THE MODERATOR: Greetings Faithful Talkbackers! I am the Moderator, the omniscient and sole voice of reason haunting the halls of @$$hole HQ. Sometimes a comic comes along that is too big for just one of the @$$Holes to review. In those cases, we drop formalities, gather around our circular table, load up of Schlitz and pretzels, and talk the comic to death. So without further ado, it’s time for another painfully unfunny, self-indulgent, and meandering @$$HOLE ROUNDTABLE REVIEW!
MODERATOR: Well, you've been hearing about it for months. You've been reading all of the miniseries leading up the event. You've been cruising the message board rumorings and gabbing it up in the talkbacks. INFINITE CRISIS is here. Now that you've read it, what are your initial thoughts?
SUPERHERO: Well, I've got to say that while it didn't necessarily blow me away there were some things that really did hit home for me. I haven't been a fan of the whole "We're pissed at Wonder Woman because she killed someone" thing but the conversation between the big three in this issue lead to some pretty interesting points.
PROFESSOR CHALLENGER: Okay. Here's the deal. I was 18 when CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS #1 hit the stands. What I doubt you newbies out there can really wrap your minds around is that at that time, this grand universe-wide crossover megaseries thing was brand new and it was a monumental sea change for all of us reading super-hero comics all our lives. Sure, Marvel had finished up their SECRET WARS thing, but that was limited to a handful of heroes and their adventure took place offworld with the only real ramifications being Spider-Man wearing a black costume (so the artists didn't have to draw webs anymore) and She-Hulk joining the Fantastic Four.
CRISIS changed EVERYTHING ~ and for the last 20 years we have experienced a changed approach to storytelling and marketing as a result of that mini-series. I know the market out there is clamoring to get their hands on this series (hats off to the DC Marketing Team for their blitzkrieg style advertising on this thing), but the p.o.v. of the average buyer is so jaded and cynical now that nobody really expects anything more than a corporate attempt to raid their wallets.
So here we are. We got a corporate attempt to raid our wallets being produced by a team of a talented writer and artist who are giving it their best effort to try and rise above the marketing driven genesis of this series.
Evaluated on those terms, it is a mixed bag for me. The writing in issue 1 is strong and the art is strong, but at this point there's something still missing for me. The weekend before this comic came out, I went and reread the original CRISIS to get prepped and I've got to say that the original CRISIS #1 still blows away all the competition.
AMBUSH BUG: After a first read, I have to say that I am impressed. Johns has orchestrated all of these corners of the DCU and created one awe-inspiring universe. But aside from that, he's constructed a compelling read with this issue that draws from all of that build-up. This isn't an issue where the heroes stand around and talk the entire time. The heroic trinity meets. They have a dynamic disagreement. Some action relevant to that disagreement occurs. And then there is a resolution to that disagreement resulting in some major ramifications for our heroes. All the while, in the background, the four threats that have been developing in RANN-THANAGAR WAR, VILLAINS UNITED, DAY OF VENGEANCE, RETURN OF DONNA TROY, and OMAC PROJECT all come together. Having followed the entire build-up from IDENTITY CRISIS on, I have to say that this issue did its job in hooking me into this gigantic story.
SUPERHERO: See, the mini-series all just dragged on. After a while they just weren't compelling to me anymore. I just started to feel like...get on with it already! By the time I got to this first issue, I was tired of the different mini-series so this issue just ended up being kind of more of the same for me.
BUG: I agree that the series went on a bit too long. None of the single issues dragged on like your typical Marvel filler, but I think it would have been a better idea to have the series run three to four issues, rather that six. By the end of each of the miniseries, I knew where it was all going.
HUMPHREY LEE: I'll agree I think that some of the minis were just too much fodder and meandering while trying to get some of the "big picture" things in place, like what Wonder Woman did in “Sacrifice,” trying to get Donna goddamn Troy running about and doing her thing and so bloody on. We all know, though, that six issues is the magic number now for sales, so that would never have happened.
VROOM SOCKO: I may be in a unique position here: I've never once read the original CRISIS.
Oh sure, I flipped through it a couple of times, but the whole thing just seemed so ponderous. I know that Supergirl dies, but I couldn't tell you how or why. Likewise, I only read two of the lead-in miniseries to this big event: VILLAINS UNITED and RANN-THANAGAR. So what's the bottom line here? I honestly don't have a single fucking clue what's going on in that book, that's what. Hell, the big reveal at the end means next to nothing to me, simply because I have no earthy idea who half of those people are!
BUG: Well, there was SuperOldie, from an alternate earth where everyone has greying temples. There's Red Afro Lex from Earth Disco. There's SuperSlim from Lo-Carb Earth. And Purple Dress Lass from a land where everyone must wear a purple dress, or as I like to call it, Uncle Phil's place; where as I child, I was not allowed to visit.
VROOM: Wait a second. You're telling me that was Lex Fucking Luthor?!? Uh-uh. No way. What kind of twisted-ass reality has a Lex Luthor that looks like a Ren-Fair version of Napoleon Dynamite? I feel sorry for that world. "Otis, I need you to bring my red Kryptonite to school. Gosh!"
PROF: No. We're telling you that the only son of the Lex Luthor of Earth 3 was rocketed to Earth 1 to become the sole survivor of that planet. He's the Disco Messiah.
SUPERHERO: How come the older Superman and his crew never showed up to save the universe before? What? ZERO HOUR and INVSION weren't cataclysmic enough?
BUG: This is a good point, but maybe the heroes were fit to take on these Crises. It looks as if the true Crisis is actually on the horizon and heroes of the alternate Earths decided to intervene because the heroes just weren't capable of being heroic this time around. So it isn't the size of the Crisis that drew them out, but the capability of the heroes to take care of said Crisis.
PROF: But these characters have been seen before. Or at least Earth 2 Superman has. Unless I was on dope or something, there was a comic something-or-other in the last 7-10 years that had the Earth 2 Superman, Post-Crisis, where we got to see where he went at the end of CRISIS. In that story he was happily flitting around on a copy of Earth. Only problem was that he was actually trapped their by some impenetrable barrier surrounding the atmosphere of the planet. So, maybe he HAS been sitting around watching all this stuff and getting frustrated by the fact that he couldn't break the barrier. But maybe it turns out that Earth 2 Superman is actually a lot like the Hulk and madder Earth 2 Superman gets stronger Earth 2 Superman gets. After watching the current Superman acting like a whiny pansy-ass, Wonder Woman acting like a frigid psychopath, and Batman acting like a 40-year-old virgin experiencing serious blueballs, finally Earth 2 Superman had alls he could stand he could stands no more and had the strength to burst that barrier so he can come kick some post-modern SuperASS. I hope he takes his belt to those kids. They need it.
SLEAZY: Besides, if you don't know who these people were, you only have to wait a month. By the end of the second issue they're supposed to have explained exactly who everybody is and what their deal is. Makes total sense, too--how many comic book cliffhangers end with a reveal on the last page, then explain the sitch in the very next issue? It's totally S.O.P. in comics. They're not gonna leave us flailing around on this one.
PROF: I honestly cannot imagine how this first issue would read to someone who was genuinely unfamiliar with anything DC related but was curious because of the hype. I would expect they would come away slack-jawed, drooling, and with a brain aneurysm. That's my only real writing complaint about INFINITE CRISIS. Hard to penetrate for the DC virgin. Maybe some sort of KY-Jelly would've helped. Or maybe just an inside-the-cover info piece.
DAVE FARABEE: To this entire issue, I offer up a hearty...*shrug* Most of the scenes had competent, even above-average superhero writing, and while I've certainly got some nits to pick, I mostly feel
removed from DC's machinations at this point. Cosmic, world-shattering shit featuring "every character ever!" makes my eyes glaze over and I could never even make it through the first CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS. Blasphemy? Maybe, but while I love the shared universes of Marvel and DC, there comes an oversaturation point for the concept. There comes a point when it's like trying to interpret a spandexed FINNEGAN'S WAKE. Even for a geek like me who's been reading superheroes for 20 years+, that ain't my idea of fun.
PROF: I wouldn't *shrug* it off. Even though it was not a perfect kickoff to a series, it was definitely head and shoulders above most. Honestly, I think this issue had like the reverse problem that HOUSE OF M #1 had. In that first issue, absolutely nothing happened except a bunch of spandexed heads bitching and griping with a big white at the end. In INFINITE CRISIS #1, too much was crammed into it. We got a big verbal fistfight between Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. We got a fight with Mongul. We got the death of the Freedom Fighters. We got epilogues to RANN-THANAGAR WAR, OMAC PROJECT, and DAY OF VENGEANCE. We got cool pinups of the Secret Society of Super-Villains. We got the big reveal of the original Superman and Lois, Alexander Luthor of Earth 3, and Superboy of Earth Prime. No way all of that gets nothing but a *shrug*
DAVE: Sure it does! If there's no emotional connection to the proceedings, the story can have quality trappings throughout and still leave me disinterested. It's not all INFINITE CRISIS' fault, though, not at all. I was predisposed to be disinterested because, well, I've pretty much hated DC's monolithic direction towards despair and ugliness since IDENTITY CRISIS kicked the trend off a year or two back. I'm past being pissed about it, but it doesn't mean I find it remotely appealing.
SLEAZY G: Technically, CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS reads more like if FINNEGAN'S WAKE had been written by somebody really hacky. "Clive Cussler's FINNEGAN'S
WAKE" or some shit. I just read it for the first time less than a year ago because I had a lot of time to kill, and it was like pulling my own teeth with rusty pliers. It's dull and overwrought but with no real sense of impact or importance.
SUPERHERO: This is an interesting comment to me because I've always loved the original CRISIS. As a matter of fact I just lent it to a friend of mine who's a big Marvel fan and had never really read DC books and he loved it as well. Maybe my perceptions are muddled by nostalgia
but I just remember it being so mind blowing that all these characters were getting together for the first time in one place and I, for one, bought the whole Anti-Monitor/Monitor stuff hook, line and sinker. Just wondering if maybe your dislike for it comes from being subjected to this kind of thing for years and years and years and being fed up with it already. Giant crossovers I mean. I know I definitely have but I also know that Crisis was the first and, having read
it again when the trade was released, the best. At least in my opinion.
PROF: The impact, and the writing, of CRISIS cannot be fully comprehended and appreciated unless you were right there in the mix when it originally hit. Sure, it can be enjoyed nostalgically now, but you really cannot look at it through the proper perspective of the times in which it was published. CRISIS really was the last of the Silver Age books and the writing bespeaks its Silver Age pedigree. Simple as that.
SLEAZY G: I think it was well-loved by readers at the time because nothing of its scope had ever been attempted, but reading it with fresh eyes and no sense of nostalgia left me thinking little more than "wow, that sucked." I mean, sure, there was the whole thing where I got a better idea where cities were located geographically or found out the made-up cities came from Earth 2, but...my god...the dialogue and narration? Painful.
SUPERHERO: The one thing that really bugged me about the original CRISIS was how they just
sent "Classic Superman and Lois", Superboy, and Alexander Luthor off to some weird peaceful universe. It always just seemed like such a loophole to me as well as a cop out. I just felt that any alternate versions of Superman should have died. It didn't seem like a good ending for those characters to me.
BUG: Well, it looks like it wasn't the ending. Appears Johns has a few more things for these characters to do.
PROF: Johns and Jimenez have a lot weighing on their shoulders with this miniseries. And I think they know it. This is not like HOUSE OF M, for example, which NOBODY out there gave any extra expectation or weight to beyond its simply being, once again, another crossover series to suck $$$ from X-Zombies. For whatever reason, the DC stable of characters, perhaps because they are more archetypal, resonate more passionately with readers' expectations of respect. I think the creators (and maybe even the Editorial staff) realize that how this miniseries resolves is going to either push people away for good or it is going to reenergize their base and also draw in the newer, more savvy teen and older audience as they move boldly into the 21st century. If they do not deliver, DC is going to experience a painful implosion.
SUPERHERO: But that's the thing, Prof. This whole INFINITE CRISIS thing ISN'T reading like something special...it's starting to read like just another big ol' company wide crossover. Just because it ties into the original CRISIS doesn't mean it's particularly great or even good. The mini-series leading up to it have all been a jumbled mess with no REAL resolution at the end of them leaving me with expectations of anything greater. The original CRISIS was one great, big event created by ONE antagonist, the Anti-Monitor.
BUG: But it may still be one protagonist. INFINITE CRISIS pulls all of the threads together from the miniseries leading up to it. There’s some cosmic anti-matter event in space tying to RANN-THANAGAR. Turns out Lex Luthor II is leading the Secret Society from VILLAINS UNITED. Donna Troy is the one tie between the entire Multiverse as revealed in her series. I think some of the miniseries like DAY OF VENGEANCE and OMAC were meant to distract the big guns of the DCU while some directly tied in with the actual upcoming Crisis that has SuperOldie and Co spooked.
SUPERHERO: This thing is starting to read like too many cooks spoiling the broth. I agree that certain elements were compelling but is it coming across as compelling as CRISIS was in its own time...my answer is nope. Not yet anyway...but in the long run it may have ended up doing more harm than good for this long-time reader. God knows Marvel pushed me away a long time ago with all their crazy X-books.
BUG: I became jaded with the crossover thing too. Too many "Atlantis Attacks" and "Evolutionary Wars" and “Invasions" and "Zero Hours." It got to be an annual thing and when it becomes "What big crossover can we do this year?" I tuned out entirely. The thing with the way this "event" was set up is that it was meticulously paced out by a close knit group of writers who are interested in not just making and event and selling books (although I'm sure they're interested in that too), they're focused on making this a universe spanning story with ramifications. One that moves the mythology that is the DCU forward. There's a history at DC. One that is respected. It's a story that has a beginning and may one day have an end. And since I'm reading a lot of DC, I feel a kinship with all of that, moreso than with the continuity-free way Marvel is functioning these days.
HUMPHREY: I think it's a safe thing to say that this thing was pretty tightly planned out, and then they got dollar signs in their eyes and tried pushing the buck a little more.
PROF: The New DC stands for Direct Change only. Money, money, money, money. I'm reminded of Daffy Duck when he burrows into Aladdin's cave and sees all that gold. I think that's what kinda happened around the DC management offices when the sales figures on IDENTITY CRISIS started rolling in.
DAVE: If I were to sum up my problem with the original CRISIS in just a sentence, it'd go, "When your ensemble cast runs in the scores, their actions become so depersonalized as to be weightless, even abstract - more a chess game than a story."
SUPERHERO: I can see your point but I always saw it as more plot driven than character driven. Plus it had some pretty powerful moments as far as I was concerned. The death of Barry Allen and Supergirl being just two of those.
BUG: I remember that the original CRISIS was at once awe-inspiring and confusing when I first read it. Back when it was first released, I just picked it up because it had all of the awesome heroes standing around and all of this destruction. I didn't really care about stuff like good writing. Don't know what I'd think about it today, but that doesn't really matter when looking at this book. To me, that was a comic from a different time and open for reinterpretation. For Johns to sprout this story directly from that one is a pretty ballsy move, but I don't see the criticisms you guys are stating present in INFINITE CRISIS #1. I think the story was powerful. The scope was large, but you could tell that at the heart of this story is the break-up of a trio of heroes and how those heroes aren't acting so heroic anymore.
HUMPHREY: Well, to me it's quite simple. The book reads extremely well. Johns has written some really good character moments, especially for those now recently deceased, there's solid dialogue, and definitely a sense of urgency.
VROOM: In this issue as well as the buildup minis I counted references to MILLENIUM, LEGENDS, INVASION, DAY OF JUDGEMENT, KINGDOM COME... This whole thing feels like a Post-Crisis Greatest Hits album. It's too much, too confusing, and quite frankly it's alienating.
SLEAZY: I dunno, man. I didn't feel alienated at all. I only got a few issues of INVASION, and don't remember anything, so when the aliens with the big red circles on their heads showed up I was like "oh, hey, that's those guys." And that was it--I just moved on. No big deal. It's like if you know the stuff it's a fun little nod, but you don't need it. And when those last four people show up on the final page? I didn't think "I don't know these guys, so this SUCKS!" I thought "Wow, I can't wait to see what that was about next issue".
HUMPHREY: Those of us that have seen these things get to watch it happen all over again, but at the same time we catch continuity events that we have a better appeal for because we understand them better. While new readers get to see stuff like this for the first time, but probably understand maybe half of the stuff that is going down in this book. So I guess everyone wins but it's a pyrrhic victory.
BUG: I have to agree with this. Because this is such a layered and complex story dealing with multiple storylines, unless you've been following the tie ins and know a bit about the original CRISIS, you may find yourself scratching your head a lot. I can empathize with those people, but I also have to say "fuck off" too because I DID read those books and remember the history. So the read was very fulfilling to me as a story on its own and a payback to me for buying DC comics.
DAVE: I don't envy DC trying to find the right balance, but if they erred at all in this first issue, it was in favor of the long-timers. I've been eyeing message boards, and there's definitely a good deal of head-scratching from the newbie contingent. The question becomes: is it an enticement or a chore for them to do the research to feel "in the know"?
BUG: I don't see too much in this issue that may be perceived as redundant to old readers or convoluted to the newbies.
MODERATOR: There's been a whole lotta dying going on at DC lately. How do you guys feel about the casualties that occurred in not only this issue, but in the issues leading up to this series?
HUMPHREY: I'm actually indifferent about them myself. I have to say, if anything, they have done a good job of picking the perfect group of guys to kill off that get just that bit of emotional resonance to make you care a bit, but in the big picture of things, don't really mean a goddamn thing to the overall universe. I dunno who said it, but I do think the old "Every character is someone's favorite" rings true for the most part, and they just seem to be going at it with reckless abandon to make the book that much darker.
BUG: But it's not really reckless abandon. It's not like anyone major has bit the dust...yet. I had a problem with the destruction of the Freedom Fighters. And it has everything to do with "every character being someone's favorite." To me, all characters have the potential to be interesting. And to wipe out the Freedom Fighters so easily kind of irked me. They have been lingering in the background of DC for a while now. In JSA. In BATMAN & SUPERMAN. In some of the event books. It always seemed that Johns had something planned for them sometime in the future. Turns out he was just setting them up to be fodder. I mean, characters like Uncle Sam and Human Bomb are almost as iconic as the big guns and Black Condor was the first hero IDENTITY CRISIS artist Rags Morales ever drew at DC, so you'd think they'd shy away from offing them so easily.
SLEAZY: I wasn't into the original CRISIS when it dropped, but lemme askya this: how beloved were the alternate Earth heroes who bought it in the first issue of that series? Wasn't it a similar situation to this, where they were a bunch of background heroes who had fans but weren't in use that much? I mean, I hate seeing the Freedom Fighters get ripped up too, but aren't there some
strong similarities? I just hope they don't use this thing to clean up all the non-DC characters
from companies like Quality or Charlston or whatever.
DAVE: I'd actually be behind such a move. My magical, happy ideal (think Alex Ross-level zeal here) is a DC Universe with only a few dozen superheroes of note, no history in World War II (let's move on people), a minimum of redundant superpowers, no characters who were added to the DC Universe from other lines, and the JLA as the first crop of heroes to arise in the public
consciousness. In other words, bye-bye Blue Beetle, Captain Marvel, and Plastic Man. Love ya, and since DC owns ya, you can still get individual books set in your own worlds, but I'd like to try to keep things pure. And, yes, I know I'm sounding all Nazi here. But only in service to the characters, mein freunds.
PROF: I'm glad that freaky bastard Dr. Polaris got taken out by the Human Bomb. And speaking of the Human Bomb, I thought the scene where Bizarro pounded him into a pool of jelly was incredibly disturbing. Uncle Sam is dead, but I'm sure he'll turn up. Phantom Lady and Black Condor were pretty pointless deaths as was Hawkwoman's in the RANN-THANAGAR WAR. Her death, particularly, seemed like one of those things dictated by the Editorial Gods -- "it's too confusing to have a Hawkwoman AND a Hawkgirl." And, of course, the death of Shazam! was logical and carried with it great story possibilities dealing with the ramifications.
The main problem with all of this death, at this stage, is that it seemed a bit forced ~ or rushed. If you go back and read CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS #1, that first team death of the Crime Syndicate works at setting the tone for the whole series that "anything could happen" and gave those criminals an opportunity to go out with some respect. They were killed dispassionately by a wave of anti-matter, but they died trying to save their world. The Freedom Fighters in this issue were killed rather personally and brutally by the Secret Society of Super-Villains ~ and their deaths didn't carry any real heroic weight. Instead, they just came off as underpowered and wasted characters.
But I'm glad Dr. Polaris is gone. I hate that guy.
BUG: Yeah. Polaris was a punk and the scene where the Human Bomb lets loose and keeps on exploding over and over again was probably one of my favorite in the book.
DAVE: You're right, Bug: all characters who're punks must die!
I'm definitely from the school that thinks death comes too quick and easy in superhero books these days. Here's a suggestion: try to find other means of drama in the first place! Saves you from looking like a waffling dipshit when you have to contrive a way to bring characters back. Also prevents the heroic ethos that once defined superhero books from being chipped away with misery, though since this series seemingly wants to redress this issue, I guess it's going to be taking the doom 'n' gloom to all new peaks first. "To create, we must first destroy..."
SUPERHERO: To me they just all came off as "stunt killings". Meaning, the deaths never really seemed organic to any of the stories but incidents that were plopped in there to cheaply try and make the plotlines more dramatic than they really were. It all lives up to that trend in recent years of writers not having enough belief in their actual storyline so they have to off a couple of interesting characters to show how "serious" their story is. All it really does show is
that their story really doesn't live up to its potential.
PROF: Well, here's hoping that at the end of this series, the Freedom Fighters are alive and well and battling the Axis powers on Earth X, because if they're not, I'm not happy about this turn of events.
SLEAZY: On the one hand, I know some deaths will stick so you know this shit is for keeps, and I understand that. On the other hand, I get a strong feeling that just because somebody goes down in this mini doesn't necessarily mean they won't be back by the end of the whole thing. Sure, it might be wishful thinking, but with all this multiverse stuff, ya never know.
SUPERHERO: I could care less because in comics dead is never dead despite what Joe Quesada says. Another writer will bring Ted Kord back in a couple of years anyway so why get upset over it? Although...Phantom Lady shouldn't have died. One of the sexiest characters in comics should have lived I tell you, lived!
BUG: That wasn't the first chickadee to wear the Phantom Girl outfit and it won't be the last. She's not really one of the sexiest characters in comics, but it's definitely one of the sexiest costumes. One things for certain, someone will be wearing that dental floss costume soon enough.
SUPERHERO: Whew! Now my mind can rest at ease!
SLEAZY: I hear Ted Kord's available.
BUG: I don’t care who it is as long as Sleazy doesn't get a hold of the costume.
SUPERHERO: ...aaaaand there goes my lunch.
VROOM: Who cares about all of the death? There's no such thing as a permanent death in superhero books. Supergirl's back. Hal Jordan's back. The Crime Syndicate are back. Hawkeye and the Vision are back. Even if the current editorial structure keeps these new deaths in place, the next one's probably going to have Ted Kord become The Spectre or something. Speaking of which, what do you guys think of the placement of the Bat Signal in the splash page featuring The Spectre; foreshadowing or red herring?
DAVE: Good catch. I missed that, but it's definitely...well, something. In a way, even if it comes to pass, it's still gotta be a red herring because DC simply can't have Bruce Wayne not be Batman - not for any length of time anyway.
PROF: At first, I thought it was foreshadowing that the upcoming fight between Nightwing and Batman was going to end with Batman dead and becoming the Spectre. Now, I think it's a red herring.
SLEAZY: Red herring. They'll never make Bruce Wayne the Spectre. Batman and
Superman can never be anybody but Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. Ever.
PROF: Ultimately it always returns to status quo.
MODERATOR: The in thing to do these days seems to serve up fresh courses of classic themes. Alex Ross has been doing this for years. Loeb has done it with Superman. And Geoff Johns does it all over the place in all of his books. The original CRISIS was meant to clean up the DCU and make the universe more cohesive. Now that seems to be changing. How do you guys feel about all of that?
BUG: I'm not looking for the return of the multi-verse. It makes everything seem so pointless if virtually anything can happen or be rewritten. I like reading part of a vast tapestry, not reading a bunch of WHAT IF? stories. It kills all relevance and impact of a story when you know that it is just one possibility among scores of others. The first CRISIS did its purpose in cleaning up most of the DCU and making it cohesive. ZERO HOUR did a lot of that too. Now, it seems Johns and Co are unraveling all of it again. With all of these strings of reality unraveling someone's going to get their hands tied up.
SUPERHERO: Well did Crisis ever clean up anything? Did it make it more cohesive? If anything it sort of just got rid of parallel earths which ended up jumbling things up a bit anyway. It may have streamlined certain characters but if you were into any kind of continuity it just ended up being a bit of a mess. I get the feeling that the same thing may happen here.
BUG: Yeah, I fear that characters like Donna Troy, Hawkman, and Power Girl are forever doomed to have convoluted histories. It seems that every few years, some writer comes along and tries to clean up those messes, but in the end, only adds another layer of confusion to the character's already mixed up origin.
DAVE: I like the idea of there being one central DC Universe - in my world, it'd be that "pure" approach mentioned earlier - and then there'd be everything else, most of 'em probably miniseries.
PROF: As to the original goal of CRISIS to make things less complicated and more cohesive. It made things more interconnected, but less complicated? More cohesive? Not at all. Is it any wonder that the dramatic drop off in actual sales numbers of the average superhero comic have spiraled downward for almost the entire last 20 years (with just occasional bumps upward)? What the rabid continuity-obsessed fan (and worse, the rabid continuity-obsessed fan turned pro) wants to see is a DC universe where everything is closely interconnected and everybody knows each other and references each other and no title contradicts the continuity of another title. However, this creates an impractical environment for a new reader who cannot read just one character or title because of the endless confusing interactions between their favorite character and everyone else in the DC universe. DC may hold on to a base of loyalists, but they completely alienate the occasional buyer and the new reader ~ those not willing to shell out their money if they've got to invest such mental exercising just to understand what they're reading. If they reestablish the multiple Earths once more, they open up their universe to many more storytelling possibilities and they don't get bogged down into an endless continuity battle with each and every reboot of an idea by trying to figure out which past stories are "real" and which are "changed" and "how they were changed" and so on and so on...
DAVE: Yeah, I'm pretty much okay with the multiverse concept as long as the multiverses keep to themselves and I don't constantly see multiple Superman teaming up with
other Superman. Of course, at that point I'd stop thinking of these different iterations as "multiverses" and start thinking about them simply as different lines with different interpretations. I mean, did anyone at Marvel in the '70s worry about what multiverse housed SPIDEY SUPER STORIES? Is Earth Timm the home of the comics based on DC cartoons? I think it's time to stop worrying about how all this sheeeit connects and just let great creators tell their tales.
HUMPHREY: See, that potential for those kinds of "crossover" events is why I hate the idea of a multiverse. I never saw the appeal of there being three or four different Batman'. If you have a different take on a character or a concept for them, that's what I believe Elseworlds was for, or why they have ALL-STAR now. I don't need to see another Batman running alongside his counterpart two parallel earths down.
VROOM: I don't mind a certain amount of change in my Superhero comics, if for no other reason than it's a malleable genre. Any changes that suck can be changed right back if you've got a smart writer on your hands.
SLEAZY: Today's readers are too sophisticated to just accept that starting next month; everything is completely different for no reason at all. Any changes that come along would have to be organic ones that grew out of a storyline somewhere or we'd eviscerate the whole thing and walk away.
DAVE: Making Batman NOT be a dick doesn't require mindwiping retcons, new peaks of paranoia, and eventually hugs with his superpals...you just start writing him as NOT BEING A DICK. De-assholizing Batman is maybe a somewhat large scale task, but I bet any talented writer could do it in three or four issues and be ready to move on with the "fixed" personality.
SUPERHERO: Maybe Batman's just an asshole and we oughta just accept it. Let's face it, I've thought he was always an ass since DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. To me it always seemed like what people thought was his being "cool" was just him being a warped prick.
DAVE: Nah, man, there's plenty of non-assy approaches to Batman. I mean, the obvious one to bring up would be the whole 1940 thru 1980 stretch of his own damn comics. But we can get more contemporary. First off, Batman's not particularly assholish in the seminal BATMAN: YEAR ONE - just driven. And then there's the animated series of the '90s, respected by nearly all, and
that series took its cues straight from the dark-but-not-assholish '70s stories of Denny O'Neil and Steve Engelhart. Oh, and there was the much-loved BATMAN BEGINS. I had some beefs with the movie, but Batman's persona wasn't one of them. He was driven and aloof, but the man was
actually enjoying what he did - imagine!
SUPERHERO: So why do you think Bats has been portrayed as such an ass in the actual comics? Editorial?
DAVE: I'm honestly somewhat clueless, as there've actually been several big crossovers which ostensibly were supposed to humanize him - NO MAN'S LAND, BRUCE WAYNE: MURDERER, and even WARGAMES. So, yeah, I think the guys hitting the Asshat Reset Button must be from editorial. Or maybe it's just more fun on the writer's side to write Batman that way? If nothing else, it keeps things simple: you always know he'll take the cynical POV, always know he'll cut off Superman with some snide comment, always know he'll push friends away from him.
MODERATOR: Most of you agree that INFINITE CRISIS was a full course meal of a book. What are the scenes you liked most? How 'bout the ones you liked the least?
PROF: My least favorite scene was probably the carryover from RANN-THANAGAR WAR because it was a pointless waste of 2 pages.
BUG: Yeah, but it seemed that every miniseries got its own double splash. Was it necessary? No. But neither were the double splashes of the villains attacking or the OMACs gathering or the Spectre looming over Gotham. I still thought they were cool images though. All splash page worthy.
DAVE: No particular favorite scene, but all the battle scenes were well-handled. And Johns has never shied from the colorful, larger-than-life trappings of the genre, as the inclusion of the Freedom Fighters and the splash page of gaudily-costumed bad guys makes clear - that's something I'll always admire. No black leather costumes for these guys! And no need to justify they over-the-top stuff as long as the characters are treated seriously. I like the approach if not the story its delivering.
Least favorite scene had to be Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman pouting at each other like children at the Watchtower. Even if there's an in-continuity reason for their pettiness, there's just nothing so pathetic as seeing some of the greatest heroes of adventure fiction so hobbled. It's galling that DC's heaping all these self-righteous scenes on their heroes given that DC's wholly responsible editorial directions that undercut 'em in the first place...and more galling still because DC's earning record sales for their own hypocrisy. And if it's all to pave a path to a newer, more heroic universe, my question to fans of DC's last 20 years is this: how do you like being told - in-continuity no less! - that the last twenty years were essentially the heroes fucking up?
BUG: See that's an argument I really disagree with. What's wrong with telling a drawn out story as long as it's a compelling and dynamic one that takes advantage of the comics medium and the superhero genre? Sure right now, Johns and the like are dragging the characters through the mud. Most of them are hanging their heads and moping. They're about as low as they can get. But DC spent an awful long time in getting to this place. Basically it started with the original CRISIS where they cleaned up the alternate realities. Then ZERO HOUR came along which basically rebooted the DCUniverse from the beginning, introducing new and old concepts and allowing access to a whole new generation of readers permitting them to get to know and care about DC's characters. Since then, they've been telling straight out super-hero stories (some serious, some lighthearted, but all fully embracing everything of what is good in the super hero genre). They sucked the reader in. They invested them (or at least me). Now that the investment is there, Johns is dragging the heroes through hell. I know I care because this IS something that is happening in continuity. I'd much rather spend my money on a story that matters. I guess since I've been along for the entire ride, I am enjoying this a lot more than others. That's why I like the DCU over Marvel. I just admire the DCU for trying to tell their own interconnected super hero mythology. That doesn’t seem to be as important over at Marvel.
DAVE: And unsurpisingly, I'm enjoying
Marvel's superheroes more just at the moment! So what we have is different definitions of "a story that matters." I like continuity, but I guess I'd call it "light continuity" - where guest-stars are only occasional and big crossovers minimal, where a villain might mention his last tangle with the hero, but the Joker wouldn't have his body count tallied each time, and where a character who's dead in one book stays dead in other books (always a good 'un). That's my ideal, but I look at this mega-continuity stuff, and it's just depressing to me. Because I'm not into DC's general push right now, see, and so I'm basically cut-off from any of their books for the last year. Because they ALL tie in. The taint is EVERYWHERE. Sales figures say it works, so obviously lots of folks are as invested as you...but I ain't one of 'em.
VROOM: I must be hitting BOTH extremes; the big "event" books at both companies are off-putting as hell to me, and have me seriously contemplating dropping superhero books entirely. And I kept buying books in the 90's! The only superhero books that hold any interest to me right now are the stuff that isn't a major "event" that promises to shake the readership to their very core, that'll change their perceptions of the superhero genre forever... I'm just interested in some good stories.
BUG: I think this goes back to the discussion of the cyclical way the tone of comics moves we had in our IDENTITY CRISIS roundtable. There was a time when DC was telling the type of stories that you are describing, Dave. They did that for a while, pulling the readers in and investing them. Now the investment is there, they are putting these characters through hell. Marvel does have more light hearted books these days, but it wasn't long ago that Cap was taking on real world terrorists with heavy handed writing. I'll take a drama embracing the super hero genre over that crap any old day.
DAVE: Oh, I should clarify that it's not Marvel's lighter tone that's attracting me just at the moment (though I do appreciate that too, as in-flux as it can be), but rather the minimized presence of continuity. Worst Marvel's gotten of late was with the SECRET WAR debacle, but that really only affected a few titles.
BUG: Uhh…Dave? I think you're blocking out the ass-stankery of HOUSE OF M.
DAVE: You know what? You're right. I'd legitimately stopped thinking about it so much that it didn't even occur to me. I will say this, though: it didn't derail *every* Marvel title, and a goodly chunk of 'em have plugged on with nary a care.
SUPERHERO: My least favorite bit about the book was most of Wonder Woman's dialogue. I mean, I was on her side when she offed Max Lord to defend the world from a crazy assed Superman but now she's being written, as I said before, like she's the Punisher or something. No
mercy for my enemies? Isn't that the kind of thinking that the Amazons were supposed to quell by coming to man's world????
SLEAZY: To me, Diana's the character who proves that you can maintain your nobility and heroic nature while still recognizing that sometimes a threat powerful enough to put so many lives at risk needs to be ended definitively. If The Joker were her nemesis, there'd be none of this "I can't kill him because it would make me like him" B.S. She'd assess his potential risk factor and calmly take him out, saving hundreds of lives in the process--and she'd still be Wonder Woman when she was done, not a raving lunatic.
SUPERHERO: Wonder Woman was WAY over the top in IC # 1. She's almost NEVER been portrayed as bloodthirsty and in that comic she went WAY over the line. When she killed Max Lord it was because there was no choice. When she went to kill Mongul AFTER he was subdued she became a murderer. Wonder Woman doesn't murder defenseless foes. It's a part of her character and always has been.
DAVE: The game plan really does seem to be to emphasize each of the Big Three's faults - Batman's paranoia, Superman pussiness, and Wonder Woman's warrior-ethos disconnect. So I guess each instance of this exaggeration is bound to piss some folks off. And I guess that's DC's goal.
SUPERHERO: Favorite scene in the book was when Batman tells Superman he hasn't inspired anyone since he was dead. That, to me, was like a kick in the nuts. I'm much more of a Superman fan than a Batman one but that little piece of writing hit the nail on the head for
how I've felt about the Superman books for a long time. Not that I thought the death of Superman story was any good either but at least they tried something different. Superman's been spinning his wheels for years and it's just bugged me to no end. The best part of that bit was that Superman proved Batman right by not just smacking Bruce across the face for being such a prick in the first place.
DAVE: Metacontextual question: isn't that a slap in the face to every creator who's worked on Superman since then?
BUG: Well, maybe they deserve a slap in the face, because Superman has been badly written for way too long now. I know I don't give a shit and a half about the character.
SUPERHERO: Not that many of the Superman stories before his death were all that great either. I suppose it's not right to be pissed at the writers, though. Editorial's to blame too. Not to mention that Superman is such a corporate figurehead anyway that it's incredibly hard for anyone to do
anything with him that might be perceived as too dramatic.
DAVE: I pretty much agree with this. Am reminded, too, of how Jemas and Quesada first shocked fans when they outright fessed up that Marvel comics had sucked in the '90s! I actually prefer the Jemas/Quesada approach, because they just started changing shit without all the set-up DC is doing. Some changes worked, some didn't, but at least there was no build-up malaise.
HUMPHREY: I was finding Rucka's run on ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN to be coming into it's own as a really good Superman story. The whole thing with Ruin, them making Superman coming more into depth with Lois' mortality and what that means to him, and so on and so forth. And now the Crisis is upon us and we've been waiting at least six months just to see where the hell that angle is going because it's been buried under tie-in after tie-in.
MODERATOR: So what about the art? How did Phil Jiminez and Andy Lanning do?
DAVE: Pretty excellent. Jiminez is a terrific draftsman that in some ways I prefer over his inspiration, George Perez. He doesn't quite have Perez's raw power, but his detail-work suits my taste better and his characters are all very distinct. And he does great impacts, from Captain Marvel blasting a car apart when he meteors into it to Mongul batting around the Big Three like rag dolls. Excellent work conveying emotions through facial expressions, too.
'Bout my only complaint is that it got a bit murky in there at times, the combination of Jiminez's dense line work, the high panel count, the goodly number of word balloons, and a gloomy color palette throughout. Had me feeling a little claustrophobic. Mostly, though, the art gets a big thumbs up in spite of content. I love Jiminez's renditions of the Big Three, a perfect balance between detail and an iconic approach.
HUMPHREY: What he said. Jiminez pretty much brought his A game, and given the "homage" they were going for was pretty much an excellent choice.
PROF: I remember Phil Jimenez' first appearance on the scene. For many years, his art was barely distinguishable from George Perez ~ his aping was that good. However, there were always two distinct ways to tell the difference: (1) Jimenez suffered from the same disease all artists who obsessively copy the style of another ~ he put too much "style" into it; that is, the Perez-style detail was noticeably excessive, and (2) his faces were never up to par with Perez ~ noses particularly.
So, here we are now, and Jimenez has finally developed his own style. While it evokes Perez in places, he has really come into his own. In particular, his facial expressions are very good and distinctively his own rather than a lesser copycat of Perez. At the same time, as he presents to the reader his own unique version of these characters, I was struck by how unimposing a presence he makes Superman. The face he gives Superman looks too young, the chin is less pronounced and he looks just...soft. I prefer Superman to be the figure in the room who would draw your attention whether he wore the big red "S" or not.
However, that's all my criticism. Everything else was top notch. Jimenez knows how to flow those panels together. The choice in panel sizes and shapes were chosen to best convey the feeling intended for that scene. The double-pager of the villains is unbelievable. I especially like his version of Zoom. Really, Jimenez has developed into one of the most impressive illustrators out there and I don't think they could've picked a better artist for this project.
As for Andy Lanning, unlike the incredible Marc Campos on RANN-THANAGAR WAR, I did not really notice what Andy brought to the table. Perhaps that's a sign of a good inking job as well in that I was not distracted by inks that struck me as untrue to the Jimenez style.
I would lighten up the coloring a bit though. Outside of that, you can't ask for a better looking super-hero comic book.
VROOM: I’m sorry, I was off on my own alternate Earth there for a minute.
SLEAZY: Was it the alternate Earth where the Prof talks waaaay too long?
VROOM: Yep.
BUG: Yeah, I think we’ve all been there before.
SUPERHERO: I thought the art was fantastic. Obviously they couldn't get George Perez so they went with the next best thing. The thing I did have some problems with was the coloring. A little too muddy and dark for me in places but maybe that's what they were going for. I just thought it kept Jimenez's art from popping as much as it could have.
BUG: I was especially impressed with the splash pages. Perez sort of made his mark in the industry by packing his panels full of detail. Jiminez carries on that tradition numerous times in this issue. From the highly detailed battle in space to the swarming OMACs, all of these images were awe-inspiring. The last stand of the Freedom Fighters was the highlight as far as artistic renderings of a superhero battle royale. As Prof mentioned earlier, Professor Zoom was never scarier and the Human Bomb and Uncle Sam more heroic. This was a gorgeous, gorgeous book.
MODERATOR: Final thoughts on INFINITE CRISIS #1?
SUPERHERO: I gotta say as a whole I did like it. I'm in for the ride if only because I bought all the mini-series and I've invested so much into it at this point that not continuing seems a bit pointless to me. Is it the universe shattering tale I expected? Nope. But I saw that it was heading into slightly disappointing territory as I went through all of the minis, VILLAINS UNITED included. Maybe I'm just getting too old for all the nonsense that goes with it but unless there's something really compelling that happens with this I may be dropping a whole bunch of mainstream books.
They've wiped me out with this one and I'm getting really tired of playing keep track of the overdramatic crossover events.
VROOM: Honestly, at this point I don't give a shit about Infinite Crisis. I just don't care. I'm a DC fan, and a Geoff Johns fan, but I simply can't take any more of this. I'm out.
DAVE: I guess if there's anything that intrigues me about INFINITE CRISIS, it's the metacontext of the thing. The sheer weirdness of DC using continuity as a device to excuse their failures on writing and editorial levels is fascinating. It'd be like a story where Luke Skywalker travelled back in time to tell the Jedi council of the prequels that they're a bunch of bureaucratic nancy boys. In other words: stupid in spite of the truth of the sentiment. Certainly has novelty value, though!
The actual drama as it unfolds for the characters, however, doesn't interest me at all. Everyone's a jerk and the whole thing just feels sort of unreal. Not "good unreal", but "I can't get invested in this story" unreal. I'll be a lot more curious to see how DC reinvents itself at the close of the thing.
PROF: About what I expected. Lesser than I wanted. Better than it should be. Intriguing enough to get me to stick around and see where it goes....unless the anal rapes start. Then I'm outta there.
SLEAZY: I still feel the same way about the whole thing as I did before I read it: I’m definitely interested to see where it’s all going, but worried about some of the pitfalls that obviously come with a project like this.
BUG: Although I’m not too thrilled about the resurgence of the Multiverse or the death of the Freedom Fighters, I have to say that this was a fulfilling read for me. It’s definitely an event book that’s lived up to the hype. If you’ve followed the lead-ins, I’m sure you’ll pick it up and enjoy at least some part of it, but I can see where those not in the know of DC happenings of late would be left out in the cold. Short and sweet, INFINITE CRISIS is a delicious treat for DC fans and may cause some new readers to want to learn more about the DCU.
MODERATOR: Well, I think we’ve talked this one to death. Time for us to shut up and let all of you Faithful Talkbackers gab about INFINITE CRISIS.
