While all of us at Multiversity are fans of a wide spectrum of comics, there are a few of us that tend to self-identify as “DC guys.” We’ve cried for justice; we’ve been through the blackest nights and the brightest days. And now, we’ve been culled together for a new column to focus on some of the bigger goings on in the world of Detective Comics Comics. If you’re wondering who is going to stand up and discuss what is happening at DC – don’t worry:
Today, we will look at the series that, over the past few months, have either gone the way of the dodo, or have been new additions to the New 52.
Vince Ostrowski: I thought it would be pertinent to get the two remaining books that Rob Liefeld left in his dust out of the way first. “The Savage Hawkman” and “Deathstroke” were both recently cancelled. I don’t know about you, but those are two characters that I would like to see in well-crafted solo books (although I think Deathstroke may work better as a villain in sparing doses). This isn’t a situation where the characters are just not interesting enough. The execution just wasn’t there. How do you feel about these characters?
Zach Wilkerson: I completely agree with you about Deathstroke. I just can’t get behind the guy as a protagonist. It’s a shame that “Team 7” didn’t work out either, as he works better in a team setting.
Staying true to history, DC made “Savage Hawkman” needlessly complicated. I for one was very excited with the character coming out of “Brightest Day.” I understand why DC felt the need to abandon that route for the New 52, for fear of alienating new readers. However, the vague continuity hodge-podge Tony Daniel launched was, in my opinion, equally inaccessible. While “Justice League of America” has begun to repair some of the damage done under Daniel and Liefeld’s reigns, I’m afraid we won’t see a good Hawkman solo series for a long time now.
Brian Salvatore: Deathstroke is one of those characters that has been a solid, even intriguing guy on the periphery (and sometimes smack dab in the middle) of the Teen Titans mythos for the past thirty years. He has been that rare breed of a villain who is absolutely a bastard, and yet absolutely relatable. Now, that said, “Deathstroke” never approached the heights that Deathstroke, the character, could have reached. I think Justin Jordan’s characterization of him was probably the best of the New 52’s iterations, but that still leaves a whole lot to be desired.
As for Hawkman, I’m of two minds – one the one hand, he is a core Justice League member that has been a fun character, especially when paired up with other heroes. On the other hand, his origin is basically a Rubix Cube at this point – confusing for the sake of confusion, and most people with any sense stopped giving a shit in the late ’80s. “The Savage Hawkman” was a letdown under every iteration, but at least when Daniel was writing this book, there was a sense of trying something new.
Guys, I just defended Tony Daniel’s writing. I think this means DC wins at destroying my life.
It is interesting that Vince described these books as Liefeld joints, because in the short-sighted world of the New 52, the fact that a writer left the book 5 issues ago feels like a lifetime ago. Do you guys feel that these were books that could have worked under different creators, or are these from the “GI Combat” school of books destined to fail?
Vince: I think that the “stink” of Liefeld’s pedigree ultimately killed these books. I know fans that wouldn’t touch them again once he’d had a few months with them. As far as whether they would have worked under other creators, I guess it would have been an uphill battle. After all, they both started under other creators, didn’t sell well, and ultimately that was the reason Liefeld got them in the first place.
Continued belowThough it was melodramatic, I thought Kyle Higgins’ arc on “Deathstroke” was a fine representation of the character. Tony Daniel’s “Savage Hawkman” committed the crime of being terribly boring and featured his similarly dry penchant for narration. It’s tough to sell a “Hawkman” title if you’re going to be dry and boring.
Maybe it would take true A-list writers to cause the needle to move on these B-list characters. Geoff Johns could write a solo Hawkman series. I’m sure he could. I’m convinced he could make it an “Aquaman”-type success.
But I honestly think both of these titles were doomed once they had Liefeld’s name on them, so I guess we won’t know whether they could succeed until they relaunch the characters far down the road.
Zach: The need for a high profile creator, and one that is also well regarded, is a recurring problem we’ll see for most of these niche books. DC’s reluctance to put Snyder and Johns on anything other than top tier titles is what keeps this “churn,” as Bob Harras so eloquently describes it, going.
Vince: Perhaps JLA is an indication that DC is heading down the Marvel route: make JL teams out of random heroes to give low profile characters a bigger spotlight. After all, outside of their big guns, how many of Marvel’s books are solo titles? Hardly any.
Zach:You know, that’s a good point. Solo books don’t usually make for sustainable ongoing series, unless it’s Batman, Superman, Wolverine, etc. Fans may clamor for a Static Shock series, for example, but the dollar votes just aren’t there. It makes a lot more sense, from a publishing standpoint, to lump a character like that into a book like Teen Titans.
However, team books aren’t always safe, considering the cancellations of books like “Ravagers” and “Team 7.” What do you guys think kept these books, both of which are linked to top tier properties, from catching on?
Vince: They may be linked to top tier properties, but only comic fans from a decade ago could tell you what “Team 7” is, and even then they’re relatively obscure. Ask anyone in your LCS what the “Ravagers” are and I doubt many of them would even know what you’re talking about. Hell, I’ve read “Ravagers” and I couldn’t even give you a 1-sentence mission statement of that book. “It’s the one with Red Beast Boy and Terra” is what I would probably come up with.
“Ravagers” was just straight-up poorly conceived and poorly written. There was no hook, the team had no identity, they spent too much time arguing and/or moping around, and never felt as if they were anything other than a gimmicky tie-in to the ‘Culling’ story arc that nobody thought was interesting in the first place. It was a book that no one demanded and the sales reflected that.
“Team 7” didn’t suffer from bad writing from a technical standpoint, but it too had an identity problem, I think. This may come down to a matter of opinion, but I don’t think the book did a good job of actually delivering on its premise: “a team designed to contain the potential threat of metahumans.” It never felt like it did that in any meaningful way, which was likely due to its “5 years ago…” setting. We already knew what would happen to “Team 7” and the journey was even less interesting than the result.
Do you guys think that’s accurate? That these two look like books tried to continue more of what people didn’t want in the first place?
Brian: I think you’re general thesis is spot on, Vince, but there is another layer here. I don’t think even DC really wants books like “Team 7” and “Ravagers,” either. Both of those books come from a place of, simply, rolling the dice and seeing if they roll a 7 (no pun intended).
If DC really wanted “Ravagers” to work, there would have been a top-tier creative team, lots of promotion, and stuff that mattered happening within its pages. If “Team 7” was destined to work, they should have let Jordan go wild on it. I don’t know why DC half-asses these series, and then is surprised with the reaction from fans is half-assed.
Continued belowI really think it comes down to this flawed idea of needing 52 books. If there wasn’t this magical quota of 52 series floating around, half the books that have been cancelled would never have existed in the first place. I know this is the second “GI Combat” reference I’m making this article (therefore making this article the most anyone, ever, has talked about “GI Combat”), but that book could not have been a case of panicking when they realized “oh shit, we don’t have a 52nd book…uh…what about all those unused “Men of War” scripts?” and put out a new book.
If they want books to succeed, they need books that someone wants.
Vince: I’ll be happy to talk about a couple of books I wanted.
“Demon Knights”, whether by Paul Cornell or Robert Venditti, was scratching a fantasy itch that no other Big 2 book even tried to. Not only that, but following a fun and diverse cast of characters through a time skip and lots of mayhem was rewarding even without the fact that it was a fantasy setting. It was just good writing and entertaining the whole way through. One of the few New 52 titles that I never had second thoughts about.
“Sword of Sorcery”, though a little cornball at times, scratched a similar itch. It’s hard to appreciate it much now, seeing as it’s only ended up as a 9 issue affair, but I thought there was a world there that was worth fleshing out. My only problem with it was that this was a property that looked like it should have been all-ages, but then had multiple moments throughout that were as mature as anything else in the ‘New 52’. Fine for me, but I wished I could have read this title to, say, my girlfriend’s daughter.
Did you guys enjoy DC’s foray into fantasy as much as I did?
Brian: I am all for line diversity and, as you said, these scratched an itch that isn’t being met anywhere else in the line.
“Demon Knights” is a book I always enjoyed, but got dropped from my pull simply because I didn’t have the time or the finances to catch up on it. I love the idea, and thought that both writers were doing a good job bringing such a story to life (with some really nice artwork). As for “Sword of Sorcery,” it never really clicked for me. Again, maybe it is because it should be an all-ages title or, perish the thought, developed internally before being tossed into the world.
What I mean by that last bit is to map out where the characters that will be inhabiting the book will be going. Amethyst is sort of, kind of, bait for JLDark at this point, and Beowulf had a spot in the final “DC Universe Presents,” but neither of those moves, if laid out in #1 (or #0) would look brilliant or even logical.
“Demon Knights” joins “OMAC” and “I, Vampire” on my list of cancellations that, while business-wise, are creative-foolish. I often think about why a young creator would want to come to DC right now, especially if they have no desire to writer a Lantern or Bat book. If these books, all by relative veterans (save for Fialkov on “I, Vampire” and Venditti as the second writer on “Demon Knights”), can’t make it, who could expect a lesser-known creator to stick on anything right now? The company needs certain books to boost their credibility with the creators they want to bring in, and those books just don’t exist.
Zach: I’m with you on the arbitrary 52 book requirement. It’s evident by the regular cancellations that DC just doesn’t have the amount of material necessary to produce 52 books that people will want to buy. They’re becoming increasingly top-heavy, with a fourth of the New 52 being Batman related and another fourth comprised of Superman/Green Lantern/Justice League.
I enjoyed both “Demon Knights” and “Sword of Sorcery,” but didn’t stick with either title for long. For “Demon Knights,” the decompressed pacing that plagued much of New 52 launch killed my interest after about 5 or 6 issues. However, I loved the team and concept. “Sword of Sorcery” caught my eye with some of Aaron Lopresti’s best work to date and a fun mythology in Gemworld, but the unnecessary back-up feature and accompanying $3.99 price tag made it a no go.
Continued belowI think these are two great examples of “barriers to entry” that DC places on its niche titles. Take the recently cancelled “DC Universe Presents” for example. Was it really a wise decision to launch with a five issue “Deadman” origin? Or, look at books like “Men of War,” “G.I. Combat,” “Theshold,” and the aforementioned “Sword of Sorcery,” all of which were priced a dollar higher than the majority of the New 52. If DC’s C and D-list titles can’t reach acceptable sales numbers at $2.99, how is raising the price with a 10-page back-up going to help?
Brian: “DC Universe Presents” is a baffling one. Instead of launching minis, they placed minis inside of a book that sounded like an anthology, but wasn’t. If they wanted to do an ongoings of done in ones, or two parters, that is one thing, but to have an ever-changing length of issues (Deadman – 5, Challengers of the Unknown – 3, Vandal Savage – 3, Kid Flash – 1, Cancelled New 52 books – 1, Black Lightning/Blue Devil – 4 [although originally planned for 5], Starfire – 1, Arsenal – 1, Beowulf – 1) for a variety of characters that ranged from quasi-popular to headscratching was just insane.
In fact, the #0 issue, which had the cancelled New 52 books of “Hawk and Dove,” “Mister Terrific,” “O.M.A.C.,” and “Blackhawks” joined by OG focus character Deadman all have mini-stories, was probably the best of the bunch. It was like a lesser “Dark Horse Presents,” which is the gold standard for anthology books in 2013.
Zach: “DC Universe Presents” works wonderfully as an anthology book. I would love to see DC continue the series, in the vein of the #0 issue, with a release schedule similar to their Vertigo anthologies. Likewise, the “done in one” format seen towards the end of “DC Universe Presents” would work brilliantly in a revamped “New 52 Showcase” series. Both of these options would be a wonderful way for DC to test the waters for certain characters and/or creative teams, compared to the “see what sticks” approach they’ve utilized thus far.
I think DC has shown that they aren’t afraid to try unexpected thing, but their willingness to stand by their creations once they’ve thrown them to the public is severely lacking. Looking at the remaining recently cancelled/to be cancelled books, “Fury of Firestorm” and “Dial H” stand out as series that tried to do something different. “Firestorm” combined two fan favorite, yet polar opposite, creators; Gail Simone and Ethan Van Sciver. The book also completely retooled the Firestorm concept, taking a page from the Geoff Johns school of mythology building. However, we all know that bizarre experiment didn’t pan out, and DC’s decision to play it safe (reverting back to the pre-New 52 status quo) ultimately led to the book’s end.
“Dial H,” on the other hand, saw novelist China Mieville deliver an outlandishly creative take on an obscure DC property. Unfortunately, from the first issue you could tell that this gem, which seemed more at home under the Vertigo banner than the New 52, wasn’t long for this world. Vince, I know this one was a particularly tough loss for you. While I’m positive one will be missed far more than the other, what do you guys think about the life of these books?
Vince: Losing “Dial H” absolutely breaks my heart. I didn’t give it the highest reviews scores when I wrote about that title, because I think I subjectively liked it a lot more than it objectively worked as a DC Comics comic book. I can see why it would be a tough title for comic readers, even seasoned ones, to latch on to. And for unseasoned “New 52” readers, it must have been completely baffling.
I would point readers to my “Dial H” Friday Recommendation article, rather than go on and on about it here, but this is one of those cases where the cancellation makes sense, even if I hate the reality of it. The numbers just weren’t there and the concept and execution both had many barriers to entry. It was a smart comic though, and just the type of thing I’d like to see more of as far as “chance-taking” goes. This was a rare case of DC Comics moving away from their recent tendency to play it down the middle and generic with their properties and characters. Frankly, I’m surprised it made it as far as it did, but the writing was on the wall once Karen Berger left the company, I’m sure.
Continued below“Fury of Firestorm”, on the other hand, is a cancellation that I won’t lose sleep over. Zach, you said it pretty well – they started off one way with the character, drifted back (again, toward that generic and muddy middle-ground), and wound up with a property that couldn’t drive on a clear narrative. Let me ask you guys this, as well: Do you think some of the buddy-cop aspects of the title felt a little dated? To me, Ronnie and Jason felt like stock Archie characters or something. I don’t know – there was always something a little cheesy and uncomfortable, in a bad way, in the tension created between the two characters.
Brian: Since we’ve mourned what has been lost, let’s celebrate (?) what has been gained – new titles! Let’s start with Gail Simone and Freddie Williams’s “The Movement,” a quasi-Occupy Wall Street/teenage hood rats team book from a very popular writer and a mediocre artist. What did you guys think of the start of this series?
Vince: I’ve got to be honest – I kind of hated this book. I usually give a book 3 issues until I make a decision, but I could only get through one and a half. I appreciate that it is a truly different book that also wants to take a stand on some things. That’s refreshing to see from a company comic. But am I actually supposed to like any of these people? I mean, obviously not the cops (obviously). But am I supposed to like anyone else? Gail Simone is a talented writer and I probably feel just about the same as her, politically and whatnot, but I hated every one of the self-righteous characters in this book. It didn’t help that Freddie Williams II is about as ill a fit for this book as you could have picked. I don’t know if he has a “good fit” anywhere though – as I can’t say that I’ve ever really enjoyed that style. I haven’t been following the news surrounding this book at all since I stopped reading it, so I don’t know if critical consensus has been good or bad. I only know that it’s not for me – even though I feel like it could have been.
Zach: I’m with Vince on this one. “The Movement,” while an interesting concept, has such bizarre execution as to make it almost unreadable. I enjoyed William’s newer, sketchier style on “Captain Atom,” but it’s not a great fit for such a street level book. Credit is due for taking chances, but it’s hardly the “Secret Six” successor we’ve all been waiting for.
Brian: I really, really wanted to like “The Movement,” but I found it pretty dull. The art was lackluster, the writing unfocused, and the new characters uninteresting. If you’re launching a new series, featuring all new characters, there has to be a better game plan than this. Because it features all new characters, I may stick around a little longer than you guys, if only to support DC creating new characters again.
This book has been paired, marketing wise, with “The Green Team: Teen Trillionaires” from Franco/Art Balthazar and art from Ig Guara. This is an obscure property DC is reviving and, again, kudos for the attempt. However, this left me just as, if not more, cold than “The Movement” did. There is nothing here that really seems interesting to me, and that is coming from a huge Art/Franco fan. Did anything from this book excite you guys?
Vince: Excite? No. But my experience differed from yours in that I liked it considerably more than “The Movement.” That’s a testament to how unappealing “The Movement” was for me, rather than an endorsement for “The Green Team” – a book I am still dropping. It was more light-hearted and fun than “The Movement” and I did find a little enjoyment from that. I was getting into the “secret science fair” aspects of the first issue, but then it all kind of fell apart in the end. I’ll let Zach say his peace on it, but I’d like to use these two books as a springboard into a little discussion on how DC Comics can be successful at launching new books that aren’t Batman or Superman-related. That’s what we want, right? So how can they please us? More importantly – how can they sell books that way?
Continued below
Zach: I enjoyed “Green Team” considerably more than “The Movement,” but I still have mixed feelings overall. I rather enjoyed the underlying premise, the characters, and the art. However, incorporating social media in comics is always iffy for me. Books like “Young Avengers” do it exceptionally well, but most books, including “Green Team” come off as hokey and/or out of touch. The super hero angle seemed tacked on, and actually took away from the book’s interesting first half.
After reading both of these books, I was struck by just how un-DC they both felt. If either of these books were published under Image or Dark Horse, I wonder how it would affect our expectations and impressions. Going along with Vince’s comments, do you guys think there is something inherent about DC as a publisher that makes it harder for, for lack of a better term, “indie”-esque titles to gain traction?
Brian: That’s an interesting idea, Zach. I think that DC could pull off an indie-feeling book, but never would. That’s the rub – these books have the aesthetic of an indie book with the tight editorial grip and poor PR machine (for new books, at least) of DC behind it. They feel like facsimiles of what an “indie” book would be, but with none of the charm or edge an indie book can bring.
The best thing I can say about these books is that at least DC is trying to do something that isn’t another Bat-book. They are trying something new – I don’t love the results, but I love them trying.
However, I have to say, I haven’t seen DC pushing these much at all. Have you guys?
Vince: You both bring up some points I’d like to spin off on. Yes, I think I do judge these books on a tougher curve because they’re DC books and it’s because of what Brian said – they’ve got more resources. They should be promoting their smaller books a lot harder than they do (even if I don’t think anything could get me to continue reading these two in particular).
Can I tell you what I think is the bigger problem with both of these books is? They were marketed as books that were going to latch on to the very current idea of class warfare. The creatives can deny that that’s what the books were supposed to be about, but that’s what they were marketed on. The iconography was plain as day. In the end though, neither of the books really took chances on that kind of subject matter. They perhaps addressed them at the surface level, but never took any interesting chances or angles at it. Am I off base here? Would those have made for more interesting books? Or more divisive failures?
Zach: No, I totally agree with you on that. I’d say both books failed, at least out of the gate, at addressing the class-based aspects with any sort of depth. Coupled with the lack of any real promotion past the initial announcement, these books seemed destined to fail. Of course, taking a stronger political tone wouldn’t have necessarily resulted in better books, but it would’ve at least made for something worth talking about.
We’ve talked about this before, but DC’s reluctance to “back its own horse,” so to speak, makes it nearly impossible for a book like this to catch on.
Brian: The way they introduced these books are totally off, too. Allow me to be an old man for a second, but when “Starman,” my favorite comic ever, was released, the title was teased inside of “Zero Hour,” the company’s big crossover at the time. If these characters were part of “Forever Evil” and then split off, that is one thing, but introducing a new book with new characters totally cold is a recipe for disaster.
Along with the two “social issues” books, we’ve also gotten two new Superman books, “Superman Unchained” and “Batman/Superman.” Let’s start with “Unchained” – did you guys think it was worth the nearly year wait from its announcement to its first issue?
Continued below
Zach: I wouldn’t say it was necessarily worth the year wait, but as a huge Superman fan I’m extremely glad to see Superman getting not only a good monthly comic, but the kind of recognition that a Scott Snyder/Jim Lee book garners. I’m not 100% sold on the book yet, but it doesn’t take much to leave the rest of the Superman line in the dust.
Vince: I think “Superman: Unchained” does suffer from the same general problems that the other ‘New 52’ Superman books do, but it does have the advantage of being written by a strong writer – something the “Superman” and “Action Comics” can’t currently lay claim to. Snyder applies his now-trademark approach to fleshing out a character and his world to Superman and the results are something that the character has been dying for since the ‘New 52’ began. Snyder can take a bit of science or a “fun fact” and extrapolate it toward building a character and a world that has already been mined for 75 years. Those bits are really great – and a breath of fresh air in a comic line that seems like it would rather just launch Superman into enemies like a blunt instrument.
That said, Jim Lee’s whole oeuvre just so entirely characterizes the ‘New 52’ that the look of the book doesn’t always capture the majesty that the character requires at his best. The conflict and the central villain figure don’t hold up alongside the more subtle approach to the character that Snyder is taking. On top of that, this whole affair is another instance where being outside of the rules set by the ‘New 52’ would benefit the story. What I mean is, whatever happened to Superman being the first metahuman in the ‘New 52’? How many times have they broken that one now? That last one is a nitpick, but to me, this feels like a great comic trapped as a merely good one, because of the veneer of the ‘New 52’.
Brian: Yeah, “Unchained” was pretty much what was expected – a well written Snyder story, with Jim Lee art. Of course it was a bit too muscle-y/1995 for my tastes, but I’m not a big Lee fan. The fold out was a total waste of paper, and the price tag was unjustified, but it was just about what I thought it would be.
Now, “Batman/Superman” is another story – #1 was one of the best single issues of the entire New 52 thus far, and certainly in the top 2 Superman comics since “Flashpoint” (the other being the first Andy Diggle “Action” story). Plus, two of my favorite artists alive were on that book – Jae Lee and Ben Oliver. With Greg Pak taking over “Action” in November, it is certainly looking better for Superman in the New 52, although Lobdell is still stalking around the shadows being terrible.
What did you guys think of “Batman/Superman?”
Zach: I’m loving “Batman/Superman” so far. In fact, I’d say I’m enjoying it more than any of the solo books. Pak has a strong grasp on the character’s voices, despite this being his first time writing them. I also love the Earth 2 angle. The thing that clinches it for me, of course, is Jae Lee’s art. I was a little anxious about an artist known for being dark and moody tackling Superman, but the results have been spectacular so far. That two page spread in the first issue reflecting the lives of Clark and Bruce might be my favorite thing in a comic this year.
Vince: I mark out for Jae Lee. I even love his take on Superman, which has caught a little bit of flack out there in the Twitterverse. Love it. I must admit that I got just a tad worried after the first issue. Just a tad. I thought that Greg Pak had the voices and the concepts of the characters down, but the plotting was messy, in my opinion. I realize he was creating intrigue by dimension-hopping, but I didn’t think that it entirely worked. Maybe it would read better a second time through, but I haven’t had the time.
Continued belowThat second issue though? Oh my. Issue #2 was beautifully done. Batman fighting Batman to a stalemate, as each realizes that only they themselves are possibly capable of fighting one another that way. The two Supermen on the Kent farm with the clear contrast between the two being their different experiences with Ma and Pa Kent? That was absolutely beautifully pulled off. And finally, Jae Lee’s Catwoman was jaw-droppingly sexy. One of the finest issues of any DC comic post-‘New 52’, if you ask me.
As I said in my CSBC entry for this issue – I can’t wait to see how DC editorial ultimately bungles it.
Vince: Pandora was the other ‘New 52’ book that cropped up recently. I didn’t think there was anything bad about the book, but I also can’t say I’m interested in the exploits of this Pandora character. Even a couple of issues in, I have no idea where she fits in the DC Universe – a problem I have had with their approach to the Trinity of Sin since the Free Comic Book Day issue where they all appeared together. What am I missing?
Zach: As much as I hate to admit it, I’m with you on this. Pandora, like the New 52, was a concept that offered a lot of excitement and potential at the start, only to lose much of that momentum through misuse. The fact that it’s been two years since the character’s introduction and she has yet to be used as anything more than a convenient plot device is disheartening. I want to reserve final judgment until the end of ‘Trinity War,’ as that may finally unlock the shackles currently holding the character back.
Vince: I also think it was a mistake to relaunch a universe with 75 years of history and center it on the actions of some new bogus character.
Brian: The character of Pandora, no matter how well conceived or genius, could never live up to the responsibility of being the catalyst for the New 52. Throw on top of that the idea that she’s the catalyst for ALL EVIL ON THE EARTH and, again, it is too much for one character to bear. On top of that, her origin still doesn’t really explain the end of “Flashpoint,” nor does it even attempt to connect what is going on now to that series. “Trinity of Sin: Pandora” is, so far, a weird series that brings together an element of mystery, a cop drama, and this mystical fuck-up, and comes out feeling as muddled as that description sounds. I think the creative team is a capable one, but I feel that the character leaves them with very few options for good storytelling.
