The "Bat Cliff" Perch Gives His Thoughts About Current DC

[Bruce Wayne]

All of that is stuff made up of social media chatter.

You're literally ascribing motivations and conspiracies to people you don't know, never interviewed and have zero ideas how editorial decisions are actually made.

You're talking about how you feel about events which isn't anything like knowing what the events actually are or why they occurred.

None of these are from social media because social media doesn't care about the editorial bts crap. These things literally happened. You can go look up the retention rate of Superman/Action Comics writer from OYL to around the time of Convergence. You can look up Rob Liefeld getting Grifter/Hawkman/Deathstroke or all the writing assignments suddenly being give to Lobdell after Harras comes along as DC's new EiC despite him only a handful writing credits before this. Or the jobs given to Christy Marx despite the same thing. These aren't conspiracy theories, this is how DC operates. Go lookup the Layman interviews in the Oral History of Wildstorm book and he confirms the same thing basically happened to Wildstorm after DC bought it up. We have posters here who were working for DC during the beginning of the Didio era about what happened. We have a pretty good picture of what happened within DC due to the interviews and Q&As DC writers/artists have given over the years.

And frankly my feelings don't factor into this. I agre with a lot of what Didio did during his tenure. It's just pretty clear that's he's terrible at coordinating/staffing/logistics and that he lets his personal feelings about comics get in the way of operating DC.

[Redjack]

None of these are from social media because social media doesn't care about the editorial bts crap. These things literally happened. You can go look up the retention rate of Superman/Action Comics writer from OYL to around the time of Convergence. You can look up Rob Liefeld getting Grifter/Hawkman/Deathstroke or all the writing assignments suddenly being give to Lobdell after Harras comes along as DC's new EiC despite him only a handful writing credits before this. Or the jobs given to Christy Marx despite the same thing. These aren't conspiracy theories, this is how DC operates. Go lookup the Layman interviews in the Oral History of Wildstorm book and he confirms the same thing basically happened to Wildstorm after DC bought it up. We have posters here who were working for DC during the beginning of the Didio era about what happened. We have a pretty good picture of what happened within DC due to the interviews and Q&As DC writers/artists have given over the years.

And frankly my feelings don't factor into this. I agre with a lot of what Didio did during his tenure. It's just pretty clear that's he's terrible at coordinating/staffing/logistics and that he lets his personal feelings about comics get in the way of operating DC.

you're conflating the facts of editorial changes of direction, assignments/reassignments with how you FEEL about those things and why they occurred. the two sets are not the same. that's my point.

you clearly have large opinions about WHY they occurred but you don't and, frankly, can't know that so you fill in the blank with how you feel about it.

Feelings are irrelevant in discussions of business/editorial decisions. Unless you were present, you do not know, at all, why any of those choices were made. All you know, in the most basic terms, is what happened. Everything else is your own added spin based on uninformed opinion.

[Citizen Kane]

you're conflating the facts of editorial changes of direction, assignments/reassignments with how you FEEL about those things and why they occurred. the two sets are not the same. that's my point.

you clearly have large opinions about WHY they occurred but you don't and, frankly, can't know that so you fill in the blank with how you feel about it.

Feelings are irrelevant in discussions of business/editorial decisions. Unless you were present, you do not know, at all, why any of those choices were made. All you know, in the most basic terms, is what happened. Everything else is your own added spin based on uninformed opinion.

I don't even have a horse in the game, but I wonder where humanity would be without inference. Probably would still be making cave paintings, I presume. Point being, you're decrying someone for coming to their own conclusion with the information they have and showing no signs of being in a position to actually refute anything that's being said. That being said, whether the poster is right or wrong is irrelevant if you're unwilling to provide an instance where they actually are wrong or an instance where you, in fact, have information to the contrary. The ol' "trust me, pal" isn't going to work here. It would have been easier just to say that you simply disagree with the poster rather than trying to change the way he thinks about something when, in actuality, actively reprimanding inference is more troublesome than actually inferring into wrong conclusions. Food for thought, yes? (Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing the other poster's claims either, and they've no basis to claim it as fact)

And as for me even taking the time to reply to this, well, call me peckish because I felt the need to pick a bone with someone. Hopefully you found this all very informative. 'Til our paths cross again! Ta-ta!

[charliehustle415]

I don't even have a horse in the game, but I wonder where humanity would be without inference. Probably would still be making cave paintings, I presume. Point being, you're decrying someone for coming to their own conclusion with the information they have and showing no signs of being in a position to actually refute anything that's being said. That being said, whether the poster is right or wrong is irrelevant if you're unwilling to provide an instance where they actually are wrong or an instance where you, in fact, have information to the contrary. The ol' "trust me, pal" isn't going to work here. It would have been easier just to say that you simply disagree with the poster rather than trying to change the way he thinks about something, when in actuality, actively reprimanding inference is more troublesome than actually inferring into wrong conclusions. Food for thought, yes? (Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing the other poster's claims either, and they've no basis to claim it as fact)

And as for even me taking the time to reply to this, well, call me peckish because I felt the need to pick a bone with someone. Hopefully you found this all very informative. 'Til our paths cross again! Ta-ta!

Redjack is Geoffrey Thorne the current writer of Green Lantern.

He's telling you straight up how it is, and can't give insider info since he works for DC!

If you can't trust a current writer then there is nothing else to say.

[Citizen Kane]

Redjack is Geoffrey Thorne the current writer of Green Lantern.

He's telling you straight up how it is, and can't give insider info since he works for DC!

If you can't trust a current writer then there is nothing else to say.

But that wasn't the point of my reply, now was it? RJ simply could have said: "I work for DC and have info to the contrary, but I'm contractually obliged not to divulge such information". See? Very simple, not weirdly preachy (color me guilty), and so on. No need to pick on someone and shame them because they decided very reasonably to infer something. And to be honest, I was not aware who the poster "really was" or any of that before making my post. Don't think it would have changed my reply anyway.

EDIT: As for your comment on trust, being a writer for [insert company here] does not automatically mean insider info on the editorial department's interpersonal drama (or even that of the writing department, for that matter). All the same, my suggested response would have sufficed for me.

[charliehustle415]

But that wasn't the point of my reply, now was it? RJ simply could have said: "I work for DC and have info to the contrary, but I'm contractually obliged not to divulge such information". See? Very simple, not weirdly preachy (color me guilty), and so on. No need to pick on someone and shame them because they decided very reasonably to infer something. And to be honest, I was not aware who the poster "really was" or any of that before making my post. Don't think it would have changed my reply anyway considering that being a writer for [insert company here] does not automatically mean insider info on the editorial department's interpersonal drama (or even that of the writing department, for that matter).

You just undercutted your own argument.

[Citizen Kane]

[/B]

You just undercutted your own argument.

The structure was poor, wasn't it? Can't always be perfect. Think of that statement more in reply to your own comment on trust. I guess I felt the need to clarify that I honestly don't care if RJ is a writer or not because it doesn't really mean one thing or the other if they are (it just doesn't automatically refute an argument because someone may have better info than another). And in the grand scheme of my argument, I don't really think it's that out of place. It still supports one of my original points regarding "showing no signs of being in a position to actually refute anything that's being said". So, was it really so unrelated/irrelevant? I'd say it was riding the edge, but yes, I probably could have done without it.

I guess I just found it strange that it was a point you brought up in your post to me, especially when my post didn't really have anything to do with what the poster was and whether they were or weren't was simply irrelevant to my argument. It was more about what was being said and the implications of it, so *shrug*. (I did add an edit afterwards, before even seeing your reply, that basically says my suggested response would have worked for me. I tied it altogether as well as I could, I'd say).

(by the way—were you just waiting in the reeds, meticulously scanning my post for imperfections to pounce upon, or did you just happen upon my post after the edit? Asking for a friend. xoxo)

[Redjack]

I don't even have a horse in the game, but I wonder where humanity would be without inference. Probably would still be making cave paintings, I presume. Point being, you're decrying someone for coming to their own conclusion with the information they have and showing no signs of being in a position to actually refute anything that's being said. That being said, whether the poster is right or wrong is irrelevant if you're unwilling to provide an instance where they actually are wrong or an instance where you, in fact, have information to the contrary. The ol' "trust me, pal" isn't going to work here. It would have been easier just to say that you simply disagree with the poster rather than trying to change the way he thinks about something when, in actuality, actively reprimanding inference is more troublesome than actually inferring into wrong conclusions. Food for thought, yes? (Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing the other poster's claims either, and they've no basis to claim it as fact)

And as for me even taking the time to reply to this, well, call me peckish because I felt the need to pick a bone with someone. Hopefully you found this all very informative. 'Til our paths cross again! Ta-ta!

I've never asked anyone to trust me and my professional status isn't relevant.

You can't make factual statements in support of any hypothesis unless the factual statements are actually facts. In the case of the various scenarios presented by the opposition here, they are weak on the necessary supportive backstage facts, opting to fill in the blanks with feelings about what must have happened and the motivations behind editorial actions.

They don't know either and, more importantly, can never know. The people who do know are either disinclined to share or disallowed by contract from sharing.

So, yeah, i'm kind of against people spinning themselves up into toxic false narratives that they will then present and believe are facts. It's bad for them and for the rest of us.

It makes our hobby uglier all around. Weirdly, I'm agin that.

Mileage varies.

[Citizen Kane]

I've never asked anyone to trust me and my professional status isn't relevant.

You can't make factual statements in support of any hypothesis unless the factual statements are actually facts. In the case of the various scenarios presented by the opposition here, they are weak on the necessary supportive backstage facts, opting to fill in the blanks with feelings about what must have happened and the motivations behind editorial actions.

They don't know either and, more importantly, can never know. The people who do know are either disinclined to share or disallowed by contract from sharing.

So, yeah, i'm kind of against people spinning themselves up into toxic false narratives that they will then present and believe are facts. It's bad for them and for the rest of us.

It makes our hobby uglier all around. Weirdly, I'm agin that.

Mileage varies.

While I still disagree with the method, I respect the motive. I'm not looking to get into the discussion the two of you partook in. However, I did take exception to the method and focus of the refute. I simply find it amusing that you went about that argument the way you did, especially so now, considering your status. I found it even more amusing to stick my nose into the fray. Either way, I stand by my statements.

[Redjack]

While I still disagree with the method, I respect the motive. I'm not looking to get into the discussion the two of you partook in. However, I did take exception to the method and focus of the refute. I simply find it amusing that you went about that argument the way you did, especially so now, considering your status. I found it even more amusing to stick my nose into the fray. Either way, I stand by my statements.

you shouldn't.


and, once again, my "status" is irrelevant. I never invoked it as it has no bearing on this discussion.

[HsssH]

Does the video explain how focusing less on Batman is going to make Future State direction more popular? I don't really care about Taylor's Superman because I don't care about current direction, not because there are lots of Batman comics.

[Sacred Knight]

Still think a huge problem is the push of legacies that Infinite Frontier brought But I do agree that within that, it has nothing to do with being "woke" or whatever. That some of these legacies feature "woke" concepts is probably largely irrelevant. Its the focus wholesale at the expense of the characters regular readers love. It seems like they're trying to grab a new type of readership with new characters, and its an audience that just doesn't exist, at least not in the form of showing up to read comics. I mean the goal of "grabbing new readers" isn't a new concept that they haven't tried to do by various other means in the past. Various means with the characters the current landscape loves. I can appreciate that those attempts largely fell flat previously too, and they're trying something else. But all the same this idea isn't working either.

[The Darknight Detective]

Does the video explain how focusing less on Batman is going to make Future State direction more popular? I don't really care about Taylor's Superman because I don't care about current direction, not because there are lots of Batman comics.

There is this idea that if you reduced the Bat titles to one (or even zero for some), that would mean the difference would taken up by some more obscure character(s). Now some fans would indeed do this, but not all or even close to all. Therefore, does it make sense for DC to neglect their properties that actually do well for properties that might not make up even the difference in sales? Unless you can brainwash Bat readers to like your favorites instead, it's a waste of time and won't help the bottom line.

IMO, less discussion about Batman and his family and more about how to highlight DC's other characters (and get new and/or lapsed readers in the process) is what needed.

[Captain Nostalgia]

I can only speak for myself and people I know, but for me it boils down 4 things.

1) Subpar writing in comparison to Marvel as late. (Yes there have been some good runs at DC, but overall the quality is much better at Marvel)

2) Replacing or significantly altering people's favourite heroes.


I know people who quite Green Lantern over Hal being replaced by Kyle, over Ollie being blown up in a helicopter, over blowing out Ted Kord's brains, having Vic sage die of cancer. Over Wally West, being wiped from existence, over Firestorm, Dr. Fate, I recall a friend quitting Batman over Azrael, I even remember a guy going on a rant with me at a comic shop because apparently at one point they replaced the entire Doom Patrol team???I could go on and on, but....

get the picture.

3) Yes too much Batman

I get it, Batman has become there main revenue driver, but why? There was a time when other heroes and titles were competitive with Marvel. DC might want to look at why their sales started to decline.

4) It's not run as a business.

Over a decade ago Marvel had to operate as an independent business, I think they came out stronger as a result.

DC's been sheltered by being owned by a big subsidiary for too long, and therefore they have made some awful non marketed decisions on titles and heroes over the years.

[skyvolt2000]

So, yeah, i'm kind of against people spinning themselves up into toxic false narratives that they will then present and believe are facts. It's bad for them and for the rest of us.

These are the points he is trying to make. We got too many folks making false stuff up and it's being taken as the 100% truth. When some or all of it can be disproved or shown as selectively cherry picking.

The constant bashing of DC & Marvel over restarts, variant covers and etc.
So we are going to IGNORE every other company that does it and at times WORST then DC & Marvel?

No one noticed Zombie Tramp went 83 issues and had 500 variant covers? The 7K orders a month Zombie Tramp. Batman is NOT at 500 after 120 issues.
The majority of Dynamite books average 8 variants a month per issue. Dynamte admits that variants boost sales of all books.
Ablazes Gung Ho averages 4 , Gung Ho Sexy Beast & Anger did 7 to the tune of 70 variants. A book that averages 2K.
Image's Stray Dogs-who did a TON of variants and they constantly SOLD OUT.

Redjack's Green Lantern only has 20 after 9 issues. A book that is at 32Kish a month?
Excluding first issues, milestones, jumping on points, movie, events, anniversary and in this case Black History Month-DC does NOT flood the market with variants.

Restarts....
Red Sonja will be on her 9th (10th if you count Queen Sonja) (6th under Dynamite) volume. Yet Carol Danvers gets bashed for being on her 5th (as Cap Marvel). Moon Knight is on his 9th.
Valiant is doing it too as is Ahoy Comics and others not named Image or Dark Horse.

Scott Lobdell-yeah there is a reason he got to do so many New 52 books-because he can meet deadlines and as we have seen no matter how bad some thing his books are-they seem to sell if they don't start a POC like Doomed did. Look at all the books he has done many of them lasted more than 6 issues.

If quality was the issue-he and Robert V would not have lasted so long on certain books. Because too many folks here screamed how bad they were yet month after month someone bought those books. Is the fear of Hal, Nightwing and others NOT having books that strong that folks would accept bad writing to keep them active in a book?

Folks want to cry about legacies. Especially those of color.

Funny how many are still tossing out Bruce Wayne is Batman in response to Jace Fox. Along with the rest towards Sam Wilson as Cap America.
Yet where was this rage when Terry McGinnis, Dick Grayson, Winter Soldier and others wore those suits? In runs that SOLD.
We keep hearing why can't (blank) be him or herself? Because when Marvel and DC try-who is the first person to scream boycott or won't even look at the book?
Redjack gave us Mosaic-who did NOT replace anyone and you thought Redjack committed treason. Along Solo, Foolkiller, America, Iceman and others who got books to nasty reactions.
Sam Wilson sold more as Cap America than Falcon. The most successful POC since 2011 in terms of solo runs-Miles, Ms Marvel & Simon/Jessica. Legacies. New character it's Moon Girl.

So what are they suppose to do? The data says legacies route.