Would you ever want DC Comics to go back to Pre-Crisis?

[Powerboy]

Would you ever want DC Comics to go back to Pre-Crisis?

There are good and bad scenarios with doing this. The good is that there is a strong foundation of history to build on. The bad is that all the problems DC had before would still be there.

Yes or No?

No.

I grew up on the Silver/ Bronze Age.

On a practical level, it would not work today. The readership today is mostly adults, not grade schoolers.

The other reason is that they might *say* it's Pre-Crisis but it would not feel that way to me. For instance, when they were bringing back the alternate realities, they did a series where they published comic from every era. The Post-Crisis one felt like it was Post-Crisis. The Golden Age was cheating a bit but mostly felt Golden Age. However, the so-called Silver Age one, a Legion of Super Heroes story, just felt like a modern comic with something remotely resembling the Legion's Silver Age history, characters moping about their feelings for twenty pages but supposedly in the Silver Age.

"Pre-Crisis" is more than just a set of events. It's an era in our culture, a time that is gone, a style of storytelling that we are not going to see again except in some sort of retro setting like Batman '66, Wonder Woman '77 or the upcoming Superman '78.

Pre-Crisis might work in that sort of context where you publish one comic a month in that setting but it's not going to work as the main setting.

[Powerboy]

Not wholesale, no. They never should have done COIE, at least not the way they did, but too late now. And while I prefer pre-Crisis overall, a lot of good stuff and characters came out after that. They'd be pissing away a lot of money just to satisfy one set of fans.

If they would better utilize the "worlds of DC" and create an imprint of books set in a "What if COIE never happened?" reality, I'd be happy to try some out. I'd pick up some pre-Crisis Batman and Superman books in a heartbeat.

The reality, I think, is that comics are already a dying niche market. Contrary to what some say, I don't think anything could have prevented it and the steps they took, playing to the existing audience, allowed them to stick around longer.

I'm in my sixties. Playing to me, playing to a nostalgic readership that wants their childhood back, is not the way to go. As a specialty comic ala Batman '66 or some other once a month comic, sure. In fact, as a company wide gimmick to increase sales for six months and then dump it when sales start plummeting again, sure.

At this point, something like that wouldn't last. It would just be the latest special event/ gimmick to boost sales.

I'd personally love to see what you suggest, a "What if the Crisis never happened?" or "What if the Crisis happened but the Pre-Crisis universe survived it?" It wouldn't last but it would be fun for a while. It would be a lot like when they resurrected a facsimile of the Golden Superman.

[Thor-Ul]

Would you ever want DC Comics to go back to Pre-Crisis?

There are good and bad scenarios with doing this. The good is that there is a strong foundation of history to build on. The bad is that all the problems DC had before would still be there.

Yes or No?

No. It is never good try to go back. We have the tendency of think of past times as better times and that is not always the case.

[LordAllMIghty]

For Verse debates - Yes

Story line and enjoyment - No

[Hol]

Nah big no for me. I love those old comics but so many characters and concepts I enjoy came from post Crisis/Pre Flashpoint DC.

[Dr. Poison]

It kind of did with Doomsday Clock and Death Metal. We got Earths 1984 and 2. We just needs books featuring stories with the characters from them.

[BatmanJones]

First, in regard to the ‘problems that already existed,’ I’d argue with all my might that there weren’t any pre-Crisis problems. That was something DC dreamed up because they underestimated their readers’ intelligence.

But now the genie’s out of the bottle and you just can’t erase 35 years of storytelling.

Every time I see the Crisis listed as one of DC’s best stories it drives me up a wall. It devastated about 50 years of stories and it wasn’t even a good series apart from the art.

[SiegePerilous02]

I'd personally love to see what you suggest, a "What if the Crisis never happened?" or "What if the Crisis happened but the Pre-Crisis universe survived it?" It wouldn't last but it would be fun for a while. It would be a lot like when they resurrected a facsimile of the Golden Superman.

Yes even something like some periodic 12 issues series (maybe getting a second "season" if any of them justify it) would be good. They publish more than enough Bat-crap as it is, but if they published a 12 issue Bronze Age style Batman series with characterizations and costumes to match? I'm not in that age group, but I'd at least check it out in a heart beat. Ditto Superman. Morrison's TGL was already sort of like that for Green Lantern.

Every time I see the Crisis listed as one of DC’s best stories it drives me up a wall. It devastated about 50 years of stories and it wasn’t even a good series apart from the art.

Yeah, it really is an average to below average story that coasts along on Perez's awesome art and a couple iconic moments (chiefly the deaths of Barry and Kara). It definitely doesn't deserve to be on any best of lists for its writing merits before we even get into how bad it messed things up in its wake.

[SJNeal]

Another "Nope!" here.

I had to think about whether I'd wanna go back to immediately Post-COIE, and even though that's "my DCU", I still say no. Like others have said, at this point they need to stop trying to correct their mistakes (it can't be done), and move the eff forward.

[Captain Nostalgia]

The problem with turning the clock back 35 years is that the only people who will be able to comprehend what is going on is the 40 plus crowd....so not a great move for DC.

For me, if I could turn the clock back on anything it would be zero hour (Destroyed Hal, and the Legion timeline & the JSA)

but again, turning the clock back for nostalgic older fanboys doesn't make much sense.

[DrNewGod]

First, in regard to the ‘problems that already existed,’ I’d argue with all my might that there weren’t any pre-Crisis problems. That was something DC dreamed up because they underestimated their readers’ intelligence.

But now the genie’s out of the bottle and you just can’t erase 35 years of storytelling...

O'Neal & Adams would disagree. They didn't do anything to Batman Crisis didn't do to Superman, they just ignored what they found problematic instead of burning everything to the ground before hitting Reset.

It's not the stories or the world that won't accept the change, it's the fans. In 1969 the readership was larger, and it's percentage of continuity fundamentalists was smaller. Today, the readership is smaller, but the percentage of fundamentalists is much higher. You can't get away with saying "nevermind if the dog allergy we just gave alfred screws up Ace's history, a batdog is dumb, and we don't want to write about it anyway." Complicating the matter is that the fans come in different fundamentalist sects.

IMO, at this point, I'd say abandon monthlies, focus on gaming, and treat comics like film or game extended universe novelizations.

[warzon]

Just have The Flash undo the Flashpoint i didn't have a problem w DC until The New DC.

[Jim Kelly]

I think you guys misunderstand what the pre-Crisis status quo was and how it would work now.

Grant Morrison essentially said his ALL-STAR SUPERMAN was where Superman would be if there had been no Crisis, but comics had kept going with the usual developments and retcons that were routine in comics.

So the way I see it, if Crisis hadn't happened and the comics just kept going, a lot of developments would still have happened. There just wouldn't be that knotted mess that was the post-Crisis confusion. They never had a clear plan for what to do after Crisis. It was supposed to give them greater freedom yet it imposed a lot of restrictions--like trying to make everything fit in one universe with one timeline. And they never really did figure that out. Had there been no Crisis, they wouldn't have wasted so much energy trying to punch their way out of a paper bag.

Look at Marvel. There was no Crisis (not at that time), yet they evolved and developed just the same.

Not having a Crisis doesn't mean everything would stop and no creativiity would happen. There was lots that was being created before Crisis and there was nothing to stop more from being created in the future.

The comics I love most are the ones that were created in those first 50 years. A lot of that stuff doesn't belong to any universe or fit in a continuity. It would have been great if the publisher could have given new creators that kind of freedom. And during the first five or so years after Crisis, creators were hamstrung in what pre-Crisis continuity they could use. They eventually were able to work a lot of that back into the comcis. But it would have been easier on them if they could just say all those stories from before 1985 had happened, rather than trying to finesse the rule that said those stories were out of bounds.

I mean, I love Walt Simonson, but why does he have to re-write the Sand Superman Saga just so it can re-exist in Superman continuity? Why was it so hard to just say that Denny O'Neil and Curt Swan and Murphy Anderson's magnum opus had already happened and was part of Superman's history? You essentially had new writers and artists redoing the old stories and getting credit for them rather than giving props to the originals.

If they didn't waste so much time trying to re-establish in continuity what had already been in continuity--they could have gone further and told stories that built on those foundational texts in new and diverse directions. If you read the last 35 years of D.C., it's a lot of driving in reverse, put it in drive, no back-up, hit the brake, shift into second gear, reverse, do a U turn, reverse, forward, left. It's like they really don't want to get anywhere and they just know how to recapitulate things over and over again.

[Vakanai]

IMO, at this point, I'd say abandon monthlies, focus on gaming, and treat comics like film or game extended universe novelizations.

I disagree. Nothing against gaming, but not all comics should be game extensions. I do agree about they should abandon the monthlies though. But I think they should expand on the Kids, YA, and OGN markets more as well as your game extensions. More Superman Smashes the Klan, more Under the Moon: A Catwoman Tale, more YA novels like the Lois Lane trilogy or the 4 DC Icons books, more Harleen, etc. But yes, comic books based on the games too. The comic book shop crowd is too small a market and they should ditch it, but that doesn't mean the only place for books is in service of the gaming crowd.

[Vakanai]

I think you guys misunderstand what the pre-Crisis status quo was and how it would work now.

Grant Morrison essentially said his ALL-STAR SUPERMAN was where Superman would be if there had been no Crisis, but comics had kept going with the usual developments and retcons that were routine in comics.

So the way I see it, if Crisis hadn't happened and the comics just kept going, a lot of developments would still have happened. There just wouldn't be that knotted mess that was the post-Crisis confusion. They never had a clear plan for what to do after Crisis. It was supposed to give them greater freedom yet it imposed a lot of restrictions--like trying to make everything fit in one universe with one timeline. And they never really did figure that out. Had there been no Crisis, they wouldn't have wasted so much energy trying to punch their way out of a paper bag.

Look at Marvel. There was no Crisis (not at that time), yet they evolved and developed just the same.

Not having a Crisis doesn't mean everything would stop and no creativiity would happen. There was lots that was being created before Crisis and there was nothing to stop more from being created in the future.

The comics I love most are the ones that were created in those first 50 years. A lot of that stuff doesn't belong to any universe or fit in a continuity. It would have been great if the publisher could have given new creators that kind of freedom. And during the first five or so years after Crisis, creators were hamstrung in what pre-Crisis continuity they could use. They eventually were able to work a lot of that back into the comcis. But it would have been easier on them if they could just say all those stories from before 1985 had happened, rather than trying to finesse the rule that said those stories were out of bounds.

I mean, I love Walt Simonson, but why does he have to re-write the Sand Superman Saga just so it can re-exist in Superman continuity? Why was it so hard to just say that Denny O'Neil and Curt Swan and Murphy Anderson's magnum opus had already happened and was part of Superman's history? You essentially had new writers and artists redoing the old stories and getting credit for them rather than giving props to the originals.

If they didn't waste so much time trying to re-establish in continuity what had already been in continuity--they could have gone further and told stories that built on those foundational texts in new and diverse directions. If you read the last 35 years of D.C., it's a lot of driving in reverse, put it in drive, no back-up, hit the brake, shift into second gear, reverse, do a U turn, reverse, forward, left. It's like they really don't want to get anywhere and they just know how to recapitulate things over and over again.

That's Morrison's version of what Superman would be, minus the Crisis. And he pulled it off. You can't expect every writer to pull it off. You're just as likely to wind up with a crappy story as you are an All Star Superman. Honestly, trying to imagine where all these heroes would be in a Crisis free world is no different than any other big reboot, and just as likely to create crappy takes as good ones.