is literally nothing they could do that would any longer shock or surprise you, or indeed any human being.”
DC has entered the Tyson Zone, Brian.
Brian: See, I don’t think that movies are the overriding problem here, I think it is simply a case of not trusting talent. As we discussed earlier today, this is Diggle’s biggest comic so far, and he’s had a genuinely successful career up to this point. I can’t imagine Diggle didn’t pitch his story for the book, and that pitch didn’t get approved, and there wasn’t editorial discussions about the direction of the book before, during, and after the scripting of the first issue. If their goal was to sync up the movie and comic experience, that MUST have been the plan long before Diggle’s first pages were turned in.
Continued belowSimilarly, the Lantern movie flopped, and I can’t see DC believing that Guy Gardner and Atrocitus are the saviors of the DC cinematic universe. Fialkov, I truly believe, walked off the books because what was ok when he was pitching is no longer ok, for whatever reason. All I can chalk this up to is editorial insanity and poor management skills. DC seems content to micromanage each book in hopes to have one universe that is coherent and works together, over trusting their talent to do the best books they can.
Of course, don’t anyone tell them that the Wonder Woman from her book and the one in “Justice League” couldn’t be any different, or that other parts of the universe don’t exactly line up, despite their insistance at having such tight editorial control.
David: See, I agree in some ways, but I disagree in others with what you’re saying. I think it’s not so much that they envision Guy Gardner as the movie world’s savior, but I do think they’re on a firm mission of brand control at least partially driven by dreams of film success. One way or another, editorial seems to be where the buck stops here, and the buck is stopping over and over. I think they flipped the script on Diggle/Fialkov – I mean, both have experience with DC and are known commodities – and it was too much for them to handle.
Of course, that much is obvious.
Do you think we’re going to start seeing creators shying away from working with DC? Or do you think that the allure of their character base and stature is enough to keep creators coming back?
Brian: I don’t see creators rushing to pitch right now – Fialkov makes a point in his note that this was a tough decision for him to make financially – here’s a dude who clearly has a stake in the books he’s writing beyond feeling creatively fulfilled. He has to pay bills, and things were so bad he would put those bills in jeopardy and walk away. That must be a downright toxic environment.
What I can see happening, although this may just be wishful thinking, is that things continue to be so bad that someone above the current editorial staff, whether that is Diane Nelson, or someone higher up at Time Warner, comes in and cleans house of the upper management, in order to stave off a full on insurrection. Do you think I’m high for even thinking that?
David: I don’t think you’re high, but I do agree that’s wishful thinking. If you think about it, you could make an argument that these things all started kind of happening around the time Warner’s influence went full on. Not to do my own conspiracy theorizing, but if anyone is looking to guide for the bottom line, it’s probably Warner.
I think the only thing that could drive them to do that is if the PR becomes so bad they’re forced to make a move, but let’s face it: is this a big deal to Joe Q. Comic Book Shop…Shopper (the name needs some work)? Probably not. It’s a huge deal to us, the “in-crowd” if you will, but if my time in comic shops have taught me anything, it’s that much of what happens in our world does not impact the average reader knowingly.
If DC’s bottom line is impacted, a move will happen. It’s pretty easy to see that it hasn’t been really. They’re pretty much where they always are, but up a level because the rest of the industry has been bumped up over the past couple years.
I do think DC’s already facing a bit of a crunch right now with creators. With the exclusive wars kind of already putting a line in the sand, the available potential creator base – at least known creators – is running pretty thin. I don’t know where they get the future waves of talent from.
Here’s the million dollar question Brian: is this impacting your potential purchase of these books?
Continued belowBrian: It certainly is – Diggle was the sole reason I was going to buy “Action” once Grant Morrison left – I’m not the world’s biggest Superman fan, nor am I a very big fan of Tony Daniel’s art (not that I mind it, but it isn’t the sort of art that gets me to plunk down $4 a month). And Fialkov, quietly, has become one of the more consistent writers in mainstream comics, as well as a dude I happen to quite like, based on the limited personal interactions I’ve had with him. I might still give those titles a shot, but it would be because the story/art so blew me away that I’d feel dumb not to be reading it.
Your point is a well-taken one, though – if DC’s sales numbers don’t take a hit from stuff like this, they probably won’t make any real changes. However, I can’t help but think it will hurt their bottom line in their ability to procure top shelf clientele to work on their books. So, they find themselves at a crossroads – is it more important to attract talent that will sustain longterm success, or is success today, right now, damn tomorrow, more important?
Isn’t it coincidental that editorial, the department that is supposed to help everything fit together and plan for the future, is being painted as short sighted and not at all concerned about the overall health of their line?
David: I think they are SUPER concerned for the overall health of their line. I think that’s the problem: it’s become so intense that they are micromanaging it to death. I mean, look at our comments on the article. One person is talking about the dwindling amounts of DC, another facetiously suggests he could be the next GL writer, and a third one – seriously – says he actually emailed DC about the concern he has for what is happening.
The problem is no one ever realizes that you vote with your money, and if you keep supporting books that you don’t agree with from a way things are made standpoint, then these things keep happening.
That said, I honestly wasn’t intending to buy these books as is. Now I am…less likely than 0% going to buy them? As you said, if I hear that they’re good, I’ll probably check them out. I have no problem with the people taking the books over – more power to them, it’s quite a feather in their caps – but I’m generally not interested in them as books.
The interesting thing is basically how cool Diggle and Fialkov come out of the deal. They’ve played it cool, haven’t went all Red Lantern on us, and been completely reasonable. I have a lot of admiration for that kind of thing, and if DC’s stock (not literally) has dipped a lot in my mind, Diggle and Fialkov’s has risen significantly. Would you agree?
Brian: I think the difference between how we see this is that you feel they are concerned with the overall health of the line, and I see it as them being overly concerned with the tiny details. The DC house is a mess, but their desk is immaculate. I think “health of the line” to them means that things are going exactly how they want them, not that they are going well. There is a difference between things going well and things going smoothly, and DC is overly concerned with the wrong one.
But back to the creators – oh yeah, I think both Fialkov and Diggle have seen their credibility rise pretty steeply in the last 24 hours. Both men seem to have measured, nuanced reactions to this news, and are being professional and supportive of just about everyone involved. It’s funny how the most vocal critics of the moves seem to be comics journalists (who are supposed to be dispassionate reporters of the news) and spurned creators (who should know better than to air their dirty laundry in public).
Anything else you’d like to cover?
David: I guess my last question for you is what’s next? Do you think DC is going to start learning from their mistakes and/or trusting their creators again? Mark Waid turning Wally West and Bart Allen into my favorite characters wasn’t THAT long ago, but it feels like forever ago. I find it hard to envision them doing things like Terminal Velocity in today’s age. Am I being a cynic, or is that the nature of the beast these days?
Continued belowBrian: I honestly have no idea. This type of alienation and poor PR can’t last – although the biggest PR disaster of late hasn’t even been touched on, which is the Orson Scott Card debacle – however, I struggle to see a quick solution. I think one of two things happen, and the chances are at about 50/50 – either things get real bad over the next year or two, and a change happens to right the ship, or the aforementioned John Q. Bad Jokes don’t notice and we continue to seethe over here in the corner of the internet where we care about this sort of stuff.
The difference between Mark Waid’s era and today is that during Waid’s era the guys running the asylum loved comics SO HARD. Guys like Paul Levitz, while far from perfect, know comics inside and out, and want what is best for the medium. Dan DiDio isn’t a comics guy – that isn’t meant as an insult, but feel free to take it as one – his background is in the corporate side of television. DC used to be the home of nice long runs, where creators could stretch their legs and really do incredible stuff – remember, “Starman” lasted 80 issues! Would that even last a full year today?
The pendulum swings both ways, and eventually, DC will be back to being the place creators want to work. I just can’t see that spot on the horizon just yet.
