Crisis on Infinite Earths - Thoughts?

[Fromper]

I started comics with Marvel. Then I learned about Crisis (from the Internet - I started reading comics in the mid 90s) and decided not to read DC because I liked the non-rebooting of Marvel.

Well, that was just bad timing. As much as I think Crisis was a bad idea, I do think that period of the late 80s through mid 90s were probably DC's best years. And at the time, there was no reason to believe they'd ever do another big reboot like Crisis again. When Zero Hour happened, it seemed like a relatively minor thing as an excuse to fix some minor issues through retcons, not a huge, world changing event (except for the Legion, of course).

In point of fact, DC had no reason to expect that COIE would be collected in a trade paperback and that that's how most people would read it in the distant future. They weren't writing for trades, like they do now. For most of their existence, comics were disposable entertainment that had meaning at the time and didn't need to have meaning later because they made all their money in that month they came out.

But that's also exactly why Crisis wasn't necessary.

[Tzigone]

But that's also exactly why Crisis wasn't necessary.

That is the question: was it necessary for the survival of DC? Sure, comics had been disposable entertainment for a rotating audience for decades. But was that business model still sustainable? That's a counter-factual, so we can't know for sure. Would have to look at actual sales trends of the era to see if it's reasonable that DC thought it wasn't. Then there's the arguement of whether they could have continued from where they were in similar story nature to the way they went but without that event. Well, what were sales 1 year after event v. 1 year before. Or even 5 years after v. 5 years before? I honestly have no idea - I looked for numbers once, but with no luck.

[superduperman]

Looking back on it now? I think it was a long way around just to get rid of super-baby.

[DrNewGod]

There are two kinds of Crisis readers. Those who read it in single issue form back in 1985 and those who picked it up in trade and read it as a whole later on. There is no way to equalize the atmosphere of the single issue releases and the shocking developments with a trade reprint read along side the many other multiversal shifting stories since then.

It's clear that dialogue and story-telling used for COIE is now "dated". For a comic book story a third of a century old, that's expected. But it kept interest. Even those who weren't reading DC were curious about the developments every issue. Who died? Who turned?

Awesome book. But you hadda be there.

As much as any generalization can be accurate, I think CaptCleghorn is dead-on right with this. There was a sense of culmination to it that really required sharing in the build up to full appreciate. Even if you experienced it as back issues, there's something lost if you weren't encountering at least some of The Monitor's appearances between New Teen Titans Annual #2, and Crisis on Infinite Earths #1.

As much as i like Post-Crisis, i do think than in the long term, it shouldn't have happened, so that put a bit of black stain on this story. With that said, when i read it 4 years ago, i really enjoyed, it feel epic, big and amazing, even when i knew how it ended there was just something about it that keep me hooked until the end.

TheCape speaks for me. I reread several DC titles from 1980-1988 (still working on it), including the CIOE titles, and it was pretty powerful. That said, it made more of a mess than it was worth, and certainly more of a mess than it fixed.

[Fromper]

That is the question: was it necessary for the survival of DC? Sure, comics had been disposable entertainment for a rotating audience for decades. But was that business model still sustainable? That's a counter-factual, so we can't know for sure. Would have to look at actual sales trends of the era to see if it's reasonable that DC thought it wasn't. Then there's the arguement of whether they could have continued from where they were in similar story nature to the way they went but without that event. Well, what were sales 1 year after event v. 1 year before. Or even 5 years after v. 5 years before? I honestly have no idea - I looked for numbers once, but with no luck.

I'm not saying that business model was sustainable. I'm saying that Crisis was meant to fix a "problem" that didn't really exist. At the time, continuity didn't matter nearly as much, so why put out a whole event to fix the messed up continuity?

However, the "giant event to boost excitement and increase sales in the short term" aspect does seem to have been a success. And the fact is that the post-Crisis period of the late 80s and early-mid 90s is generally looked back on fondly, even today. Personally, I'd consider those DC's best years, in terms of quality. But was Crisis necessary to cause those great stories of that era?

[Tzigone]

I'm not saying that business model was sustainable. I'm saying that Crisis was meant to fix a "problem" that didn't really exist. At the time, continuity didn't matter nearly as much, so why put out a whole event to fix the messed up continuity?

I'd argue that continuity did matter by mid 1980s. Not as much as now, when a wealth of knowledge is available at our fingertips via not only official reference guides, but also via the internet, but certainly much more than it did in the mid 1960s.

I will agree it seems to have introduced more problems than it fixed.

However, the "giant event to boost excitement and increase sales in the short term" aspect does seem to have been a success.

Events do, that's why we keep getting them (I'd prefer fewer). I guess there's also an issue of how much gain was short-term via long-term. And how do we define short and long-term? I can say 20 or 30 years is the long-term, but I don't really think that's fair, somehow. I think asking an entertainment business to look longer than 10 years out when regarding a creative work is a murky choice.

But was Crisis necessary to cause those great stories of that era?

Don't really know - my favorite eras (broadly speaking) seem to certain titles in the 1970s and early 1980s and certain titles in the mid-90s through early 2000s, so pretty much skipping that era. I mean, I've read some stories I liked that were written then, but not my most favorite. Mind tend not to be by writing style or era, though, but based on what's happening with the characters I most like. There were plenty of things I didn't like in the mid '90s to 2000s too, it's just I didn't read/keep reading those or they weren't tied to characters I liked. Early to mid 2000s, characters I liked started getting more stories I didn't like.

[Jim Kelly]

The popularity of COIE at the time should have proved to DC that having a multiverse was a great thing to own. But getting rid of the multiverse was only one reason for the event. They were trying to restructure their line and bring in more Marvel readers. There were lots of editors and writers that had jobs before COIE that didn't have jobs after or were eased into positions of less power. DC was trying to bring in new creators to work on their books--some from Marvel--and it was a lot easier for new talent to start on a blank page than having to work with decades worth of continuity.

[mikelmcknight72]

The whole thing really hinges near entirely on having a reader that is knowledgeable and invested in the DC Comics of the mid-1980s, so as a story unto itself, it falls completely apart and doesn't stand the test of time at all.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I was a kid when COIE was ongoing. I lacked the resources and ready access to an LCS*, so I wasn't "knowledgeable and invested" as you described. I was, however, enthusiastic about Marvel & DC. Somehow, I managed to get every issue off of a spinner rack as it was published. The story was epic & fun, it fired the imagination, and the deaths in issues 6-12) were very affecting. I'm not only speaking of Kara and Barry, but also Dove, Aquagirl, Huntress, and Robin of Earth 2. The crippling of Wildcat and the new Yolanda Montez Wildcat were very affecting as well.

* My primary resources were spinner racks at grocery stores, pharmacies, and minimarts, as well as garage sales. The nearest LCS was an hour away, and I didn't get to go often.

[SiegePerilous02]

It has gorgeous artwork by Perez, which highlights just how awesome the Multiverse was...as they were killing it.

As a story by itself and the ramifications it lead to, it is mostly lousy. Some individual moments like the deaths of Barry and Kara are great, but that's about it. It's one of those "I guess you had to be there" things. I wish it never happened, at least the way it did, because story-wise the DCU would have been better in the long run had it never happened. I know they felt they needed it, or something like it, at the time, but hindsight's a bitch. I like Marvel for itself, I typically don't want it in my DC.

[Jekyll]

It’s important to DC history, it’s an ambitious story, and as others have said the art is fantastic. However, the only issue I care about or even like is the sacrifice of Barry Allen. Glad I read it once as it made a long bus ride seem quicker but definitely doesn’t warrant re-reading.

[DrNewGod]

One of the things that people forget made CoIE memorable was both its bodycount, and the valence of its bodycount.

First, comics had never indulged in that kind of carnage. Absolutely not among it's protagonists (no matter how obscure).

Second, a large number of CoIE readers had some connection to the characters slaughtered. Some having seen it in the original publication, and some thru the backpage reprints DC did in 80 and 100 page specials. Even the younger readers had some sense of how vast The DC Multiverse was at that point, so there was some connection of all these obscure characters to the current experience.

So, this lawnmower thru our known DC is something that could not be duplicated today.

[mr_crisp]

Rather long which can be a good thing. It can cover more stuff which I think is a failing with 'Infinite Crisis' and 'Final Crisis' being too short.

[NeathBlue]

When it was first announced as a 12 issue series spread over 12 months, I expected something like Camelot 3000 where it would be a self contained story and life would go on as usual after the final issue...
I soon realised it wasn’t going to be and I also quickly knew I wasn’t liking it... No doubt it’s an epic story and deserves many accolades, but the long term repercussions have caused no end of problems for DC and ultimately, it’s a story that should never have been done.
I’ve given up on Doomsday Clock, but I wish they’d have used it to bring back the original multiverse and give themselves the option in future to use any dimension they want.

[Mike]

Really well-written and well drawn epic story. Horrible consequences for DC Comics.

Exactly my thought.

[TheDragonKing]

I read Crisis On Infinite Earths as a kid and it was absolutely mind-boggling at the time. In an era of constant event series it's easy to forget just how ambitious Crisis was for 1985. It was easily the biggest and longest storyline that I'd encountered up to that point. It was actually a little daunting. The first issue alone was full of characters that the young me hadn't come across yet. I'd also been unaware of the seeding that DC had been doing in their regular series with the Monitor beforehand. I often wonder what the 'Where do I start? It's so confusing..' internet generation would have made of it. Their heads would have exploded probably.

I do go back to it now and then, for reference purposes rather than to actually reread it. The art is amazing for the period and the story obviously had huge ramifications for the DCU moving forward. It's a VERY dense experience to read all the way through.

When you say "reference purposes" what do you mean?