Wasn't there a lawsuit against Berganza regarding his activities that was settled in court (or out of it)?
Printable View
Wasn't there a lawsuit against Berganza regarding his activities that was settled in court (or out of it)?
If the option were available I would give Dan Didio a C- but since it's not going to go with a D. F I think should be reserved for those who run their companies into the ground like Pat Lee @ Dreamwave or the con artists that owned Crossgen. Dan Didio wasn't that bad.
Personally, while there were a few series that happened under his watch that I liked (ex. Seven Soldiers of Victory, Solo, Plastic Man) I felt that under Didio the main DCU became stagnant. There was this reactionary focus on getting back to the "iconic" days of DC which to Didio seemed to mean pre-Crisis. As someone who did not grow up reading during that period I did not see the reason to bring back characters like Kara and Barry but even that would've been okay if the stories had been good but instead it was just the author basically telling me "If you liked so-and-so you were wrong and a moron". Infinite Crisis felt like a 9 issue long whine about how nothing was ever good in the 80s and 90s and yet I'm a seeing a story where the author thought it was brilliant to have Superboy-Prime punch off a character's head while Krypto is flying around. It wasn't even offensive to me it was just stupid and hilarious to read. And DC just kept putting out stories like that year after year after year.
Before if the main books weren't doing so hot at least you could turn to the imprints DC had but under Didio they either lost relevance under his watch (Vertigo, Wildstorm), got no real support (DC Focus, CMX), or were just straight up dead on arrival (Zuda). I've said this several times, but Didio (going by interviews and statements) seemed to see comics as a genre, that genre is superheroes, and they have to be portrayed in a certain manner (overly serious, very violent (but no real consequences), and gritted teeth) or else why bother? DC went from a company where you could at least say there was a coherent theme to their works to a mishmash of nostalgia and ultraviolence with maybe the occasional reprieve. Then their stories became more and more impenetrable with each piece of continuity that just HAD to be retconned. While Marvel was putting out stories like Civil War that at least tried to address the present day, DC was doing stories that just seemed to be stories with nothing to say beyond "our past is better than our present". What does that tell your younger fans and newer fans?
As far as the New 52 went, I gave them one more chance and quickly realized that the problem wasn't the continuity (never cared much about that) or which characters they chose to push but the management. They just had no vision beyond making desperate sales stunts. And they were the ones who caused the mess to begin with. So will I miss Didio? No. If he got fired behind his back that's really odd but at this point I don't really care. With DC Comics being a part of WarnerMedia and that being owned by AT&T what is the future of their comics? It's not looking good...
[quote]seemed to see comics as a genre, that genre is superheroes, and they have to be portrayed in a certain manner (overly serious, very violent (but no real consequences), and gritted teeth) or else why bother? DC [/quote]Which is so very not pre-COIE, just sayin'.
[QUOTE=Tzigone;4850038]Which is so very not pre-COIE, just sayin'.[/QUOTE]
I know, but it was the weird mix of that and the pre-Crisis stuff that I just couldn't understand what or who it was supposed to appeal to. Even on the old DC boards you had fans praising stuff like Infinite Crisis because DC was admitting that Crisis on Infinite Earths and everything after that was a mistake but at time I was just like "So this is the alternative because this really sucks."
I even remember a poster cheering on Kon-El's death because finally he was living up to the Superman symbol instead of being a teenage slacker or some ish like that and I was like "yes heaven forbid a teenager act like a teenager jesus."
[QUOTE=Bruce Wayne;4849979]Wasn't there a lawsuit against Berganza regarding his activities that was settled in court (or out of it)?[/QUOTE]
Was there? I don't know.
[QUOTE=dornwolf;4848413]I don't really know if anything Dan had a hand in brought me in as a fan, I do know he's done a lot that has driven me away as a fan.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. Some good things happened under his watch but I don't know if him being there is what caused those good things to happen. The thing that I do know he had a hand in, I usually hated. Especially the New 52 and the post-Rebirth era....and the overall treatment of the Teen Titans (particularly Dick's generation). So I'm giving him a D. Sucks that he lost his job but I'm not particularly broken up about him no longer being at the helm.
I think, he tried hard to push the envelope with some moves but, despite being fine with publically playing "The Villain" for some DC fans, he was too willing to roll back what he was doing and cave to those same fans; and that mixed messaging ultimately was his downfall. I got into comics under his tenure so I don't really have a clear frame of reference of what DC was before he stepped in but he stewarded some very intriguing concepts and stories but I don't think he was ever able to fully capitalize on what was working and minimize what was holding the industry back. he clearly loved comics and these characters and while I don't think he's the epitome of all things wrong with comics like some people wanna make him out to be, he let his "fan-villain" persona get to him and eventually he fostered a culture of nostalgia running a muck for some and dissatisfaction with the aimlessness of it all for others. which is unfortunate because, admittedly I can't say how much was his doing, I truly believe that these last couple moves that have been happening at DC were moving it in a very interesting direction. at the same time, there were a couple of times things looked promising but he couldn't followthrough so maybe they wanted him out if the way because he would've bungled the execution. regardless I'd give him a B- to. C+, he was ambitious at times and had some real gems with promise but he missed quite a few shots and just couldn't bring out the best from his creatives. I hope whoever's next can bring some real change and reinvigorate the company.
[QUOTE=Crazy Diamond;4850029]If the option were available I would give Dan Didio a C- but since it's not going to go with a D. F I think should be reserved for those who run their companies into the ground like Pat Lee @ Dreamwave or the con artists that owned Crossgen. Dan Didio wasn't that bad.
Personally, while there were a few series that happened under his watch that I liked (ex. Seven Soldiers of Victory, Solo, Plastic Man) I felt that under Didio the main DCU became stagnant. There was this reactionary focus on getting back to the "iconic" days of DC which to Didio seemed to mean pre-Crisis. As someone who did not grow up reading during that period I did not see the reason to bring back characters like Kara and Barry but even that would've been okay if the stories had been good but instead it was just the author basically telling me "If you liked so-and-so you were wrong and a moron". Infinite Crisis felt like a 9 issue long whine about how nothing was ever good in the 80s and 90s and yet I'm a seeing a story where the author thought it was brilliant to have Superboy-Prime punch off a character's head while Krypto is flying around. It wasn't even offensive to me it was just stupid and hilarious to read. And DC just kept putting out stories like that year after year after year.
Before if the main books weren't doing so hot at least you could turn to the imprints DC had but under Didio they either lost relevance under his watch (Vertigo, Wildstorm), got no real support (DC Focus, CMX), or were just straight up dead on arrival (Zuda). I've said this several times, but Didio (going by interviews and statements) seemed to see comics as a genre, that genre is superheroes, and they have to be portrayed in a certain manner (overly serious, very violent (but no real consequences), and gritted teeth) or else why bother? DC went from a company where you could at least say there was a coherent theme to their works to a mishmash of nostalgia and ultraviolence with maybe the occasional reprieve. Then their stories became more and more impenetrable with each piece of continuity that just HAD to be retconned. While Marvel was putting out stories like Civil War that at least tried to address the present day, DC was doing stories that just seemed to be stories with nothing to say beyond "our past is better than our present". What does that tell your younger fans and newer fans?
As far as the New 52 went, I gave them one more chance and quickly realized that the problem wasn't the continuity (never cared much about that) or which characters they chose to push but the management. They just had no vision beyond making desperate sales stunts. And they were the ones who caused the mess to begin with. So will I miss Didio? No. If he got fired behind his back that's really odd but at this point I don't really care. With DC Comics being a part of WarnerMedia and that being owned by AT&T what is the future of their comics? It's not looking good...[/QUOTE]
I find my self resonating with a lot of this, not all of it, but especially the bit about his messaging in regard to the past and the lack of vision. solid post!
I’m going with a D, but largely along the lines that there have said regarding his execution issues and inability to seem to sustain his editorial guidelines and franchise vision for very long.
I’m judging an “average” tenure to be something along the lines of his predecessors at DC or his peers at Marvel, and since I feel his Dc tenure was at least somewhat below both, he’s below average.
He clearly wasn’t all bad, but as others have said, he was constantly pursuing seemingly contradictory goals. Silver Age revanchism really doesn’t work with 90’s era grit and grime, it doesn’t really make sense to pursue diversity while banishing a character like Cassandra Cain to protect Babs as Batgirl, or forbidding Batwoman’s marriage because “marriage = happy = bad,” and the whiplash in the goals between New 52 and Rebirth is only matched by how both eventually collapsed.
He also had just odd preferences or other weirdly contradictory decisions. I mean, it doesn’t really make sense to hate Dick Grayson as Nightwing the way he did, since by the time he took over, Nightwing was already a very successful character, and Batman seeming older because of Dick’s age wasn’t exactly hurting his sales in any way, shape or form. And being angry at PAD for creating Slobo and then years later approving the New 52 Lobo? What?
I don’t think he was that far off the mark on a lot of things... but he was off the mark enough that it never really worked.
I say F because the execution of new 52 was horrible. Should have gutted the whole thing but DC was too terrified to do so. Now continuity is all over the place. Some great storylines but forget about continuity.
I won’t miss Dan
I stopped buying new D C comics over two years ago
Because of the constant changes in search of sales.
During that time most of my collected editions buys
Have been for much older stories;and that total has only
Been lower because of the huge amount of cancellations
DC has made and crappy bear trap binding.
Yes I know Dan had no part of the collected department,
Just wanted to spotlight how deep the mess is at D C Comics.
This page from Batman: Pennyworth R.I.P #1 exemplifies a lot of what was wrong with Dan Didio's approach to DC's characters and to superheroes in general:
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/Bd25ozCMe27G1dEz-VF-oXNDnuBz_HXJIDF1fVglP_ucFFI1cWpdUh87vai55ZZKOeM13CS_MeZGkPD2QImT6gSSYE3xzq6TM2MjgPKfLWQf_yj3PUcpMeXyUmXgm-l7mvHyVdgjew=s1600[/IMG]
Take note that Bruce says here that this is apparently the [B]tenth[/B] anniversary of his parents' deaths. I'm sorry, but isn't Bruce supposed to be only 8 at the time of his parents' deaths? So, 8 + 10. That's 18. So, when Bruce is only 18, he is apparently not only a fully grown Batman, but has also trained Dick Grayson up and Dick is already Nightwing....
Now, that might seem like just a small little detail to some, but during the New 52, Didio was adamant that the characters of the DCU could not go past a specific age. Superman and Batman were limited to being in their late 20s and anything past that was sacrilege. Not only is that policy ageist, but it also doesn't make sense for a majority of the characters' timelines and severely screwed with their continuity.
At best, that page is just an error that shows that no editors are checking the books. At worst, it's a reflection of an ageist policy that should never have been instituted in the first place.
[quote] Take note that Bruce says here that this is apparently the tenth anniversary of his parents' deaths. I'm sorry, but isn't Bruce supposed to be only 8 at the time of his parents' deaths? So, 8 + 10. That's 18. So, when Bruce is only 18, he is apparently not only a fully grown Batman, but has also trained Dick Grayson up and Dick is already Nightwing....[/quote]Not sure what his New 52 age at death is now. Saw 10 pretty regularly at one time, but think that was post-COIE. And I know Dick was older when he started and maybe younger when he became Nightwing, but this is a bit much (and he's gone back to being brought in younger, anyway). Still very irritating if I'm reading correctly, as the timing makes no sense at all, as mentioned. Either bad continuity, the keep-em-young or [url=https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WritersCannotDoMath]writers cannot do math[/url]. Like that time Superman was getting an old classmate of his to the alter before her 21st birthday.
Completely off topic, but I see this and it makes me so sad for what Dick used to be to Bruce and how Alfred has displaced him as the person closest who knows the most about him, etc.
In New 52, when his parents died Bruce was 10 yo, and he got back to Gotham and started as Batman at 25 yo. At that time we know Barbara Gordon was 15 yo.
[QUOTE=Zeeguy91;4850719]At best, that page is just an error that shows that no editors are checking the books. At worst, it a reflection of an ageist policy should never have been instituted in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Honestly i think this one is on the Bat office's editors. The issue begins with an Editors note that makes no sense. The Bat office seems to be struggling to keep track simple details and the details of their on own work even.