Official : Bendis gets both books

[Superlad93]

That very well may be, but not only does it feel somewhat contradictory to say that feelings related to struggling as an outsider are valid yet those feelings cannot be expressed through something as simple and natural as crying (it may even be that we'll only know Superman's feelings because of narration or thought bubbles), it also doesn't change the fact that I don't like how he worded his comment overall. It worries me mostly because "toxic masculinity" wrongly gives the impression that if you express emotions like sadness or if one cries, it's a sign of weakness.

Not sure if you're just going off my words or if you watched the actual panel, but I'm pretty sure that crying bit was more hyperbole than any specific example given he was talking about himself. Not really sensing any "toxic masculinity" or anything of the sort.

Never got the sense that he was against Superman expressing emotions. I'd say the opposite really given that he brought up his Superman manifesto and the main idea behind it was that he'd prove just how relatable Superman is. Bendis also talks about what Superman's personal choices are and how being Clark and being a reporter was the first thing he ever really picked for himself.

One bit of completely harmless hyperbole doesn't erase that it seems like Bendis is far more invested in Clark as a 3 dimensional person (emotions and all) than I've seen with most writers in a long time. So I really can't relate to where you're coming from with this.

[misslane]

Not sure if you're just going off my words or if you watched the actual panel, but I'm pretty sure that crying bit was more hyperbole than any specific example given he was talking about himself. Not really sensing any "toxic masculinity" or anything of the sort.

Never got the sense that he was against Superman expressing emotions. I'd say the opposite really given that he brought up his Superman manifesto and the main idea behind it was that he'd prove just how relatable Superman is. Bendis also talks about what Superman's personal choices are and how being Clark and being a reporter was the first thing he ever really picked for himself.

One bit of completely harmless hyperbole doesn't erase that it seems like Bendis is far more invested in Clark as a 3 dimensional person (emotions and all) than I've seen with most writers in a long time. So I really can't relate to where you're coming from with this.

To me, the hyperbole isn't harmless, and since I haven't liked anything about the way Bendis has handled teasing his new run, I am not inclined to feel charitable or encouraged.

[Superlad93]

To me, the hyperbole isn't harmless, and since I haven't liked anything about the way Bendis has handled teasing his new run, I am not inclined to feel charitable or encouraged.

That's fine, and you're totally entitled to that opinion. I just don't agree at all in this case.

[Ascended]

Bendis nailed parenthood. You're the guiding star in your kid's life, and you've got to be the constant. You can't let the bad days get to you. At least not in front of your spawn. You've gotta be the definition of your values and ideals, and rise above your troubles. But you still have to teach them how to process and deal with their problems, while remaining bigger than life and removed from your own. It's an odd dynamic. It's a very "Superman" position to be in, and I'm glad that Bendis recognizes the parallels.

It always makes me breathe a little easier when I know an actual parent is writing a family dynamic, because it's one of those things you can't really fake.

I mean, its still Bendis we're talking about so it's not like I'm overly optimistic, but he's still saying a lot of the things I wanted to hear from him.

[JasonTodd428]

Good. Someone needed to write the goddamn thing ages. Whether or not Bendis is really the best one to do it or if his ideas will mesh with a lot of the fandom remains to be seen...but I like his enthusiasm. I like that a big name creator appears to care.

I've been saying for literally years that every character needs a bible of sorts and that writers who are going to use a particular character need to read the relevant bible on that character in order to keep characterization consistent across titles. I basically got laughed at for the suggestion and here's Bendis doing that exact thing. Good on him.

You know what I think he's managed to get me onboard his runs here just with that alone. A writer who is seeking consistency in writing of a character gets at least an issue from me.

[DragonPiece]

Kinda of annoying Bendis did so many interviews and no one asked about jon or lois.

[JasonTodd428]

Kinda of annoying Bendis did so many interviews and no one asked about jon or lois.

Yeah, I wondered about that.

[ross61]

Kinda of annoying Bendis did so many interviews and no one asked about jon or lois.

What do we need to know at this point?

[DragonPiece]

What do we need to know at this point?

I mean I'm sure Bendis would have been coy with answers, but it would have been nice to have a tease/idea about what they are up in the books since we don't have details about their next appearance after the action/superman specials anywhere right now.

[Miles To Go]

Millar added are you keeping him married, Bendis said don't worry about it(they were joking around.)

Well they're still together in Doomsday Clock (set a year later) so that question was already answered...we just need to know Jon's status as that series hasn't provided answers just yet

[The Dying Detective]

Well they're still together in Doomsday Clock (set a year later) so that question was already answered...we just need to know Jon's status as that series hasn't provided answers just yet

What's weird is that I heard some folks hate Jon so much that they hope he was a dream created by the Black Mercy.

[The Dying Detective]

Maybe? I won't pretend to be wise enough, or knowledgeable enough, to guess what the market will do. But if I had to guess, I'd say that we're likely to see smaller book stores, similar to how music shops were once huge stores taking up aisles and aisles of music, but shrunk after the fall of CD's into these smaller, more intimate things. And it wouldn't surprise me to see a single retailer swing in and take control of the majority of book distribution, either.

Or perhaps physical stores will just fade and we'll have our physical books mailed to us through Amazon or something.

Well, as I've said, I expect print to live on as a specialty market. But newspapers and magazines are dying just as surely as other print formats. Newspapers are dying even faster than most, from what I've seen. I myself haven't read a physical newspaper in years but I visit the New York Times site quite often. Papers, like comics, are trying to figure out how to function in a world where everyone uses their phones for everything without completely losing their remaining audience.

Oh, that's a terrible idea. For so many reasons I'm not sure if I could even vocalize them all.

Well I'm not that wise either but never hurts for us who live outside the print industry to make guesses doesn't it. Even though they'd be smaller and less common I'd at least get the satisfaction being able to walk into a book store to browse or buy a title if it interest me enough. Or if you're a very sociable person chat with the other customers about what your looking at. But if books were distributed through delivery I guess home book clubs will be the best way to talk about what you're reading instead of a book store. Though if a single retailer did take over is possible for it to fall into the same trap the Diamond Distributors did? Well my family still buys my local newspaper and I'll probably carry on doing the same once my parents pass on. But what's the word on any efforts by newspaper and magazine publishers on their efforts to save their business? Well if someone like Shawn James went on rebooted the DC Universe into a more classic iteration I imagine it would drive away new customers who are annoyed with the industry's inability to make something new. But I'm all ears go ahead and tell me what you can say on why you think such an idea would be a bad one.

[misslane]

Bendis nailed parenthood. You're the guiding star in your kid's life, and you've got to be the constant. You can't let the bad days get to you. At least not in front of your spawn. You've gotta be the definition of your values and ideals, and rise above your troubles. But you still have to teach them how to process and deal with their problems, while remaining bigger than life and removed from your own. It's an odd dynamic. It's a very "Superman" position to be in, and I'm glad that Bendis recognizes the parallels.

It is odd, if you describe it that way. How do you teach people, children, how to process and deal with emotions, and how do you model that behavior, without expressing those emotions openly? How does crying about something sad betray one's values?

[Ascended]

It is odd, if you describe it that way. How do you teach people, children, how to process and deal with emotions, and how do you model that behavior, without expressing those emotions openly? How does crying about something sad betray one's values?

Mostly by not losing your patience when you're having a rough day. It's okay if your kid knows your having a bad day, it's another thing entirely to let that slow you down in front of them.

Kids are at the mercy of their feelings far more than adults, and the world is a much bigger, stranger, scarier place. They need something that is constant and reliable to help keep them grounded, to give them something solid to hold onto. That's the parents' job. So you gotta teach them that, yeah, its okay to have feelings, but you can't let them own you. You can be mad, but you still gotta do your homework. You can be sad, but you still need to clean your room. You can have feelings, but life still goes on.

[Ascended]

But if books were distributed through delivery I guess home book clubs will be the best way to talk about what you're reading instead of a book store.

That or through social media. I mean, what are we doing right now? Talking about (comic) books in a digital space. Hell, most of the kids I see have their noses stuck to their phones even when they're in a group hanging out together.

Though if a single retailer did take over is possible for it to fall into the same trap the Diamond Distributors did?

I would imagine so, yes. However, bookstores would still have a few advantages comics don't. Novels are read by a much wider selection of people than comics, and have never had the negative stereotype comics do. So while bookstores could easily fall into the same trap as the Diamond Deal, it'd likely take longer for the negative effects to become apparent. Though, being staunchly anti-monopoly, I'd be terrified to see a single retailer control the majority flow of printed books.

But what's the word on any efforts by newspaper and magazine publishers on their efforts to save their business?

I don't know about any specific initiatives as of late, but papers and magazines long ago started trying to carve out a corner of their own in the digital sphere; posting their articles online and making their own news apps and whatnot. More or less the same sort of "same day digital" idea comics have started using. I think more recently they've started to use designs and media approaches more suited to a screen; more infographics, brighter colors (because you don't have to pay for more ink online), more videos, hyperlinks, etc. A news article found online today is much more interactive than what we saw years ago when this started to become a thing. Back then it seemed largely a "copy-paste" situation, where an online article would look almost exactly like the newspaper version. Now they're flashier. Or at least so it seems to me.

Well if someone like Shawn James went on rebooted the DC Universe into a more classic iteration I imagine it would drive away new customers who are annoyed with the industry's inability to make something new. But I'm all ears go ahead and tell me what you can say on why you think such an idea would be a bad one.

Well first off, we have history we can examine. The COIE didn't really make things any less confusing, and DC needed to do Zero Hour to fix things.....which again, didn't really make things less confusing. The New52 likewise didn't really make things less complicated or convoluted. Bottom line, reboots never fix problems, they just make them worse.

Then you'd have the fan outcry. A reset means no Conner Kent, no Tim Drake, no Damien Wayne, no Steel, no Guy Gardner, no John Stewart, etc. It means Clark and Lois aren't even dating. It means Dick Grayson never grew up into Nightwing. A whole lot of favorite characters (and favorite developments) would disappear. We saw with the New52 DC trying to cherry pick its history so it could "start over from scratch" without really starting over from scratch.....and it was a mess. Many of the things that made us love those characters in the first place were gone or changed drastically. In other examples, favored stories were rushed back into continuity without any of the impact of the original. And none of these reboots, from what I can tell, successfully expanded the audience beyond its usual demographics. That's a lot of work just to make a lot of fans angry without actually gaining much.

There's also simply no need for such a thing. You want a DCU that's less complicated and has less history? That's what imprints and alternate-continuity projects are for. These characters have always been interpreted in different ways with different history in different media, going as far back (arguably) as the Superman radio serials of the 40's. No one ever got confused because Nolan's Dark Knight films didn't follow the comic's. No one got confused because Kingdom Come wasn't set in the regular DCU. People understand that these IP's will be translated differently, and different versions are separate from each other. I mean, no one was bothered or confused because Disney's Robin Hood was a fox, but Kevin Costner also played Robin Hood in the movie from the 90's. Likewise, people will be fine if the Superman in one imprint is married to Lois, but not married to her in a movie or different imprint.

Trying to take the original source material and dumb it down is a fool's errand. Instead of rebooting Wonder Woman into a high school student, make a new imprint/continuity where she is. In this way, the people who already love and read Wonder Woman will still have the things they love about her, while little kids get introduced to a new version. If my four year old daughter isn't confused by the Wonder Woman in the movie being different from DC Super Hero Girls, no one else is going to struggle either. This also offers far more variety, and you can tailor different versions for specific audiences.

This also ensures that there's a DC for every age group. For years, my son wanted to read the same comics as me and his mother, but they were far too adult for him and his other options were very, very limited. But now, my daughter (who is seven years younger) has DC Super Hero Girls, and when she outgrows that she'll have the Ink and Zoom imprints to shift into. And then the main continuity. And then, eventually, the mature label. Every generation will have a Batman, a Superman, whoever, tailored for their tastes. No one will get left behind. And each new version will have its own new stories to keep people intrigued and interested. That's far better than trying to make a streamlined, single continuity that'll never be "one size fits all."