How do you rate Dan Didio's tenure at DC Comics?

[Pinsir]

Explain how New 52 Static Shock was a BETTER book than a 4 year run of his original series?
Explain how New 52 Firestorm was a BETTER book than the 134 combined solo issues of Jason & Ronnie? Mind you neither Gail Simone nor Ethan Van Siever wanted to do the book. I will give them credit for trying.
Explain how New 52 Supergirl was a BETTER book than Peter David's or Sterling Gates's Supergirl runs?
....

What? You're mentioning runs which began more than a decade ago and ended before the New 52 began. Like, are you talking about the 1993 Static series? The New 52 didn't destroy these titles to make way for inferior versions of them, as far as I can tell, Static and Firestorm hadn't been published in years at this point and the New 52 provided an opportunity to pick these titles back up again. Even if the New 52 hadn't rebooted these characters though and they had retained their previous continuity, that doesn't mean they were going to be great stories.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Your assessing the New 52 on topics that I would consider to be 'continuity' though. Continuity consists the previous stories that are treated as canon and this includes characters, backgrounds, pretty much everything. Yeah, sure, the Flash family was gutted, but is it fair to say Francis Manupul's Flash was bad because of the Wally West stuff? No, of course not, but a lot of anti-New 52 people do get pretty close to saying that.

The direction of these characters is inherently tied to continuity, though. Continuity is, you know, the foundation of the mythos off of which these stories are being told. It literally defines the world in which these stories take place and the tools and concepts available to writers when telling those stories. That's why the New 52 was so bad: DC itself didn't even really know what continuity they wanted to retain and what they wanted to get rid of, which confused the HELL out of writers and fans alike.

And while Booch and Manapul's Flash was a decent title, it was not GOOD ENOUGH to justify the gutting of the Flash family and the erasure of the world in which the Flash comic once took place. It also wasn't long before the New 52 Flash comic devolved into mediocrity. Not many of the New 52 comics were good enough to justify the reboot.

I'm more interested in the quality of the comics and I think if you compare the New 52 to the last years of Post-Crisis DC (c. 2005-2011) and Rebirth (2016-2020), the New 52 has better comics, no competition.

Lol. No, it didn't. Rebirth Superman, for example, received much more critical praise than the New 52 Superman title. Likewise, Wonder Woman during the New 52 was floundering creatively until Greg Rucka came back with Rebirth. The New 52 Legion of Superheroes, Teen Titans, JLI, Stormwatch, Detective Comics, Green Arrow (at least until Lemire came along), Lobo, Static Shock, etc. were also similarly derided by critics and fans as just being bad comics. Like I said earlier, for every good comic from the New 52, there were at least two others that were awful.

Also, there were a lot of great stories that came out of the pre-Flashpoint era, some of which continued into the New 52 era and accounted for a majority of the New 52's actual successes. Green Lantern, which was both critically and financially successful before the New 52, just continued on as if nothing had happened. Batman was already in good hands before the New 52, with Grant Morrison's run and Scott Snyder on 'Tec. Even event comics like Infinite Crisis, (the original) 52, Sinestro Corps War, and Blackest Night were better than anything I read out of the New 52.

So no, the New 52 did not have better comics than either Pre-Flashpoint or Rebirth. If anything, it wasn't any better nor any worse than the immediate Pre-Flashpoint DC.

[Pinsir]

The direction of these characters is inherently tied to continuity, though. Continuity is, you know, the foundation of the mythos off of which these stories are being told. It literally defines the world in which these stories take place and the tools and concepts available to writers when telling those stories. That's why the New 52 was so bad: DC itself didn't even really know what continuity they wanted to retain and what they wanted to get rid of, which confused the HELL out of writers and fans alike.

There were some issues regarding writers being confused, but it had more to do with many writers stepping on each other (Perez had this problem with Morrison). This happens in comics all the time because continuity is confusing in any expanded universe. I think the powers at be more or less had a good idea as to what they wanted to keep, the confusion on account of the fans, who instead of patiently waiting for the story to develop, freaked out.

And while Booch and Manapul's Flash was a decent title, it was not GOOD ENOUGH to justify the gutting of the Flash family and the erasure of the world in which the Flash comic once took place. It also wasn't long before the New 52 Flash comic devolved into mediocrity. Not many of the New 52 comics were good enough to justify the reboot.

Were the Flash comics immediately prior to the New 52 better though? I was under the impression they weren't, so there was no harm in freshening up the title. Yeah, the Flash series didn't fare well in the New 52 (I don't even know if Manupul's flash would break into my top 25 New 52 titles), but there is no reason to assume that if Flash's continuity had been maintained we would have received better comics.

Lol. No, it didn't. Rebirth Superman, for example, received much more critical praise than the New 52 Superman title. Likewise, Wonder Woman during the New 52 was floundering creatively until Greg Rucka came back with Rebirth. The New 52 Legion of Superheroes, Teen Titans, JLI, Stormwatch, Detective Comics, Green Arrow (at least until Lemire came along), Lobo, Static Shock, etc. were also similarly derided by critics and fans as just being bad comics. Like I said earlier, for every good comic from the New 52, there were at least two others that were awful.

There will always be bad comics though. What matters is the good comics and the New 52 houses plenty of them. IGN compiled a fairly broad list for the best comics of the decade (which you can find here) and most of the DC titles were published during the 52 era, I think only 3 were Rebirth (King's Batman, Doomsday Clock, Mister Miracle), and I don't think any were Post-Crisis.

As for specific runs, Azzarello's Wonder Woman and Morrison's Action Comics were better than the subsequent Rebirth comics. Doesn't mean those comics were bad, I actually think Rucka's WW run was better than most Post-Crisis WW stories. (If you browse my top 10 Modern Wonder Woman stories in my signature, you can probably tell I don't like Post-Crisis WW that much).

Also, there were a lot of great stories that came out of the pre-Flashpoint era, some of which continued into the New 52 era and accounted for a majority of the New 52's actual successes. Green Lantern, which was both critically and financially successful before the New 52, just continued on as if nothing had happened. Batman was already in good hands before the New 52, with Grant Morrison's run and Scott Snyder on 'Tec. Even event comics like Infinite Crisis, (the original) 52, Sinestro Corps War, and Blackest Night were better than anything I read out of the New 52.

Yeah, the Batman and Green Lantern lines were doing great in the years preceding the New 52...which is why they mostly continued with their continuity intact (This did cause some wacky timelines though). Dan knew what to keep and what to get rid off.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

There were some issues regarding writers being confused, but it had more to do with many writers stepping on each other (Perez had this problem with Morrison). This happens in comics all the time because continuity is confusing in any expanded universe. I think the powers at be more or less had a good idea as to what they wanted to keep, the confusion on account of the fans, who instead of patiently waiting for the story to develop, freaked out.

No, there were a lot of writers who had no idea what was still in-continuity. Remember how Lobdell's Teen Titans had to be re-edited because he mentioned a previous iteration of the team before DC decided all of a sudden that there were no other Titans before the New 52 Teen Titans? Or how about when they tried to say that Emerald Twilight was still canon, but Death of Superman (the thing that caused Emerald Twilight) wasn't? Or how about when they said that Barbara Gordon had still been Oracle for a time, but then tried to say that she had never been Oracle and that the Birds of Prey were founded when she was Batgirl?

Dude. Just admit it. They had no idea what they were doing. That's just fact at this point.

Were the Flash comics immediately prior to the New 52 better though? I was under the impression they weren't, so there was no harm in freshening up the title. Yeah, the Flash series didn't fare well in the New 52 (I don't even know if Manupul's flash would break into my top 25 New 52 titles), but there is no reason to assume that if Flash's continuity had been maintained we would have received better comics.

Lol. Again, it has to do with the world. The Flash comics immediately preceding the reboot might not have been that great, but honestly, having read them, they weren't any worse than what we had with Booch and Manapul during the New 52. And of course, the New 52 Flash comic soon devolved into something much, much worse than what we had before Flashpoint as soon as Booch and Manapul left. Plus, there's also the fact that they completely erased a fan-favorite character. No matter which way you slice it, that is a HUGE DEAL.

There will always be bad comics though. What matters is the good comics and the New 52 houses plenty of them. IGN compiled a fairly broad list for the best comics of the decade (which you can find here) and most of the DC titles were published during the 52 era, I think only 3 were Rebirth (King's Batman, Doomsday Clock, Mister Miracle), and I don't think any were Post-Crisis.

The new 52 had a much larger share of bad comics. LOL. Firstly, on the very list you shared, I counted maybe 8 New 52 entries, but on a list that long, that's kind of pathetic when you have like 30 Marvel titles and good amount of Image books as well. I mean, just wrap your head around that: out of an entire 6 years of publication, DC only produced about 8 comics that were worthy of mention on this list. Eight out of Fifty-Two. That's pathetic.

I also noticed that there was a showing from non-New 52 DC, whether that was from Rebirth (you missed both the Rebirth one-shot itself and Tomasi and Gleason's Rebirth Superman), Post-Crisis (you missed the Flashpoint Batman story), Vertigo, or non-continuity titles like Sensation Comics and Flinstones. Furthermore, even some of the New 52 entries on this list were controversial at best. Azzarello's Wonder Woman, for example, turned the Amazons into murderous pirates, something that had to be fixed by Rucka

So, again, if only about 8 of the 52 titles you're publishing are considered good, while the rest are considered borderline garbage, that's a problem. It's also worth mentioning that at least a few of those writers jumped ship because of the way that DC was being run during the New 52. For example, Joshua Hale Fialkov (who wrote I, Vampire) had very choice words for DC when he left. Soule got signed to Marvel and has been there ever since.

Also, it bears noting that this is one site. A lot of sites would disagree. Wired even went so far as to call the New 52 a "big, fat failure."

As for specific runs, Azzarello's Wonder Woman and Morrison's Action Comics were better than the subsequent Rebirth comics. Doesn't mean those comics were bad, I actually think Rucka's WW run was better than most Post-Crisis WW stories. (If you browse my top 10 Modern Wonder Woman stories in my signature, you can probably tell I don't like Post-Crisis WW that much).

No, they weren't. LOL. Rucka's Wonder Woman was much better than Azzarello's. And Superman's Rebirth era is hailed as one of his best. Heck, even on that list you provided, they list it as one of the best comics of the decade.

Yeah, the Batman and Green Lantern lines were doing great in the years preceding the New 52...which is why they mostly continued with their continuity intact (This did cause some wacky timelines though). Dan knew what to keep and what to get rid of.

That is a laughable statement to say the least. No, Dan didn't know what he was doing. Those wacky timelines are proof of that. Had he actually known, he'd have realized that a lot of the GL and Batman continuity no longer made sense in the New 52 because of the stuff he got rid of. For example, Kyle Rayner's origin remained intact, where he is chosen after Hal Jordan goes crazy and kills the Green Lantern Corps...EXCEPT Hal Jordan going crazy was a reaction to Coast City being destroyed during the Death of Superman, which was no longer canon. Likewise, in the very first issue of New 52 Nightwing, Dick says how he just got back to being Nightwing after his time as Batman. However, the New 52 erased Final Crisis, the story where Batman died and which necessitated Dick to be Batman in the first place. So, yeah, no they had no idea what they were doing.

[LifeIsILL]

That list had Marvel books like All-New Doop, All-New Wolverine, Captain Marvel.....??

They included those but not James Robinson's Earth 2, Penguin: Pain and Prejudice, All-Star Western, Demon Knights. Which proves that lists like those aren't definitive and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[Lee Stone]

New 52 was a rushed mess that absorbed all the Brightest Day spin-offs that could've done just as good, or better, without it (Swamp Thing, Aquaman, JLI, Hawkman, Deadman). Their planning was, at most, five or six months before the launch.
Batwoman even got sucked into it, too. It would've done just as good without New52. It was already a buzz book before it got delayed to join the New52.

'Same day' digital launched the same time as New52, so it gets erroneously credited for that boost in readership, too, even though DC was already working on going full digital with Young Justice and Batman Beyond testing the waters several months prior. So, yeah readership was up, especially in digital where 'same day' digital could've possibly saved DC before the New52.

If DC was so worried about how their universe was at the tail end of Pre-New52 era, they could've looked at Identity Crisis, Countdown to Infinite Crisis and the death of Maxwell Lord as possible reasons for the decline.
DC didn't become a dystopian and narcissistic anti-hero paradise until after Didio came along.

Yes, we had Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, but they were exceptions during their time. They were like Elseworlds and could've been read and put on a shelf as you go back to the real DCU.

And the age-old trick of putting big names on characters and saying they're doing better because of the rebranding (and not because X writer or artist are now on it) is silly. People weren't buying Justice League because it was New52. They were buying it for Jim Lee and Geoff Johns (the same reason the Morrison/Porter JLA did so well). Same with Morrison and Perez on the Superman books. Batman sells anyway, but Finch and Capullo pushed them higher in the sales charts.

DC didn't need a New52 for Sandman, Starman, JSA, Hellblazer, New Teen Titans, Legion of Super-Heroes, JLI, Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing and others to become hits.
Just good storytelling, good art and good creators.
Walking Dead didn't need a New52 at Image.
Nor did Saga.

New52 could've really been amazing.
If it was thought out longer and they didn't just throw stuff at the wall to see what stuck.
It was a rush job.
I think the creators did the best they could, given the hectic environment, but I don't think anything from New52 reached Swamp Thing, Sandman, Starman or New Teen Titans levels.

[godisawesome]

When it comes to the New 52 and a Rebirth, o tend to think that Didio’s issues were more an inability to sustain strong output afterwards, and perhaps missing what was the actual key to both events in the areas where they worked: strong marketing pushes and good creative teams.

I don’t think the attempt to tightly control continuity and the decisions where to do the reboot was the right idea in the long run: it would have been better to treat the reboot stories that were successful as optional continuity ventures - if it’s good enjough to get support, it joins the continuity, but should only really be applied if a character seemed to need new continuity to accompany the marketing push.

I mean, what was more valuable? Putting guys like Grant Morrison on Superman when he said he had an idea to use and marketing the crap out of that? Or ordering everyone - even Teen Titans characters who were tied to other franchises - to reboot as well even if they were successful?

And what was a greater liability - continuity, or the failure to keep good writers?

Successful characters and franchises were more hurt by the reboot in the long run, while the characters who *did* benefit from the reboot didn’t need everyone to go with them - Roy getting an arm back and forgetting Cry For Justice was good, but there was no good reason to reboot Flash, the Robins, or other characters.

Rebirth showed that continuity was also not as important as trying to keep good writers on books.

To put it another way, Scott Lobdell should not have been a go to writer for so much stuff that wasn’t just Red Hood and the Outlaws, in either the reboot of New 52, or Rebirth.

[kingaliencracker]

Regarding the success/failure of The New 52, the post-Crisis universe lasted, what? 20 years? It essentially changed with Infinite Crisis. The New 52 lasted a whopping FIVE years before Rebirth? And Didio even admitted that New 52 had inherent failures?

Definitely not knocking anyone who enjoyed it. But it's hard to argue it was successful.

[dornwolf]

I think you could call the New 52 a failure purely by the fact that first issues hadn't even hit stores and creative teams were already walking or had been cancelled.

[leo619]

Regarding the success/failure of The New 52, the post-Crisis universe lasted, what? 20 years? It essentially changed with Infinite Crisis. The New 52 lasted a whopping FIVE years before Rebirth? And Didio even admitted that New 52 had inherent failures?

Definitely not knocking anyone who enjoyed it. But it's hard to argue it was successful.

Oh it was definitely successful originally, but the issue that plague new 52 from reaching it's full foundation has very little to do with new 52, and more to do with the issues associated with the comic book industry at large. It's like saying it's hard to argue Rebirth was successful, when it's technically selling worse than new 52.

[Pinsir]

Regarding the success/failure of The New 52, the post-Crisis universe lasted, what? 20 years? It essentially changed with Infinite Crisis. The New 52 lasted a whopping FIVE years before Rebirth? And Didio even admitted that New 52 had inherent failures?

Definitely not knocking anyone who enjoyed it. But it's hard to argue it was successful.

They existed in different contexts though. The Post-Crisis continuity was propped up in part by the 90's comic bubble and general high readership. The New 52 came 20 years later long after the crash and during after a decade of declining readership. Also, it doesn't really bother me that the New 52 ended, I mean, Rebirth didn't last as long. The modern nature of comics probably means you'll see reboots every 5 or so years now.

[scary harpy]

They existed in different contexts though. The Post-Crisis continuity was propped up in part by the 90's comic bubble and general high readership. The New 52 came 20 years later long after the crash and during after a decade of declining readership. Also, it doesn't really bother me that the New 52 ended, I mean, Rebirth didn't last as long. The modern nature of comics probably means you'll see reboots every 5 or so years now.

If history is any indicator, then they will be soft reboots.

Unfortunately, soft reboots result in hot messes.

More unfortunate, DC's TPTB do not seem able to learn that soft reboots cause more problems than they solve.

[leo619]

They existed in different contexts though. The Post-Crisis continuity was propped up in part by the 90's comic bubble and general high readership. The New 52 came 20 years later long after the crash and during after a decade of declining readership. Also, it doesn't really bother me that the New 52 ended, I mean, Rebirth didn't last as long. The modern nature of comics probably means you'll see reboots every 5 or so years now.

New 52 lasted around 5 years, while this current era (rather some consider it Rebirth or not) is ending at 3, and is already at a lower selling rate than New 52 was at this stage. So people can knock 52 if they wish, it definitely had it's flaws for certain, but it definitely had it's successes and it definitely was more successful than where we're currently at, that's for sure.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

They existed in different contexts though. The Post-Crisis continuity was propped up in part by the 90's comic bubble and general high readership. The New 52 came 20 years later long after the crash and during after a decade of declining readership. Also, it doesn't really bother me that the New 52 ended, I mean, Rebirth didn't last as long. The modern nature of comics probably means you'll see reboots every 5 or so years now.

New 52 lasted around 5 years, while this current era (rather some consider it Rebirth or not) is ending at 3, and is already at a lower selling rate than New 52 was at this stage. So people can knock 52 if they wish, it definitely had it's flaws for certain, but it definitely had it's successes and it definitely was more successful than where we're currently at, that's for sure.

Why do you assume that we are out of Rebirth? I don't remember any Crises that have definitely marked the end of the Rebirth continuity the way Rebirth definitely marked the end of New 52 continuity. The only storyline that might fit that bill would be Doomsday Clock, but that was always billed as the culmination of Rebirth.

And if we're looking at things from a creative standpoint at DC, then no, New 52 was definitely NOT successful. Creators ran for the hills during that era and it alienated a lot of people from working at DC. And that's not even going into how characters like the Teen Titans, Static, the (grown) Titans, Green Arrow, the Birds of Prey, Superman, Cassandra Cain, Wally West, Stephanie Brown, Tim Drake, Lady Shiva, etc. were either given new directions that were not well-received by the fanbase at best or erased from existence at worst. It was a hard time to be a DC fan indeed.

[Vordan]

New 52 brought in new people to LCS, had some good ideas and books, and was a huge commercial success for DC and the industry. New 52 was also a mismanaged reboot that alienated a lot of creators and fans and botched its potential. Those two can both be true. It has been consistently said by everyone from DC to shop owners that New 52 was a commercial success that managed to bring new people into comics like nothing else (which includes Rebirth) has done, yet it’s also true that DC lost a lot of top creatives and alienated portions of their fanbase which contributed to drop off and forced them to pivot to Rebirth.