What if the classic heroes did return with books after Convergence, do you trust today's writers.

[Joe Kalicki]

Agreed.

And how many of us would actually like the end product if DC were to allow more freedom for writers? (Of course, the quality of each title might improve, but the characters might be a lot different from the versions people love).

Our favorite characters might behave differently (people already complain about characters being different from Pre-52).

The closest thing DC can do is Else-worlds Stories (which are great by the way. Injustice is an example. But, there are a lot of people who don't like Injustice's portrayal of Superman...imagine if we had that type of radical changes in the main continuity?).

Since Injustice is an adaptation of a licensed product, it's probably more heavily editorially-controlled than almost anything else they publish!

[Sacred Knight]

So you'd like a return to the Jim Shooter days? The most hated editor probably ever?

The only reason we hear about all these editorial "problems" is the internet rumour mill. Back in, say, the '80s, there was no way of telling if a comic company was a "well-oiled machine" or not because where would you hear about it? The letters page? It's only years later we hear about the horror of working under the likes of Shooter or Weisinger. The latter didn't even let writers come up with their own plots.

THANK YOU. The only reason people assume things were so silky smooth in the old days is because there was no outlet for the average fan to find out about the seedier side of things. Namely the internet wasn't around back then.

[Blacksun]

Since Injustice is an adaptation of a licensed product, it's probably more heavily editorially-controlled than almost anything else they publish!

I doubt it so much, DC digital has much more freedom.

Any time you've ever read a DC comic in your life you've read what DC wanted to feed you.

color me surprised. But at least DC did a better job in the past and less editors fan favoritism

So you'd like a return to the Jim Shooter days? The most hated editor probably ever?

The only reason we hear about all these editorial "problems" is the internet rumour mill. Back in, say, the '80s, there was no way of telling if a comic company was a "well-oiled machine" or not because where would you hear about it? The letters page? It's only years later we hear about the horror of working under the likes of Shooter or Weisinger. The latter didn't even let writers come up with their own plots.

why jump the shark? No one say they want shooter back.

You know, my absolute favorite comic is Invincible. I wont hear a negative word about it (well, maybe that it reads better in trade, because it does) and I've followed it for years. But if, say, Superman went through some changes as drastic and radical as what Mark Grayson has? I would be less than pleased. I want my DC (and Marvel) characters to grow and expand organically and not be chained to a status quo that was established in the 1950's, but some changes just cross the line you know? I want growth and change and ramifications, but I want the characters to still be recognizable. Which is a really difficult, perhaps even impossible, balance to maintain.

Perfect example is that writer who wanted to cut off Superman's arm and replace it with cybernetics. Everyone was pretty damned happy that there was an editor to shoot that idea down.

well Aaron did the same with Thor, made him unworthy of the Mjolnir and it is working. it's a perspective problem.


If the answer that we are hearing more about editorial problems is because of internet, that is a very simplistic way to cover the problem at DC. Why not the same problem happen at Marvel?

[Triple J]

You know, my absolute favorite comic is Invincible. I wont hear a negative word about it (well, maybe that it reads better in trade, because it does) and I've followed it for years. But if, say, Superman went through some changes as drastic and radical as what Mark Grayson has? I would be less than pleased. I want my DC (and Marvel) characters to grow and expand organically and not be chained to a status quo that was established in the 1950's, but some changes just cross the line you know? I want growth and change and ramifications, but I want the characters to still be recognizable. Which is a really difficult, perhaps even impossible, balance to maintain.

Perfect example is that writer who wanted to cut off Superman's arm and replace it with cybernetics. Everyone was pretty damned happy that there was an editor to shoot that idea down.

I agree. I want DC to try different things with my favorite heroes; I am open to big changes. But, at the same time, I don't want them to give too much freedom to their writers; I don't want new writers changing what I loved about the character.

In that sense, the big 2 have a harder job to do....Organic growth without alienating the fan base.

Since Injustice is an adaptation of a licensed product, it's probably more heavily editorially-controlled than almost anything else they publish!

I assumed it was the opposite. Since Injustice is an Elseworlds story.

[FanboyStranger]

Do I trust writers to tell entertaining stories featuring DC characters? Yes, absolutely.

Do I trust writers to adhere to a narrow personal vision of what I percieve a character should be? No, not at all. Mostly because that's not their job.

[Dataweaver]

Do I trust writers to tell entertaining stories featuring DC characters? Yes, absolutely.

Do I trust writers to adhere to a narrow personal vision of what I percieve a character should be? No, not at all. Mostly because that's not their job.

Do you trust writers to adhere to a broad personal vision of what you perceive a character should be?

[Ascended]

well Aaron did the same with Thor, made him unworthy of the Mjolnir and it is working. it's a perspective problem.

If the answer that we are hearing more about editorial problems is because of internet, that is a very simplistic way to cover the problem at DC. Why not the same problem happen at Marvel?

And if anyone thought for more than a second that the changes happening to Thor were long term there would be riots. Thor becoming unworthy and replaced by...whoever she is....is a storyline, just like Superior Spider-Man or the new Falcon-Cap. It'll run its course and then everything will revert to the static status quo. That's how Marvel and DC attempt to fool you into thinking they're making big, drastic changes to their characters. They're not, they're just using shock value elements, and at times, letting those concepts play out for more than two months so fans think it'll really matter.

And you do hear about creative/editorial problems at Marvel, just not as often. Marvel, right now, has a better relationship with much of its talent pool so there's less complaint. Which is great. But the internet is why we hear about these problems at all. Back in the day, you didnt hear about it unless Wizard Magazine got ahold of a story, and they weren't interested in doing much "hard" reporting to begin with.

[Lexrules]

Originally Posted by cgh
So you'd like a return to the Jim Shooter days? The most hated editor probably ever?

THANK YOU. The only reason people assume things were so silky smooth in the old days is because there was no outlet for the average fan to find out about the seedier side of things. Namely the internet wasn't around back then.

Jim Shooter is Marvel. I don't care about Jim Shooter or Marvel and what they did. I'm talking about the classic DC Editors that lead with a Iron fist and gave the world some of the greatest stories of all time while keeping their writers in line with deadlines and focus.

Editors like Jules Schwartz and Mort Weisinger

[FanboyStranger]

Do you trust writers to adhere to a broad personal vision of what you perceive a character should be?

Yes, absolutely.

To explain that a little bit: I believe that it's always been the case that an enduring character can still remain recognizable despite changes to its premise, even within the New 52. To cite an example, the Legion is still recognizably the Legion despite its many reboots and incarnations. Unless we're talking a completely new character taking on the mantle of an existing one (Jared Stevens as Fate) and/or a complete revamp of the concept (Vertigo's Deadman series), you can still recognize the core principles and attributes which make the character. I don't think that any true damage has been done by the New 52, even with characters who have been significantly revamped. It's the small stuff that people seem to sweat, be that cosmetic (new costumes, etc) or elements introduced/shifted by the creative teams (such as in the case of Wonder Woman). But that's hardly unique to the New 52-- if they're doing their job (or more likely, allowed to do their job), the creative team should put their own stamp on a character in order to make their run memorable. The runs that we truly regard as classic tend to be those that did things differently, that changed things, not the ones that went through the motions to tell the same old story over and over again.

No continuing character is sacrosanct, in my opinion. If they can not evolve and change, then they are stagnant, and I don't have much interest in stagnant characters. Sometimes that change may take the form of a "back to basics" approach in order to move forward again, and I am absolutely okay with that kind of approach. To say that a character can only remain in one definitive incarnation, tell a small handful of stories, or constantly explore the same themes is not just limiting to creativity, but it's generally death (or at least limbo) for a character, unless the character/franchise remains popular for some reason beyond the quality of its stories (see the X-books in the '90s).

[Black Angel]

It's the editors we shoudl be wary of not the writers.

[Dataweaver]

Yes, absolutely.

Electric Superman.

[cgh]

Jim Shooter is Marvel. I don't care about Jim Shooter or Marvel and what they did. I'm talking about the classic DC Editors that lead with a Iron fist and gave the world some of the greatest stories of all time while keeping their writers in line with deadlines and focus.

Editors like Jules Schwartz and Mort Weisinger

Weisinger is regarded as one of the most controlling, micro-managing editors ever and is not remembered fondly by those who worked under him. Like I said above, he didn't even let writers get involved in the plotting.

The "editorial interference" you see people on here melodramatically freaking out about would have constituted dream working conditions back then. With so many more options available to the talent (eg Image), that kind of working environment simply isn't tolerated anymore.

That said, I agree with you in that there is value in a single editorial vision. But there is also value in collaborative effort. Surely there is a middle ground between your editorial Iron Fist and a totally hands-off approach.

On another note, I find it funny that you are actually arguing for MORE editorial control when the prevailing narrative on here is DC's editors are such interfering meanies. They wouldn't let Kate Kane marry! Oh no, let me go cry on Twitter and start a blog.

[Ascended]

Yes, absolutely.

To explain that a little bit: I believe that it's always been the case that an enduring character can still remain recognizable despite changes to its premise, even within the New 52. To cite an example, the Legion is still recognizably the Legion despite its many reboots and incarnations. Unless we're talking a completely new character taking on the mantle of an existing one (Jared Stevens as Fate) and/or a complete revamp of the concept (Vertigo's Deadman series), you can still recognize the core principles and attributes which make the character. I don't think that any true damage has been done by the New 52, even with characters who have been significantly revamped. It's the small stuff that people seem to sweat, be that cosmetic (new costumes, etc) or elements introduced/shifted by the creative teams (such as in the case of Wonder Woman). But that's hardly unique to the New 52-- if they're doing their job (or more likely, allowed to do their job), the creative team should put their own stamp on a character in order to make their run memorable. The runs that we truly regard as classic tend to be those that did things differently, that changed things, not the ones that went through the motions to tell the same old story over and over again.

No continuing character is sacrosanct, in my opinion. If they can not evolve and change, then they are stagnant, and I don't have much interest in stagnant characters. Sometimes that change may take the form of a "back to basics" approach in order to move forward again, and I am absolutely okay with that kind of approach. To say that a character can only remain in one definitive incarnation, tell a small handful of stories, or constantly explore the same themes is not just limiting to creativity, but it's generally death (or at least limbo) for a character, unless the character/franchise remains popular for some reason beyond the quality of its stories (see the X-books in the '90s).

Oh my god, a reasonable person! What are you doing? Your kind is not welcome here!



Seriously, great post. Completely agreed.

[FanboyStranger]

Electric Superman.

I had no problem with Electric Superman. I didn't particularly like the outfit, but the writers involved made lemonade, particularly Morrison on JLA. It was an okay storyline overall.

[Dataweaver]

Oh, certainly they made lemonade. But really, that’s a tacit admission that they were working with a lemon — they made the best they could out of a bad choice of direction that stepped way outside the parameters of what Superman is supposed to be.

Bear in mind too that the Electric Superman bit was introduced with no plans for going back; it wasn’t envisioned as a one-off story arc. The reason he eventually did go back was because the change proved to be very unpopular with the readers.