Doomsday Clock next issue is due out . . .

[Bored at 3:00AM]

For what its worth I think it's more likely than not there are backstage shenanigans with release dates being used against Geoff Johns. You don't go from A+ talent to being unable to finish a mini-series. Especially when you have people in positions of management that may hold a grudge for your time in the sun. It could be all bunk, but we just don't know. These are unsubstantiated opinions, not conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated opinions.

Conspiracy theories are largely defined by the assumption that misdeeds have been done secretly when there are more probable explanations. Since it's far more likely that Geoff Johns is too busy with his many Hollywood projects to finalize scripts to the sequel to the most revered graphic novel of all time, that is a more probable explanation.

If more concrete information comes out that shows that Geoff Johns is really being screwed over by Dan Didio for some reason, then I will be right there next to you guys complaining about it. However, since we don't have any of that, this idea is a harmful conspiracy theory that does nothing to improve our comics community. All it does is pit us against each other, rather than bring us together over what we all love.

Conspiratorial thinking is fed by paranoia, fear, anger and resentment. We can disagree with one another, and with the creative decisions made about our favorite characters without automatically assuming the people who made them are morally reprehensible @$&holes.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

What's the story with Gary Frank selling unused pages?
Are these from an aborted script?
Havent read whole thread so maybe somebody's already asked this

According to Frank, Johns came up with a better way of doing a scene, so he rewrote it, but Franks had already drawn those pages.

[BohemiaDrinker]

Which brings us back to where I thought we'd end up, in which I choose to look at it from the perspective of hope while you choose to believe that things are going to be terrible.

For some reason this is not connecting to you: I don't, and never did, choose to believe things are going to be terrible. I just look at things the way they present themselves. If we have a guy whose stories I like publishing a story, I bet I'm gonna like it. If I'm presented with and editor whose story is filled with sabotaging writers, and it looks like a writer is being sabotaged, hell yeah, I'll look at it as a possibility. That's not cynicism, just realism, and some people, like myself, are more interested in facts than any other positive or negative approach.

Actually, if you ask me, I'd say that you are putting way too much effort in defending people whose previous behavior alone would prove you wrong. That's gotta be taxing and, if you ask me, not really healthy.

That's your prerogative, though.

But in order to keep your "positivity", you lumped every other possibility than your POV as an "unfundamented", exclaimed that "the only facts we have" are the facts that you saw, called people conspiracy theorists and compared them to flat earthers (again, NOT COOL).

And that is my beef with your posts on this thread. You don't get to diminish the hypothesis brought to the table by people who follow this **** way closer than you do because they somehow hurt your desire for "positivity".

[BatmanJones]

Conspiratorial thinking is fed by paranoia, fear, anger and resentment. We can disagree with one another, and with the creative decisions made about our favorite characters without automatically assuming the people who made them are morally reprehensible @$&holes.

I don't really understand why editorial getting involved is a conspiracy theory but deciding a writer is chronically late on a major title for years isn't. Both are only guesses and I don't think either guess is cynical. Either and/or both things could be true without there being some underhanded motive. And I think it's more than a little over the top to imply that those that theorize that editorial has played a role in the lateness are displaying paranoia, fear, anger, or resentment.

You point out that Johns has good reason to be running late. I agree he does and I think he has been running late. Still, running this late on what was meant to be a continuity-defining event amounts to holding the comics side hostage to take care of TV/film stuff. From that perspective, your theory is every bit as 'negative' towards Johns as someone else's might be about editorial.

Personally I still think editorial decisions probably play a real role in the extreme lateness of this book but, even if they do, I don't consider those decisions to be malicious in any way. And where did this "screwing over" language come from? Is that an actual quote from someone here that just keeps getting re-quoted?

Editors are meant to guide the DC Comics universe. It's their job. And a couple of major things happened on the way to the forum that might have necessitated editorial action.

DC signed Bendis and gave him the Superman Universe and Wonder Comics. Was it reasonable to ask Bendis to wait a couple years before doing anything that might impact continuity? Snyder's Metal outperformed his expectations and that led to all the continuity-heavy stuff that's happening in Justice League. Would it be a good idea to tell Snyder to tread water because Johns was running late? In the Superman books, in Justice League, and in Young Justice at the very least, Bendis's plans and Synder's plans had to be coordinated with anything else that might impact continuity, which I think we can all agree is presently broken on purpose.

I don't think that was the original plan for Rebirth/D-Clock. I think plans had to change to accommodate other major talents at DC. Especially if Johns was also running late.

And there was also that writers' summit to coordinate plans between at least Snyder, Tynion, Bendis, and Williamson.

If Doomsday Clock was ever meant to have a lasting impact on continuity I actually find it hard to believe that DC editorial wouldn't have had to get involved.

What was their other choice? To put DCU-wide continuity on hold for 3 years?

I don't regard Didio or Lee or other editors getting involved in universe-wide planning to be at all underhanded. Especially because I believe that Johns was already running late.

If editorial did get involved for the reasons above, that would likely have led to Johns having to change some of his plans for Doomsday Clock, which would make it even later. And my best guess (it's only a guess) is that all of those things have played a role. It's only my theory of course, but your theory about Johns running this late due to busyness is also only a theory.

I honestly don't see why one theory is any more cynical than the other. I really don't get that.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

For some reason this is not connecting to you: I don't, and never did, choose to believe things are going to be terrible. I just look at things the way they present themselves. If we have a guy whose stories I like publishing a story, I bet I'm gonna like it. If I'm presented with and editor whose story is filled with sabotaging writers, and it looks like a writer is being sabotaged, hell yeah, I'll look at it as a possibility. That's not cynicism, just realism, and some people, like myself, are more interested in facts than any other positive or negative approach.

Alright, that's fair and I can totally understand that point of view. Since Didio has made strong editorial idicts with other events, such as Infinite Crisis and 52, it stands to reason that he could be doing that with Doomsday Clock. Am I correct that this is your general reasoning behind the idea that Didio is the primary cause behind the delays?

Actually, if you ask me, I'd say that you are putting way too much effort in defending people whose previous behavior alone would prove you wrong. That's gotta be taxing and, if you ask me, not really healthy.

That's your prerogative, though.

Ha. Touche.

However, I am not defending Didio here. I disagree with many of his editorial and creative decisions. I just don't think it's a good idea to leap to the worst conclusions about anyone without solid real evidence to support it and with a far more plausible explanation readily available. Didio's past editorial missteps are well documented, but sabotaging his company's top selling and most critically acclaimed books doesn't make any sense...although I suppose if Waid's accusations about Didio during 52 are true, maybe that wouldn't matter to him. It just strikes me as too big a logical leap.

But in order to keep your "positivity", you lumped every other possibility than your POV as an "unfundamented", exclaimed that "the only facts we have" are the facts that you saw, called people conspiracy theorists and compared them to flat earthers (again, NOT COOL).

Okay, you've misunderstood me there and I should have addressed this earlier. I was not comparing you to Flat Earthers. I was pointing out that any conspiracy theory, no matter how ridiculous, can be made to seem plausible if you assume bad intentions. My intent was not to say you or anyone who believes that Didio is sabotaging Johns is as crazy as the people who think the world is flat. If that point was not clear enough, you again have my apologies for any offence I may have unintentionally given.

And that is my beef with your posts on this thread. You don't get to diminish the hypothesis brought to the table by people who follow this **** way closer than you do because they somehow hurt your desire for "positivity".

I think you're again making assumptions here by thinking I'm not following the goings on at DC like you are. I love this stuff as much as you do. We're no doubt reading the same websites and following a lot of the same people on Twitter (with the notable exception of Brett Booth, whose art isn't really my thing). We're both getting the same information, we're just making different conclusions based upon that information. If my counter-arguments to the hypothesis that Didio is sabotaging Johns's story feel like I am diminishing them, that's probably because I don't think it's a very good hypothesis and have pointed that as clearly as I am able. I think it's built on an underlying assumption of the worst intentions and I think that's become a corrosive element to geek fandom.

However, if you or anyone else feels like you are under attack by my arguments against this idea, that is most definitely not the case. I am trying to present my case as forcibly as I can, and as reasonably as I can. If I think an idea sucks, I'll say so in the clearest and most passionate way I can, just as I expect you to do the same.

At the very least, you've gotten me to understand your point of view better, so I thank you for that.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I honestly don't see why one theory is any more cynical than the other. I really don't get that.

I honestly think you've hit on the answer here. The truth is probably a combination of both theories. I think mine is closer to the truth, of course, but I digress My complaint that all this is cynical is probably just frustration over seeing geeks leaping to the worst conclusions over and over again, so maybe I'm just projecting. If that's the case, then I will try to be more mindful of this moving forward.

The thing is that anybody in a position to make big creative decisions can be made into the villain. To fans of Zack Snyder's DCEU, Geoff Johns is a villain while Snyder is the poor victim, whose artistic vision has been compromised. The reality is probably just that Johns disagreed with Snyder's approach and was tasked by WB with the impossible task of giving them a completely different movie under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. To others, Mike Carlin, Kevin Dooley & Ron Marz were villains and the people who enjoyed the JSA, Hal Jordan & the GLCorps characters were the victims. The reality is that those guys were just trying to bring in some fresh blood to the DCU and accomplished that with Kyle Rayner and other legacy characters.

In the minds of some fans, Dan Didio is the villain and all the fans and creators who love Dick Grayson, Wally West, Roy Harper & Donna Troy are the victims who've seen their beloved characters mismanaged again and again. The reality is probably that Didio is trying to figure out how to make the DCU appeal to a larger audience and he, incorrectly, feels that those characters don't work towards that goal. I can completely disagree with him without viewing him as a villain.

I think both Geoff Johns and Dan Didio have really hard jobs, and I don't think either or them are trying to negatively affect the other in doing those jobs. Johns has a lot of responsibilities that are far bigger and bring in far more of an audience and revenue than the comics do, so I don't blame him for being late with his scripts. Didio also has the incredibly difficult job of trying to expand the comics reading audience while also appeasing the current core of disgruntled 40-somethings who just want comics to be like they were when they first started reading them. Like with Johns, Didio hasn't always been successful, but I will always give him credit for his willingness to course correct when his plans don't work out.

[Buried Alien]

I honestly think you've hit on the answer here. The truth is probably a combination of both theories. I think mine is closer to the truth, of course, but I digress My complaint that all this is cynical is probably just frustration over seeing geeks leaping to the worst conclusions over and over again, so maybe I'm just projecting. If that's the case, then I will try to be more mindful of this moving forward.

The thing is that anybody in a position to make big creative decisions can be made into the villain. To fans of Zack Snyder's DCEU, Geoff Johns is a villain while Snyder is the poor victim, whose artistic vision has been compromised. The reality is probably just that Johns disagreed with Snyder's approach and was tasked by WB with the impossible task of giving them a completely different movie under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. To others, Mike Carlin, Kevin Dooley & Ron Marz were villains and the people who enjoyed the JSA, Hal Jordan & the GLCorps characters were the victims. The reality is that those guys were just trying to bring in some fresh blood to the DCU and accomplished that with Kyle Rayner and other legacy characters.

In the minds of some fans, Dan Didio is the villain and all the fans and creators who love Dick Grayson, Wally West, Roy Harper & Donna Troy are the victims who've seen their beloved characters mismanaged again and again. The reality is probably that Didio is trying to figure out how to make the DCU appeal to a larger audience and he, incorrectly, feels that those characters don't work towards that goal. I can completely disagree with him without viewing him as a villain.

I think both Geoff Johns and Dan Didio have really hard jobs, and I don't think either or them are trying to negatively affect the other in doing those jobs. Johns has a lot of responsibilities that are far bigger and bring in far more of an audience and revenue than the comics do, so I don't blame him for being late with his scripts. Didio also has the incredibly difficult job of trying to expand the comics reading audience while also appeasing the current core of disgruntled 40-somethings who just want comics to be like they were when they first started reading them. Like with Johns, Didio hasn't always been successful, but I will always give him credit for his willingness to course correct when his plans don't work out.

Who do we blame for ending Dick Grayson's days as Robin, killing off Barry Allen in COIE, eliminating the original DC Multiverse, and bringing the curtain down on the Bronze Age, Bored?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[BohemiaDrinker]

Alright, that's fair and I can totally understand that point of view. Since Didio has made strong editorial idicts with other events, such as Infinite Crisis and 52, it stands to reason that he could be doing that with Doomsday Clock. Am I correct that this is your general reasoning behind the idea that Didio is the primary cause behind the delays?

Only partly. Because I'm not really saying he and the rest of editorial are responsible. Only that it's very possible and would line up with a bunch of other ****. There are probably more than one factor concerning these delays anyway.

Didio's past editorial missteps are well documented, but sabotaging his company's top selling and most critically acclaimed books doesn't make any sense...although I suppose if Waid's accusations about Didio during 52 are true, maybe that wouldn't matter to him. It just strikes me as too big a logical leap.

They are, and Waid is not only one making claims such as those (nor are they confined to the 52 era). Look up "The Flash Companion" by Keith Dallas when you can, Didio's comments on PaD's Young Justice (and PaD never came back to DC Comics after that), previous falling outs with Ellis, comments from George Perez at the start of Nu52, and the list goes on.

That's what I'm saying: it doesn't matter if it's not logical to you. It's not logical to me either, but it is a pretty consistent M.O.

I think you're again making assumptions here by thinking I'm not following the goings on at DC like you are.

Yes I am. All based on this thread. You were unaware of both instances where Gary Frank's comments were mentioned, Booth's mention of an original Rebirth plan, assumed that Johns still had a corporate position - which he hasn't for over a year now, and asked "why can't Johns and Didio simply get along?" when, again, their headbutts are many and commented by even themselves.

The only conclusion I can make is that you're not looking at stuff that closely.

If my counter-arguments to the hypothesis that Didio is sabotaging Johns's story feel like I am diminishing them, that's probably because I don't think it's a very good hypothesis as I am able.

I'm not going to be finger-pointy here. Re-read your posts, maaaaaaaaaaybe you weren't on a good daay, but, you know....

and have pointed that as clearly I think it's built on an underlying assumption of the worst intentions and I think that's become a corrosive element to geek fandom.

That's you assuming people's motivations. Not everyone's every word is based on a binary of "I'm gonna be a dick" or "I'm gonna be a wellspring of positivity!". If you think that every time a criticism is made, or a theory that paints someone in a negative is built upon a desire to assume the worst or just be a jerk to whoever may be the target, it is actually you who are assuming the worst from other posters. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Only partly. Because I'm not really saying he and the rest of editorial are responsible. Only that it's very possible and would line up with a bunch of other ****. There are probably more than one factor concerning these delays anyway.

If that's the case, then I don't think we're really all that far apart in terms of our thinking. My issue has been with the unsupported accusation that everything that's gone wrong with Doomsday Clock is due to Didio's meddling.

I'm not going to be finger-pointy here. Re-read your posts, maaaaaaaaaaybe you weren't on a good daay, but, you know....

That's you assuming people's motivations. Not everyone's every word is based on a binary of "I'm gonna be a dick" or "I'm gonna be a wellspring of positivity!". If you think that every time a criticism is made, or a theory that paints someone in a negative is built upon a desire to assume the worst or just be a jerk to whoever may be the target, it is actually you who are assuming the worst from other posters. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No problem. I'll re-read my posts on this thread to see if that's how I'm coming off. As I've said, it's possible I've been projecting my own frustration with the current acrimony in geekdom upon this particular issue. Fair enough?

[BohemiaDrinker]

Who do we blame for ending Dick Grayson's days as Robin, killing off Barry Allen in COIE, eliminating the original DC Multiverse, and bringing the curtain down on the Bronze Age, Bored?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I gotta ask this one: what`s the negative in dick ceasing to be robin?

[BohemiaDrinker]

If that's the case, then I don't think we're really all that far apart in terms of our thinking. My issue has been with the unsupported accusation that everything that's gone wrong with Doomsday Clock is due to Didio's meddling.

Ha, if only!

It's also plagued not only by Johns writting, but by "Johns trying to ape Alan Moore" writing.

That said, I'm pretty sure Dan is to blame for some stuff going wrong with DClock, and I'm not talking about delays...

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Who do we blame for ending Dick Grayson's days as Robin, killing off Barry Allen in COIE, eliminating the original DC Multiverse, and bringing the curtain down on the Bronze Age, Bored?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Dick Giordano of course!

[Buried Alien]

I gotta ask this one: what`s the negative in dick ceasing to be robin?

I enjoyed his years as the original Robin, and didn't necessarily feel it needed to end...at least not in 1984. I wasn't ready to relinquish the Bronze Age status quo, and were it my call, I would have kept it going longer, but nobody asked me if I was ready.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Buried Alien]

Dick Giordano of course!

Of course, he had a huge hand in creating the DC Bronze Age in the first place. I guess the Giordano giveth, and the Giordano taketh away.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Ha, if only!

It's also plagued not only by Johns writting, but by "Johns trying to ape Alan Moore" writing.

That said, I'm pretty sure Dan is to blame for some stuff going wrong with DClock, and I'm not talking about delays...

And, if that's true, I'm sure we'll hear about sooner or later, hopefully from someone who isn't Rich Johnson, who has certainly delivered some great stuff over the years, but tends to err on the side on clickbait

Now that I've re-read most of my posts in this thread, I think I understand where you were coming from a little better. I was absolutely guilty of assuming that you were approaching this from a more extreme view than you actually were, just as you thought I was trying to present my opinions as "the truth", when I was just presenting my opinion as forcefully as I could. Neither of us are big fans of qualifying everything we say with "I think...", "I feel..." and "In my opinion...", so these kinds of misinterpretations are going to happen with online interactions. Suffice it to say, unless what I am stating is a fact, you can be assured that whatever I say here is my opinion.

The biggest thing I failed to appreciate from your perspective was how much you think Didio's past editorial heavy-hand informs the current situation. That's a perfectly valid argument, even if I think Didio has consistently shown that he's more hands-off with A-list writers like Morrison and JMS, of which Johns has certainly risen to, even if his specific job title at DC Entertainment has changed.

Can we both agree that Johns has waaaay more clout than Didio does at Warner Bros, which owns DC? How does Didio benefit from pissing off Johns by mucking with his story?