Fans more Interested in Old DC than Current DC?

[Korath]

So if an archaeologist studies the Inca, he's being nostalgic. Or if a theoretical physicist examines the red shifts at the furthest reaches of the unvierse, he's not living in the now. Or what about literary scholars that write papers on William Shakespeare and Fyodor Dostoevsky?

Oh but these are comic books and their history doesn't deserve study, we're just supposed to be consumers of entertainment and we always need to have a new thrill. If we have an interest in the past, then that's nostalgia, but only if that interest is undervalued. If it's valued then it's inquiry.

I get why Dan DiDio has this skewed opinion, because he's being paid to sell new content and build new markets for that content. But are other comic book readers that naive about the artform that they claim to love?

It happens that some of us love the medium and the artform of comics and we're interested in how that came to be and what developments shaped it and changed it. And studying that kind of thing can be our entertainment. It's not nostalgia, because we're always learning new things and coming to greater understanding about the work.

Looking into the future is the realm of science fiction--we can ony look into the past and observe what was there, to understand where we are now. No one really lives in the present--time moves past us and everything we know has already happened. We are all driving down a highway looking in the rearview mirror, because that's the only perspective that the laws of the universe allow us.

That's rather ludicrous, if you ask me. Classics may be classics, but they are never a necessary reading for anyone. One doesn't need to read LotR to enjoy fantasy, nor does he needs to do that if he wants to talk about it. Archeology is also a science, which usually refrain from expressing judgments of valor on the societies they study compared to the ones we live in.

Meanwhile, comics - at least those which interest me, the DC comics- seems to have an awful lot of fans clamoring that to not have learnt this book, or this series, or this one prevent you from being a true fan. There is also a large consensus that anything after the 2000's vary from average to bad, or mediocre. And especially after 2011, which has basically driven this kind of behavior into overdrive, as far as I could tell.

I personally will take anything from the NEW 52's Superman (and Action Comics) and Wonder Woman series over what I read in the main continuity of those two characters and even some elseworlds (depending where one place All-Star Superman, mainly) because I really find those stories either boring or utterly infuriating to read because I find the character unlikable. Meanwhile, recent DC published Electric Warriors, The Silencer, New Superman, Deathstroke, Sideways, Naomi, The Terrifics, Justice League Dark, Snyder's Justice League, Red Hood and the Outlaws... Probably other I'm forgetting, also. And where was the love for those ?

Nowhere, because DC Comic fans are so utterly stuck in the fervent love of the older books and series that almost all those new ones never met the audiences they deserved, because "they are new characters/teams so DC will cancell" and where obviously proven right when almost no-one supported the books. And then the same will lose their temper if older books and teams, which have often lost a lot of lustre and have only ancient but real successes are changed in any way, shape or form, because it's Heresy to have them modernized so new readers can discover them without having to deal with outdated visions and art styles.

[WillieMorgan]

As a UK based fan, where this phenomena is nowhere near as prevalent, perhaps someone can tell me exactly WHAT older comics and runs are getting reprinted. Are we talking like New Teen Titans or Perez's Wonder Woman run, things like that?

Perhaps DC should reprint something like Extreme Justice so that these younger fans can marvel at what a purer and nobler example of the art form that was. There's always been garbage out there.

I'm glad these older runs are getting some modern day love, whichever ones they actually are, I really am. Many of them are still great today. However, I can imagine a future scenario where some of the same people that are bemoaning the current scene will be taking umbrage and potshots at a potential future DC for stopping publishing new material altogether and calling it an outrage. It's just in their nature to complain.

[DrNewGod]

So if an archaeologist studies the Inca, he's being nostalgic. Or if a theoretical physicist examines the red shifts at the furthest reaches of the unvierse, he's not living in the now. Or what about literary scholars that write papers on William Shakespeare and Fyodor Dostoevsky?

Oh but these are comic books and their history doesn't deserve study, we're just supposed to be consumers of entertainment and we always need to have a new thrill. If we have an interest in the past, then that's nostalgia, but only if that interest is undervalued. If it's valued then it's inquiry.

I get why Dan DiDio has this skewed opinion, because he's being paid to sell new content and build new markets for that content. But are other comic book readers that naive about the artform that they claim to love?

It happens that some of us love the medium and the artform of comics and we're interested in how that came to be and what developments shaped it and changed it. And studying that kind of thing can be our entertainment. It's not nostalgia, because we're always learning new things and coming to greater understanding about the work.

Looking into the future is the realm of science fiction--we can ony look into the past and observe what was there, to understand where we are now. No one really lives in the present--time moves past us and everything we know has already happened. We are all driving down a highway looking in the rearview mirror, because that's the only perspective that the laws of the universe allow us.

What I don't get is why selling that old stuff wouldn't make Didio, as a businessman, smile ear-to-ear? Most of it's wholly owned work for hire, that's bound to have a lower unit-cost associated with it.

ETA: as I think about it, the only answer I can see is that Didio may view every dollar spent on old material as cannibalizing his more expensive new content.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

That's rather ludicrous, if you ask me. Classics may be classics, but they are never a necessary reading for anyone. One doesn't need to read LotR to enjoy fantasy, nor does he needs to do that if he wants to talk about it.

They don't have to, but people who enjoy fantasy don't tend to shun LoTR because "its old, gross." I've seen some people who jumped on with the New 52 actively proclaim that they don't want to read anything that came before 2011 because of that reason. And you could make the argument that they're only depriving themselves of stories that are undoubtedly better than anything published since then.

Meanwhile, comics - at least those which interest me, the DC comics- seems to have an awful lot of fans clamoring that to not have learnt this book, or this series, or this one prevent you from being a true fan. There is also a large consensus that anything after the 2000's vary from average to bad, or mediocre. And especially after 2011, which has basically driven this kind of behavior into overdrive, as far as I could tell.

Maybe its becuase the stuff from post-2011 is bad in comparison to the stuff that came before? Simple as that. There are a few exceptions, but of the current line, not much stands up to the quality of the acclaimed DC runs of the 80s, 90s, and even the early-mid 2000s. I've actually also seen a lot of fans who jumped on with the New 52 come to that conclusion as well.

I mean, look at the current state of the Bat-books as compared to where they were just 10 years ago. We went from beautifully-written and character-driven stories and runs like the Dark Knight Returns; Year One; Killing Joke; Knightfall; Long Halloween; Dark Victory; Chuck Dixon's work on Detective, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, and Birds of Prey; Brubaker's work on Batman and Catwoman; Rucka's (and Brubaker's) Gotham Central; Grant Morrison's Batman and Batman, Inc.; Brian Q Miller's Batgirl; etc. to what?? Ric Grayson?? A sometimes good, but very inconsistent run by Tom King? A decent, though sometimes overrated run by Scott Snyder?

And really, that's not just some coincidence that the New 52 happened to precipitate a decrease in quality at DC. Those who engineered the New 52 were also responsible for the alienation of creatives who had, in the past, written some of DC's best books. You should seriously look up the drama behind 52 (not New 52, the series 52 that came out post-Infinite Crisis and is actually one of DC's best series ever). EDIT: Here's a link.

A lot of the talent that felt alienated by DC editorial like Mark Waid and Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka ended up working for Marvel, DC's biggest competitor. So, tell me, why is it a good thing that the people who engineered that are still in charge?

I personally will take anything from the NEW 52's Superman (and Action Comics) and Wonder Woman series over what I read in the main continuity of those two characters and even some elseworlds (depending where one place All-Star Superman, mainly) because I really find those stories either boring or utterly infuriating to read because I find the character unlikable.

I'd say there's a consensus about New 52 Superman for a reason. The Superman books in the New 52 just weren't good. They were awful.

Meanwhile, recent DC published Electric Warriors, The Silencer, New Superman, Deathstroke, Sideways, Naomi, The Terrifics, Justice League Dark, Snyder's Justice League, Red Hood and the Outlaws... Probably other I'm forgetting, also. And where was the love for those ?

Well, there is love for Deathstroke and Justice League. Those books are well-written and that's recognized. However, as for the other series, there is a reason why the New Age of Heroes line is not seen as a success. It was basically reminiscent of everything wrong with the New 52: very shiny and gimicky, but not much in terms of actually good storytelling. If the New 52 proved not to be popular with your audience, why would you make a whole line of comics reminiscent of the New 52?? The only book out of that line that had potential was the Terrifics and they've driven it into the ground with the same problems that plagued the New 52.

Nowhere, because DC Comic fans are so utterly stuck in the fervent love of the older books and series that almost all those new ones never met the audiences they deserved, because "they are new characters/teams so DC will cancell" and where obviously proven right when almost no-one supported the books. And then the same will lose their temper if older books and teams, which have often lost a lot of lustre and have only ancient but real successes are changed in any way, shape or form, because it's Heresy to have them modernized so new readers can discover them without having to deal with outdated visions and art styles.

That's not true in the slightest. New teams, characters, and directions have been finding traction at DC for decades. How do you think Young Justice started out? How do you think Damian Wayne came into the DCU? I mean, look at Jon Kent as an example of a new character who found a fanbase almost immediately. Fans are welcome to new things...when those new things are well written and they don't just trample over everything that came before.

As said, the New Age of Heroes line was met with discontent because it was just bad. Just like the New 52 was bad.

And nobody has an issue with change or new directions, but reboots and ignoring what came before because, again, "its old, gross" is what sunk the New 52. Is it really a surprise that fans don't like it when you tell them that the books they've read for years don't count anymore? And we're not just talking about stuff from the 80s, we're talking about stuff from like 2009. It would be like rebooting a TV show between seasons 4 and 5 and pretending the previous four years hadn't happened. I mean, you were mad when New 52 Superman was essentially erased from existence, right? Well, just imagine how fans felt in 2011 when our Superman was erased from existence. Thank god he's mostly back now, but still.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the magic of Marvel and DC is not just the stories but also the fact that those stories are part of a larger universe. Things build off of one another and form a larger narrative that stretches back decades. Paul Levitz understood this basic fact. In the years since his departure, its become ever more clear that those currently calling the shots at DC don't.

[Restingvoice]

I don't know if the New Age of Heroes is bad or not but I'm not interested in them because the premise of Rebirth is to bring back the elements missing in Rebirth. They teased all these lost characters but decided to create new ones instead. That's not why I was hyped for Rebirth. Of course, there's that delay, but that's just another reason why I ran out of interest.

[Sacred Knight]

Well, for one, comics back then weren't just a farm for movie scripts. There was a passion and understanding and desire to write for the medium they were in that I feel is lacking today. They try to go blockbuster on everything and the result just ends up being small. Back then they just told stories, period. That's not to say those eras of days gone by didn't have their own share of problems. They certainly did. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that they were unabashedly comics for comic readers. I don't get that feeling anymore. They're trying to appeal now to general moviegoers and the like. Different mediums have different appeals and they don't get that anymore, imo.

[DrNewGod]

Well, for one, comics back then weren't just a farm for movie scripts. There was a passion and understanding and desire to write for the medium they were in that I feel is lacking today. They try to go blockbuster on everything and the result just ends up being small. Back then they just told stories, period. That's not to say those eras of days gone by didn't have their own share of problems. They certainly did. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that they were unabashedly comics for comic readers. I don't get that feeling anymore. They're trying to appeal now to general moviegoers and the like. Different mediums have different appeals and they don't get that anymore, imo.

^Very. Much. This.^

I see it in the art too. It's almost like the pencillers have abandoned conveying motion and drama in favor of first-drafting cinematic storyboards.

[astro@work]

The consistency issue that lemonpeace (rightly) points out also shows up in characterization. IMO, older DC comics tended to more consistently adhere to the personas of their characters. I suppose it has to do with the latitude some writers have today. They blow into a book, tell the story they want, often with very little attention to who they're writing, or what went before, and when they're done, the next writer does the same thing.

This is exactly it for me. I still read the new stuff, but am also more frequently angered by radical changes that don't seem to respect the characters. (Prime examples: Ric Grayson, and the angry angsty Donna Troy).

The new stuff also tries too hard to be grim & gritty and losses all the charm in the process. (Primary reason I love the new Young Justice title, and also Shazam). And your point about each new writer coming in and turning over everything...only to have the next writer come in a year later and do the same is spot on. Some of those great 80's runs had consistent writers that were allowed to tell their stories over a long period; this allowed for consistency in the books that we rarely see today.

[TheDarknightDetective]

I think Dan has a point, but I've never read Batman #251 or #232, issues they are reprinting. These will be new stories for me, and The Joker's Five Way Revenge and The Daughter Of The Demon sound like pretty good reads.

[DrNewGod]

This is exactly it for me. I still read the new stuff, but am also more frequently angered by radical changes that don't seem to respect the characters. (Prime examples: Ric Grayson, and the angry angsty Donna Troy).

The new stuff also tries too hard to be grim & gritty and losses all the charm in the process. (Primary reason I love the new Young Justice title, and also Shazam). And your point about each new writer coming in and turning over everything...only to have the next writer come in a year later and do the same is spot on. Some of those great 80's runs had consistent writers that were allowed to tell their stories over a long period; this allowed for consistency in the books that we rarely see today.

Even when creative teams changed, it seems like editors used to enforce some characterization discipline.

I remember reading a piece about a creator that wanted to run Captain America for president, and set the next four years of books in DC and the White House. The editor quashed it on the grounds that character would not accept the compromises that political office would require. I'm not sure the editors have that kind of influence on the stories any more.

[Godlike13]

They say this and yet they still adhere to bottom of the charts, out of touch, guys like Lobdell on titles. Such bullshit.

[Agent Z]

Even when creative teams changed, it seems like editors used to enforce some characterization discipline.

I remember reading a piece about a creator that wanted to run Captain America for president, and set the next four years of books in DC and the White House. The editor quashed it on the grounds that character would not accept the compromises that political office would require. I'm not sure the editors have that kind of influence on the stories any more.

Given the numerous stories we've heard of editorially mandatted character decisions, I'd say they do. It's simply a case of when they chose to exercise it.

[Dark-Jacket]

Since the Bronze age most bigger stories run over multiple issues, therefore with a single issue from that era you usually wont get a complete story.

Silver Age and Golden Age Stories usually don't go over multiple issues, but are also not that great stoytelling wise

Actually, it's around 2000 than you started to really get 6 issues arcs in order to increase TPB. It was well into the dark age of comics and far after the bronze age where you would have long subplot but 1/2 issues plot.

I think it's not about nostalgia. The quality of comics have been spiraling down from decades now.

I can tell you why I enjoy older comics more. And I'll take an example with Justice League Rebirth which I read and disliked.

1/ It was a mistake to apply movies formula to comics.
Bryan Hitch's run looked pretty much like a marvel movie. Punchline, out of nowhere romances big panel/shots that felt empty but a lack of characterisation and obscure references supposed to tease us but which ends up to bore us.
Comics are now seen as a commitment readers should have with long world-wide narrative arc and no time to rest. And it's an error. If I've missed a comic one month I shouldn't be completely lost with what happens.

2/ No thoughts balloons.
Those were a stapple of the comics. Sure you have here and there caption boxes. But, you feel like the character is narrating. Long gone are the days were you were identifying and living with the heros' thougths.
It ended up making them more inaccessible and less humans. An example, Batman is much more appreciated when you can get inside his head rather than when he sounds like a dick to his surrounding.
I can't care less for what happens to some characters if I don't have insight on what they were thinking and that might be why it has been so difficult to like new heroes when they were accepted easylier before.

3/ Audience induced apathy
I know, currently, comics are deprieving me of joy rather than the opposite. I don't want to read Titans getting slaughtered. Heroes never smiling. Bad guys always winning. Friendship, couples broke forever. I'm now afraid to like a character because of what could happen to him.
Comics never got away from being Dark and Gritty and we're still in the middle of a dark age. (I rage-quitted DC for 2 years after Identity Crisis)

4/ Those are not heroes.
You can't apply Dark and Gritty to every characters. Heroes killing, being jerkass, immature, not worst of trust, not caring about their losses... it all leads to a drift between readers and the comics.
Let's be honest, if I want to read The Boys (which I enjoy) I'll read the Boys, I wouldn't need Superman to start and acting like Butcher. Editors have lost the sense of heroism and have put super-soldiers and vigilante first and foremost.

5/ Novelists and people hating the super heroes genre aren't comics writers.
A lot of recent rising stars have gloated about their hate for the superhero genre or are novelist/TV writers who are injecting their previous exepriences into the comics. It ends up providing mainstream stories from people who should write Elseworlds stories (at least at first).
We ended losing what's make comics unique and when you see spiderman into the spider verse ends up being more comicly than 90% of the comics those last 20 years you say they've missed something.

6/Continuity Lock-out

Comics have been to dependent of continuity. I take the example of past comics. One of the first DC comics I got was JLA #203. I only knew of Superman, Batman, Batgirl, Wonder-Woman. I didn't know what the Justice League was, nor did I know Green Lantern, Black Canary, Zatanna... and so on.
I got into the comic real quick. That was the first appearance of the second Royal Flush Gang and with a single sentence 'there is a new Royal Flush Gang" I understood, they have face before and thus were recurring ennemies. That's all I needed.
Now if you take the rebirth arc, you needed to have follow three years of the book to understand it. If not, impossible to catch-up.
If you take the year of villains arc. Well, you need to understand the batman who laughs so you need to come back to dark knight metal. But to understand Dark Knight metal you have to understand the Multiverse and go back to multiversity... and so on. Being obssessed with decades long story lines, DC forgot to just have stories a kid could pick up and understand from the go.

I'm not saying comics are doomed and nothing has come since the 80's quite the opposite. But comics are a dying media because the people in power aren't moving fast enough with their time. And it's not only about representation, I'm glad there is more diversity in comics, but it's about also bringing back what a comic is. People will rather pay for a movie rather than pay for a watered version of a movie, same for a novel.

I wouldn't blame readers for being obsessed with silver age or for not giving their chances to comics, I would say comics needs to step up to be relevant again.

[kingaliencracker]

For me, comics were just so much better in the 70's and 80's (and very early 90's). Maybe that makes me an old man, I don't know. But I don't really have the same passion for comics written today that I did and continue to have for comics written back then.

[Tzigone]

For me, comics were just so much better in the 70's and 80's (and very early 90's). Maybe that makes me an old man, I don't know. But I don't really have the same passion for comics written today that I did and continue to have for comics written back then.

I liked the Nightwing of the '90s, but I admit I read it before New Teen Titans, and it did drag Dick a little backwards in terms of acting like a kid around Bruce and his desire to prove himself and such. Seemed like he'd grown past that at one point, but then maybe the change up in his Nightwing origin messed that up earlier. I did like the "teen" comics of the 90s - Robin, Impulse, the Hawaii years of Superboy, and Young Justice. But I can definitely acknowledge some uneven writing there and that I think two of those titles were good on characters, but often kinda "meh" on stories. And too many events/crossovers - I like to be able to read one title and get the full story. Alas, for me all those characters went downhill in the 2000s. I did like the first arc for the 2006 Blue Beetle, though - thought it very strong.