DC Nation #0 (SPOILERS) - free release on Reading Apps

[Jackalope89]

I'm sure there are ways to spin this, BUT I feel this is extremely problematic in light of Bendis' claims to Forbes and his response to John Siuntres' admission that he was perplexed that Bendis was going to write Superman and not Batman. I'm starting to get a picture of how this has all come to be: DiDio and Lee (for whatever reason) return from two years away from hands-on influence on the DCU. DiDio looks at Superman's performance in Rebirth, sees that the stories have been generally well-received and sold well, but still feels there's something wrong/lacking/in need of "tweaking" as he told the NYT when it comes to Superman.

Enter Bendis. DiDio decides that Superman needs a "shake-up" to be "relevant" (he apparently thinks the character needs this constantly because it's lacking something) and then goes to Bendis and says "hey, what ideas do you have for Superman?" Bendis and DiDio are spinning it to appear as if Bendis asked for Superman, but I highly doubt it at this point and in light of these comments. Does Bendis want to write Superman? Probably, but the connection he's claiming to the character seems tenuous. "Well, I'm Jewish and from Cleveland and so were Siegel and Shuster, so I have an affinity for Superman."

I haven't read every interview with Bendis over the years, but I've read many. He always spoke about his interest in writing Batman and even that interest seemed tied to convincing Bob Wayne to sanction a DD/Batman crossover.

From InsidePulse.com:

71b.jpg

Why is he writing Superman again?

[Superlad93]

In one of his latest interviews he says that he doesn't take back anything he's said on Superman or the movie MOS. They were how he felt at the time, and he can't change that.

And to be perfectly frank, these are weak as hell. For goodness sake one of them has a smiley at the end of it, 2 of them he spins so he can talk about and prompt the books he was writing at the time, and the other has him honestly and simply say "I am not a big Supes guy." His last one just has him wonder if Superman is identifiable. I'm sure writing Spider-Man over at Marvel, one wouldn't have to put much thought into if Superman were identifiable or not. Dude has freely admitted that he hadn't considered his links to Superman till very recently, and that he thinks this particular climate is the perfect time for Superman and his personal understanding of the character to get some love.

He's been super open about all of this.

[Sacred Knight]

Yeah, I don't much care about the past. He says now, in his 50s he's in a different place in his life and one in which he can identify with the character. Does it matter that he hasn't always? To me, not at all. If he can now, and wants to put his effort into him now, then that's fine by me. I don't much care if a writer has been a lifelong fan like me, as long as they have the desire at the point in time in which they're writing him. This is all just fan-card waving to me.

[Atlas]

In one of his latest interviews he says that he doesn't take back anything he's said on Superman or the movie MOS. They were how he felt at the time, and he can't change that.

And to be perfectly these are weak as hell. For goodness sake one of them has a smiley at the end of it, 2 of them he spins so he can talk about and prompt the books he was writing at the time, and the other has him honestly and simply say "I am not a big Supes guy." His last one even has him wonder if Superman is identifiable. I'm sure writing Spider-Man over at Marvel one wouldn't have to put much thought into if Superman were identifiable or not. Dude has freely admitted that he hadn't considered his links to Superman till very recently, and that he think this particular climate is the perfect time for Superman and his personal understanding of the character.

He's been super open about all of this.

He actually says he talked to DiDio about the Man of Steel comments, went back and re-read them, and decided not to delete them. He did not refer to these comments on Superman outside of the Man of Steel movie.

These are also not "weak as hell," they're a matter of record and they're very telling. Had Bendis said anything else about Superman over the years, I'd be inclined to believe he's sincere. He's been quite defensive when asked why he isn't taking Batman (go listen to that Word Balloon interview) and why he hasn't mentioned his interest in Superman before.

As for open, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. He's covering his tracks, and the fact that he feels needs to do so is concerning. It's not always the case that a writer without an affinity for a character will do a horrible job of writing the character, but we've seen this hold true enough times with Superman. I blame DiDio for this more than Bendis, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if DiDio moves on to the non-Superman corner of the universe if this run goes belly-up.

[Superlad93]

And if he was sincere? So what? You nor I don't seem to doubt his sincerity then, so I don't see why we should doubt his sincerity now. Why can't someone change their mind or grow to like something? Why does he have to like the character for years? Morrison's favorite character isn't even Superman. It's Flash. He also likes Batman more too, but somehow he wrote All Star Superman. He even tells the story about how he didn't even really have an 'in' to the character before he had a run in with a dude dressed like Superman sitting on a rock, and it all clicked for him. Why aren't other writers afforded the same slack?

And he has actually showed some interest in the character before now. He said he wanted to do a weekly Superman comic back before he left Marvel I believe. It's also when he showed his interest in a "balls out" Legion book. And I listened to the interview, and I can see why he'd be defensive given that literally everyone ever just assumed he'd do Batman because he was incapable of nothing else apparently. I'd hate to hear people saying that while I'm showing such passion for a completely unrelated book ie Superman.

And, again, the answers themselves are so very tame.

He's were he talks about Superman before the move http://community.comicbookresources....Superman/page5 Post 68

[Restingvoice]

I'm sure there are ways to spin this, BUT I feel this is extremely problematic in light of Bendis' claims to Forbes and his response to John Siuntres' admission that he was perplexed that Bendis was going to write Superman and not Batman. I'm starting to get a picture of how this has all come to be: DiDio and Lee (for whatever reason) return from two years away from hands-on influence on the DCU. DiDio looks at Superman's performance in Rebirth, sees that the stories have been generally well-received and sold well, but still feels there's something wrong/lacking/in need of "tweaking" as he told the NYT when it comes to Superman.

Enter Bendis. DiDio decides that Superman needs a "shake-up" to be "relevant" (he apparently thinks the character needs this constantly because it's lacking something) and then goes to Bendis and says "hey, what ideas do you have for Superman?" Bendis and DiDio are spinning it to appear as if Bendis asked for Superman, but I highly doubt it at this point and in light of these comments. Does Bendis want to write Superman? Probably, but the connection he's claiming to the character seems tenuous. "Well, I'm Jewish and from Cleveland and so were Siegel and Shuster, so I have an affinity for Superman."

I haven't read every interview with Bendis over the years, but I've read many. He always spoke about his interest in writing Batman and even that interest seemed tied to convincing Bob Wayne to sanction a DD/Batman crossover.

From InsidePulse.com:



Notice that he contradicts himself even in this interview, first saying the character has "no value in our more modern culture" and then walking back his comments and saying "no, I said I didn't think he was indentifiable."

Granted, the comment about Superman having no value is in context of his support of Ultimate Spider-Man, but the other comment seems to ring true. I think DiDio and Bendis are feeding us a narrative instead of the truth about the latter's interest in Superman. This concerns me because it's dishonest but more important, it's another instance of DiDio/DC editorial putting creators on Superman who have name-recognition but no real affinity, understanding, or love of the character. Azzarello is another example of this.

Superman doesn't need to be "shaken up," he needs creators who understand and love him to write his books consistently. Despite those who didn't care for it, it can't be argued that we had that for two years with Rebirth. If it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. I'm not saying we couldn't have added another title and another voice (maybe Meltzer or Dini), but I am saying we didn't need another shake-up that will ultimately diminish the character in the long run.

The article maybe true, but I don't like how they don't link directly to the full interview, instead of the home page.

[Patrick Gerard]

I'm sure there are ways to spin this, BUT I feel this is extremely problematic in light of Bendis' claims to Forbes and his response to John Siuntres' admission that he was perplexed that Bendis was going to write Superman and not Batman. I'm starting to get a picture of how this has all come to be: DiDio and Lee (for whatever reason) return from two years away from hands-on influence on the DCU. DiDio looks at Superman's performance in Rebirth, sees that the stories have been generally well-received and sold well, but still feels there's something wrong/lacking/in need of "tweaking" as he told the NYT when it comes to Superman.

Enter Bendis. DiDio decides that Superman needs a "shake-up" to be "relevant" (he apparently thinks the character needs this constantly because it's lacking something) and then goes to Bendis and says "hey, what ideas do you have for Superman?" Bendis and DiDio are spinning it to appear as if Bendis asked for Superman, but I highly doubt it at this point and in light of these comments. Does Bendis want to write Superman? Probably, but the connection he's claiming to the character seems tenuous. "Well, I'm Jewish and from Cleveland and so were Siegel and Shuster, so I have an affinity for Superman."

I haven't read every interview with Bendis over the years, but I've read many. He always spoke about his interest in writing Batman and even that interest seemed tied to convincing Bob Wayne to sanction a DD/Batman crossover.

From InsidePulse.com:



Notice that he contradicts himself even in this interview, first saying the character has "no value in our more modern culture" and then walking back his comments and saying "no, I said I didn't think he was indentifiable."

Granted, the comment about Superman having no value is in context of his support of Ultimate Spider-Man, but the other comment seems to ring true. I think DiDio and Bendis are feeding us a narrative instead of the truth about the latter's interest in Superman. This concerns me because it's dishonest but more important, it's another instance of DiDio/DC editorial putting creators on Superman who have name-recognition but no real affinity, understanding, or love of the character. Azzarello is another example of this.

Superman doesn't need to be "shaken up," he needs creators who understand and love him to write his books consistently. Despite those who didn't care for it, it can't be argued that we had that for two years with Rebirth. If it's not broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. I'm not saying we couldn't have added another title and another voice (maybe Meltzer or Dini), but I am saying we didn't need another shake-up that will ultimately diminish the character in the long run.

He was deliberately trying to ruffle feathers there.

I know Bendis is a HUGE, HUGE fan of Byrne's run (heck, why he's using the title Man of Steel and even the Byrne logo).

And I've been told he was very active on the DC Comics Message Boards Superman forums under a pseudonym.

As a Marvel guy, he was trying to provoke readers a bit. I'm sure he doesn't casually read a lot of comics. Few people who make comics even read their comps. And, no, that isn't what the job is about.

As for all the back and forth on whether Superman is identifiable or successful or whatever, eh. Superman has not been consistently successful since around 1994. There was a big spike for the first half of the Loeb/Kelly run that OWAW kind of killed and IMHO a lot of that was saddled on them. There was a big spike in the Johns/Donner/Kubert run. There was a small spike at the start of the New 52. You could say that there was a big Spike for Lee and Azzarello's run but, frankly, I think the book's numbers were weaker than I'd expect from a Lee book at that point, even with a lot of six figure direct market sales.

The character has been neither terribly identifiable nor successful in 25 years for the most part. I don't blame the character. I think the creators were trying to do their best and only a few creators were transparently bad choices. I don't think any of the group editors have been especially weak.

I don't really blame DiDio or Nelson. I mean, Levitz wasn't able to make a big spike either.

I suppose to some extent I'd blame the audience, pop culture zeitgeist, etc. I would blame retailers. The direct market is all kinds of bonkers because you have retailers who are almost all fans and almost all heavily financially reliant on their shops and that did a LOT to warp the comics business. And the retailers who really skewed things are mostly out of the business now but, frankly, I think comic book dimensions and pricepoints and paperstock, etc. are all completely wrong and it handicaps the market that nobody really tips over the applecart and throws out the existing format, at least as much as publishers did in the 50s, the 60s, the 70s. It is insane that comics are basically designed to fit in mylar bags and longboxes that are a certain size.

Mostly I blame WB. Because characters like Superman have had to navigate this problem for 35 years that they either fly under WB's radar and can make some sensible decisions about the content but can't get significant resources put into improving and tailoring the product to sell or they attract WB's attention and they get handed all kinds of brand feedback.

The only BIG media companies in the world I think have real strength at brand marketing at the high levels are Hasbro, Mattel, Nintendo, CBS, and Disney. Nobody else should be giving notes or setting goals from the top nor is any other company really fit to handpick TV or film directors or producers from the top. Johns is changing that to a degree at WB and I think Nelson is good people.

Superman would have done better if they'd literally just licensed him out to somebody like IDW and setup some kind of brand committee of people like Pasko and Stern with creative teams given pretty much independence from marketing and publishing initiatives at DC.

Jenette Khan is BRILLIANT but the idea that whether or not Krypto the Super-Dog could be used was down to her or Mike Carlin or Kevin Tsujihara or Jon Peters doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I'm not knocking any one of those people as skilled and experienced people. I just don't think they had any particular instincts for how to market Superman except as a spinoff of the Batman publishing operation. Being attached to Batman and people who knew how to sell Batman hurt Superman. Superman needed to be its own universe, its own genre, have a completely divorced editorial process, its own marketing team, and basically its own publisher with its own parent company.

The good thing in my mind is that somebody like Bendis writing the book probably at least makes things run a bit more like that.

[SiegePerilous02]

Fans change their minds and re-assess their opinions all the time. People in general do. Why should Bendis be any different?

[Patrick Gerard]

In this case I do care about technical realism. Jon is only ten, whether he has powers or not, and he's going off with someone he barely knows to parts as yet unknown. Personally I wouldn't trust this Jor-El as far as I could throw him right now because he has some sort of connection to the guy coming after Clark and Jon. Hell yes Jon better have Lois or Clark with him and since it can't be Clark, because obviously he's drawing all the attention of the enemy to him, then the next logical choice is Lois. She is his mother and, as we've already seen in the last run, she is also very protective of him as parents are with their children. I don't see that as demeaning to her character at all or that it's somehow Bendis being sexist by sending her with her son. Who else is Clark going to trust enough to watch their son's back while he's wherever it is he's going and who would be willing to drop everything to do that for an unspecified amount of time? Personally to me it makes a lot of sense for Lois to be the one to go with Jon and Jor-El since his father is unable to.

None of that is technical realism in my mind. Technical realism is stuff like how faster than light travel is possible or whether a truck can drive to California on five tanks of gas.

It's emotional or character realism that says you'd screw up a 10 year old kid if you sent him off to an alternate reality or told stories about his parents where he's drawn in as an easter egg in the background.

I don't really necessarily care if it's covered whether Child Protective Services cares that Jon isn't in school or if he's living on an ice planet with purple people but Lois and Clark would collectively be lousy parents if one or both wasn't parenting him.

[JasonTodd428]

None of that is technical realism in my mind. Technical realism is stuff like how faster than light travel is possible or whether a truck can drive to California on five tanks of gas.

It's emotional or character realism that says you'd screw up a 10 year old kid if you sent him off to an alternate reality or told stories about his parents where he's drawn in as an easter egg in the background.

I don't really necessarily care if it's covered whether Child Protective Services cares that Jon isn't in school or if he's living on an ice planet with purple people but Lois and Clark would collectively be lousy parents if one or both wasn't parenting him.

Ah, thanks for the clarification on that.

[JasonTodd428]

Yeah, I don't much care about the past. He says now, in his 50s he's in a different place in his life and one in which he can identify with the character. Does it matter that he hasn't always? To me, not at all. If he can now, and wants to put his effort into him now, then that's fine by me. I don't much care if a writer has been a lifelong fan like me, as long as they have the desire at the point in time in which they're writing him. This is all just fan-card waving to me.

I agree and with a healthy dose of cherry picking to go with it. I don't care what the man said years ago about Superman. People can change their minds and I'm only interested in how Bendis feels about Superman right now and if he can translate that feeling into well thought-out, interesting and dynamic stories that really move the character forward.

[manofsteel1979]

Well, I see plenty to be upset about and I am not the only one as I've seen a lot of angry people (mostly women) outside of this forum.

My problem with this idea is that you (and Bendis) are lumping Lois and Jon together as if they are equivalent characters and that is ridiculous because they are not by any measure.

I like Jon a lot but even I can agree that it might be nice to have some stories where he is not the focus for some time. But the fact that not focusing on Jon means that, by proxy, Lois also has to be shelved is insulting. Lois Lane is not Jon. Jon is a new character. He is a wonderful character and I like him a lot. He's beloved and obviously popular but in terms of overall legacy with Superman...he's new. Lois Lane is the oldest and only other character to appear for 80 years, has anchored her own books and tv shows. She is the cornerstone of the myth. Treating them as if shelving Jon means Lois also has to go to "focus on Superman" is idiocy. Yes, narratively speaking, someone has to "be" with Jon. But simply assuming that that person had to be Lois is both sexist and lazy. Even if the plot is construed with the idea that they have to go away for Jon's "protection" it doesn't change that treating them like one entity where Lois doesn't get her own consideration is both sexist and unfair. You do not "shelve" Lois Lane to "focus on Superman" for awhile and the idea that her BEING there at the Daily Planet is somehow not allowing Bendis to focus on Superman is dumb. He could have found a way to focus less on Jon and not strip Lois of her role at the Daily Planet. He could have found a way to let her actually participate and be part of this story as opposed to shipping her off page as if that didn't already happen enough during the new 52.

It's equally as insulting and upsetting that Bendis is pushing new original female character essentially taking Lois's place (as in Bendis's most recent interview as his "friend" and "rival" at the Planet) because it assumes that women cannot co-exist. This was an opportunity to FINALLY have more than one woman actually interact in this book. Lois has virtually no female friends. In 80 years, she's barely even had the chance to work with or mentor another woman. Writers pit her against Cat Grant which was always terrible. This was an opportunity to show that women can co-exist in the same place and work together. The fact that Bendis had to get rid of Lois to push this new character is not a good thing and it makes me feel TERRIBLE as a female reader. The same thing happened when Greg Pak created Lee (who was great) during his ACtion Comics Run but because DC banned Lois was from being in the book (and so Lois and Lee never interacted and Lois was marginalized) a good portion of the reading audience that was female didn't respond to her, didn't read it and didn't care about her. This is not a good thing for female readers long term when they do this to us. It puts women in a bad spot.

The other crappy thing is that Bendis has set this new female character up from the outset as an obstacle that people are going to reject because of what he's done to Lois. And that is not a good thing. Because we WANT more women in these books and more female characters. But when you treat women like they can't interact and can't co-exist and are replaceable it makes your female readers really, really angry. And it makes the fandom really resistant to embrace the new character because of that hurt and anger. In the long run, it hurts the franchise and it hurts your fanbase. I would welcome a new female reporter at the Planet because I would love for Lois to actually get to work with a woman. And I welcome a new Black woman reporter too because God knows these books need some diversity (though I'm super wary about Bendis being the one to try and voice a black woman again. Super wary.)

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult here but you need to understand that Bendis has put a lot of the fanbase in a terrible position here. He's asking women to embrace this new female character when, at the same time, he's essentially telling us that he can't write two women at the same time and that he wants to redefine Superman and the Daily Planet but without Lois in it. That's insulting at best and really problematic at worst which is why the larger fandom outside of the small group here are rightfully pissed off. It puts the female fans (who are paying customers just like you guys) in a terrible spot and it puts all the WOC who comprise Lois's fandom in an even worse spot.

I'm extremely uneasy about this and I would hope that you could try and understand why this is all pretty upsetting to people. Ok?

I'm only speaking for myself. I didnt attack you or anyone. Just giving my opinion that from my perspective that maybe, just maybe, we actually see the story Bendis actually comes up with before automatically assuming the worst. I do understand why people might be upset, but i think all of us need to keep a cool head, see what the actual story published is first before coming to a particular conclusion. In other words, lets not panic unless we are given solid reasons to panic. This whole Lois not being at the Daily Planet thing , we dont know the circumstances yet. Its just a plot line. It isnt the first time we've seen a " Lois Lane ( or Clark Kent or Perry White or Jimmy Olsen ) leaving the Daily Planet" subplot over the decades and it won't be the last. She'll be back. Heck for all we know she will be back at her post by the time we get to ACTION 1001 and Supernan #1. Or...she may ne gone longer. We simply don't know.



If Lois is permanently sidelined or they undo the marriage /relationship with Superman again or they pull New 52. Type shenanagens with Lois , i'll join the pitchfork brigade. Anyone who has known me here for any length of time will know how critical i was of the New 52 and Lois' treatment during that era. So far i have no reason to think we are even approaching those dark times yet. Im a little concerned about certain aspects, but all we have to go on is this short little story so far.All we know is Lois abruptly quit and Clark can't tell anyone why, and that reason probably relates somehow to Lois protecting Jon from this new villain. Thats all we know right now. Once we actually read MOS, we will know where things are going.

[rosawater]

Eh, it was okay, I guess. Perry’s dialogue seemed kind of off ( Big pile of Smallvillle Farmboy ??? ). I’m glad Bendis said Lois will be in every issue. Hopefully she has an interesting arc. The new character seems alright, but I did roll my eyes a bit when she goes to the roof and couldn't find Clark.

[RepHope]

And if he was sincere? So what? You nor I don't seem to doubt his sincerity then, so I don't see why we should doubt his sincerity now. Why can't someone change their mind or grow to like something? Why does he have to like the character for years? Morrison's favorite character isn't even Superman. It's Flash. He also likes Batman more too, but somehow he wrote All Star Superman. He even tells the story about how he didn't even really have an 'in' to the character before he had a run in with a dude dressed like Superman sitting on a rock, and it all clicked for him. Why aren't other writers afforded the same slack?

And he has actually showed some interest in the character before now. He said he wanted to do a weekly Superman comic back before he left Marvel I believe. It's also when he showed his interest in a "balls out" Legion book. And I listened to the interview, and I can see why he'd be defensive given that literally everyone ever just assumed he'd do Batman because he was incapable of nothing else apparently. I'd hate to hear people saying that while I'm showing such passion for a completely unrelated book ie Superman.

And, again, the answers themselves are so very tame.

He's were he talks about Superman before the move http://community.comicbookresources....Superman/page5 Post 68

How many of us were born Superman fans? I started out more of a fan of Spider-Man. I didn't really start getting into Supes until I watched the Justice League cartoon, and then read a volume of Morrison's JLA where Supes was in his Electric phase. Now I care far more about Supes than anyone else, (I don't really care too much about Spidey or Marvel at all these days) he's my number one favorite hero. Bendis was a Marvel guy for YEARS, and it was his creative burnout at Marvel that made him want to try new things. He's certainly been reading a lot of Superman material, he posted it on his Instagram and Tumblr.

We'll see how he does. This premature freak out seems childish at best, you'd think people would remember that comic book deaths mean nothing, and there's no indication he plans to kill off Lois.

[Sacred Knight]

This really just sounds like trying to find some form of deception in his motives for, and/or qualifications for writing the character. Which is pretty silly.