PREVIEW: DC Sneak Peek: Action Comics

[DochaDocha]

I think for every person who says putting Bucky in space is bad, five people say grounding Superman is bad. Yet people are still pumped for the latter.

I'd counter that for every person who says he loves Superman, there's a guy who complains that Superman is overpowered. If you were writing this book only to satisfy current Superman readers, I can see why this would be a lousy idea, but if your goal were to entice people that might be on the fence, this could be a decent idea. Mind you, I don't subscribe to the claim that Superman is overpowered and therefore uninteresting, but I think this kind of tinkering might be okay.

[Deniz Camp]

Not even close. Dick Grayson is James freakin Bond yo.

He's really not, though. I'm always perplexed as to why anyone would make this comparison, or want to make it.

James Bond is a smarmy sociopath, a lush, and a narcissist.

Grayson is diametrically opposed to that kind of character/agent. That's what makes him compelling; seeing him dropped into this kind of hyper-charged Man from UNKLE/Luthor Arkwright/Casanova milieu.

[Deniz Camp]

But his time as Cap was the height of his popularity. The arc from #25-34 was the best part of the story but there was no indication that they ever needed to bring Steve back based on sales or reception. He had an awesome story under Jason Latour where he was back to being the WS, but no one actually read it.


There are enough surface level similarities that will keep them forever compared to each other. I buy both of the current series and have enjoyed them, but haven't bothered to actually read either in months.

*shrug*

Interesting enough, we're talking about getting put in space and here's Superman, getting taken out of space. I think for every person who says putting Bucky in space is bad, five people say grounding Superman is bad. Yet people are still pumped for the latter.

It's sort of odd to see the Bucky/Grayson comparisons when the Bucky/Jason Todd comparisons are so much more apt and obvious.

Bucky isn't actually a spy anymore. He's a galactic agent. Well, Red Hood just spent the last series largely in space, too.

[Auguste Dupin]

He's really not, though. I'm always perplexed as to why anyone would make this comparison, or want to make it.

James Bond is a smarmy sociopath, a lush, and a narcissist.

Grayson is diametrically opposed to that kind of character/agent. That's what makes him compelling; seeing him dropped into this kind of hyper-charged Man from UNKLE/Luthor Arkwright/Casanova milieu.

Well, it's more a comparaison aimed at how the series feels, I guess. You know, a spy who's way cooler than actual spies, has cool gadgets, gets women, in a generally over the top tone not unlike the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan period...
Now, yeah, I guess that if you talk in terms of the actual character, he would be more like Ethan Hunt in the first Mission Impossible movie. Either way, he's a way less gritty and more flashy character than Bucky (who has always been more of an assassin than a spy), and comparing the two is a bit like saying that Flash and Spawn are too similar because both are "superheroes".

[Kuwagaton]

It's sort of odd to see the Bucky/Grayson comparisons when the Bucky/Jason Todd comparisons are so much more apt and obvious.

Bucky isn't actually a spy anymore. He's a galactic agent. Well, Red Hood just spent the last series largely in space, too.

They were the two most orthodox sidekicks ever. Born naturals in domino masks. They had and maintain relatively similar relationships with mentors and have proven themselves as competent successors, particularly in the (strangely similar) "deaths" of Bruce and Steve. Their graduated roles gain them their own fans, they've gained a measure of operational freedom from their public "deaths", and basically last year was part two of their independent, respective journeys, as special agents on a higher level.

Jason... is a dudebro with Arsenal.

I'd counter that for every person who says he loves Superman, there's a guy who complains that Superman is overpowered. If you were writing this book only to satisfy current Superman readers, I can see why this would be a lousy idea, but if your goal were to entice people that might be on the fence, this could be a decent idea. Mind you, I don't subscribe to the claim that Superman is overpowered and therefore uninteresting, but I think this kind of tinkering might be okay.

Tinkering should also be for the interest of current fans, if the creators aren't merely trying to satisfy themselves.

Marvel pretty much bends over backwards to accommodate people who might come to the comics from movies, and there's hardly any details in the sales to indicate that it's worth the effort. If DC is catering to people who don't read Superman: first of all, no one I ever speak to (who doesn't care about him already) will admit to being interested if he starts wearing t-shirts and riding a Harley; second, whoever this new angle may attract will probably be gone if it's not maintained as the status quo. No telling what this story actually leads to and only one way to find out, I just think it's better to put those who are already here over those who might show up.

[Auguste Dupin]

They were the two most orthodox sidekicks ever. Born naturals in domino masks. They had and maintain relatively similar relationships with mentors and have proven themselves as competent successors, particularly in the (strangely similar) "deaths" of Bruce and Steve. Their graduated roles gain them their own fans, they've gained a measure of operational freedom from their public "deaths", and basically last year was part two of their independent, respective journeys, as special agents on a higher level.

Jason... is a dudebro with Arsenal.

Well, he's the dead sidekick of the hero,his greatest failure, who came back to life as a darker grittier version of said hero. He uses guns and is in general more willing to use, let's say, pragmatic methods. He had a rocky relationship with their mentor, but has since then burried the hatchet and became a more heroic character.
The comparaison to Bucky seems obvious enough to me. Hell, they came back at the same time, and it was done on purpose.

[DochaDocha]

I'm also generally pretty weary about trying harder to get people who aren't on board than to retain the ones who've been loyal to the brand. I don't limit that to comics, either. It's particularly frustrating as a consumer, in general.

I look at it from a more macroscopic view, though. It's not the t-shirt and Harley that necessarily might get a few new readers. It's the fact that it's something different. It's kind of a weak hedge, but it tries to say to people, "If you were kind of bored with the character, here's something new, but if you do like the character, remember that it's the same guy!"

Each individual weird change isn't a long term solution. The long term solution that the companies see is doing an assortment of short term solutions that they hope gets a spike, and after the interest declines again, they do another weird event. I also don't entirely love that strategy, either, but I get it.

In my estimation, Superman probably has jumped the shark for DC, such that it's become really hard to appease loyal fans in perpetuity while avoiding sales decays. The Superman books have become like a patient with a chronic disease. It needs regular, thorough maintenance.

[Flash Gordon]

He's really not, though. I'm always perplexed as to why anyone would make this comparison, or want to make it.

James Bond is a smarmy sociopath, a lush, and a narcissist.

Grayson is diametrically opposed to that kind of character/agent. That's what makes him compelling; seeing him dropped into this kind of hyper-charged Man from UNKLE/Luthor Arkwright/Casanova milieu.

I meant in regards to the world of Spyral and the world that early Bond operates in more than him actually being James Bond. Dick Grayson is nothing like James Bond, the person, he's a better Batman than THE BATMAN.

The flashy secret societies and sexy vixens. The gadgets. All that.

I should have clarified.

[Kuwagaton]

Sad but true. The trial and error I get too, I just wish they would try two approaches at once. Like maybe we don't need four different books in the "Truth" storyline, y'know? Adventures was a great series but if there was one obvious reason it didn't work long term, it's because it had no consistent commitment.

Well, he's the dead sidekick of the hero,his greatest failure, who came back to life as a darker grittier version of said hero. He uses guns and is in general more willing to use, let's say, pragmatic methods. He had a rocky relationship with their mentor, but has since then burried the hatchet and became a more heroic character.
The comparaison to Bucky seems obvious enough to me. Hell, they came back at the same time, and it was done on purpose.

I'm not saying Jason has no place in a comparison, but he's been in different places and fills a different space than either of the other two. Haunting memory yes but Bucky wasn't a failure, he went out saving the day. The friction between him and Cap was about the things he was forced to do, not over a conflict of beliefs. Bucky's not all that dark or gritty, especially when he was Cap, and actually not as likely to use deadly force as one might be lead to believe. He was actually deadlier in the Golden Age when you think about it. Dick himself also carries a gun these days.

[Auguste Dupin]

I'm not saying Jason has no place in a comparison, but he's been in different places and fills a different space than either of the other two. Haunting memory yes but Bucky wasn't a failure, he went out saving the day. The friction between him and Cap was about the things he was forced to do, not over a conflict of beliefs. Bucky's not all that dark or gritty, especially when he was Cap, and actually not as likely to use deadly force as one might be lead to believe. He was actually deadlier in the Golden Age when you think about it. Dick himself also carries a gun these days.

And it's a plot point that he refuses to use it.
And by "great failure", I meant on the part of the hero. Batman's greatest failure was that he couldn't save Jason, and Cap's greatest failure was that he couldn't save Bucky. They were both that big death that happened because of their heroic lives. And both came back in a way that created even more angst for the hero. Jason was basically the Punisher, and Bucky an assassin working for the Soviets, both of which were dark reflections of their mentors.
And Bucky was "gritty" enough to use a gun as Captain America while trying to protect his legacy. Sure, he didn't kill any one, but he didn't mind shooting you.

[Blacksun]

No, its being from Marvel that makes him badass. At least in blacksun's eyes. Nothing good at DC, after all, unless its Batman.

For my money, the first issue of Winter Soldier (which I really, really wanted to love) was decent, with really great art, but it didnt hold my interest. It felt an awful lot like a square peg and a round hole, putting Barnes in space dealing with these threats. Interesting concept, but it didnt grab me at all. Grayson on the other hand, I've really enjoyed, but I forget that it exists between issues. Then when it arrives one week in my pull box it's all "Oh yeah! Grayson! Awesome!" And I'm quite thrilled.

Well DC constantly abuse my faith as a fan. Batman line has been good and inclusive and treating everyone with respect, can't say the same for the rest of DC specially superman line. I don't have bias, Marvel is putting better stuff and I actually feel welcomed there. I don't think it is a crime

I read some issues, but then the fill in art for the book is extremely bad so I lost motivation for it. The book is not for everyone, while Grayson is pretty pulp style, winter soldier is indie/meta. Ales Kot is very peculiar on his style. I really like grayson, but I won't say it was better than before because i would be reaching

Sad but true. The trial and error I get too, I just wish they would try two approaches at once. Like maybe we don't need four different books in the "Truth" storyline, y'know? Adventures was a great series but if there was one obvious reason it didn't work long term, it's because it had no consistent commitment.

books disconnected from continuity doesn't last much time =/

Tinkering should also be for the interest of current fans, if the creators aren't merely trying to satisfy themselves.

Marvel pretty much bends over backwards to accommodate people who might come to the comics from movies, and there's hardly any details in the sales to indicate that it's worth the effort. If DC is catering to people who don't read Superman: first of all, no one I ever speak to (who doesn't care about him already) will admit to being interested if he starts wearing t-shirts and riding a Harley; second, whoever this new angle may attract will probably be gone if it's not maintained as the status quo. No telling what this story actually leads to and only one way to find out, I just think it's better to put those who are already here over those who might show up.

not true at all. Thor and captain america are different people from the movies. Sure they changed things to match with movies, but it doesn't hold all their developments

[Kuwagaton]

1. In addition to JL3001 and Batman 66 still going, there are a handful of newer titles coming out aside from the main continuity. Just because it's not a bestseller doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, every comic is someone's favorite. A dedicated Superman book for a change of pace shouldn't be less worth considering than Sensation comics.

2. Marvel now has a convenient springboard should they choose to pull trigger on more work with characters portrayed by Anthony Mackie and Natalie Portman. Marcus Johnson, the Maximoffs, Vision, and others also say hello

[Ascended]

Interesting enough, we're talking about getting put in space and here's Superman, getting taken out of space. I think for every person who says putting Bucky in space is bad, five people say grounding Superman is bad. Yet people are still pumped for the latter.

I dont think Barnes in space is *bad* it just didnt hold my attention. It seems strange to me though; Winter Soldier seems to me like a guy who could easily fill a fairly ignored niche in the Marvel U typically only occupied by Widow and, sometimes, Daredevil. That has potential to my mind, and American comics are lacking in morally gray anti-heroes who actually pull the role off well, and Barnes is one of those few. But instead they've got him dealing with cosmic stuff when their cosmic properties are sort of glutted (Guardians, Star-Lord, Rocket, Nova, Captain Marvel, ect). I'm fine with Barnes in space, all things concerned, but Kot just didnt hold my attention on this one. No big deal. Not every book will appeal to every reader.

As for Superman, who knows how the story will play out, but from the solicits I get the feeling he'll still be dealing with the same level of threat, and figuring out how to do it while he's less powerful will be one of the hooks. But even if that's not the case, Superman dealing with more "street level" threats is nothing new. He's been doing that since day one, and he does it well.

Well DC constantly abuse my faith as a fan. Batman line has been good and inclusive and treating everyone with respect, can't say the same for the rest of DC specially superman line. I don't have bias, Marvel is putting better stuff and I actually feel welcomed there. I don't think it is a crime

Im not saying its a crime. And in fact, its perfectly normal. I've gone through periods when DC (or Marvel, or Dark Horse, or Image, or whatever publisher I typically enjoy) were not putting out many (if any) comics that I liked. For a big chunk of the 00's I was barely reading any DC and lots of indies and Marvel. Before that, it was almost entirely DC. For a while in the late 90's it was all Marvel. Right now it's a fairly even spread. Things ebb and flow. But my point stands; outside of Batman, you dont have a good thing to say about DC.

[Deniz Camp]

Well, it's more a comparaison aimed at how the series feels, I guess. You know, a spy who's way cooler than actual spies, has cool gadgets, gets women, in a generally over the top tone not unlike the Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan period...
Now, yeah, I guess that if you talk in terms of the actual character, he would be more like Ethan Hunt in the first Mission Impossible movie. Either way, he's a way less gritty and more flashy character than Bucky (who has always been more of an assassin than a spy), and comparing the two is a bit like saying that Flash and Spawn are too similar because both are "superheroes".

I wouldn't even say I see the tone or plot comparison. So far "Grayson" has been big, science fiction espionage. It owes much more to Casanova, Gideon Stargrave, Jerry Cornelius, and Luther Arkwright and the work of Warren Ellis than it does to Bond.

Not trying to be a dick, but I think it's a matter of people just identifying the biggest 'spy' pop culture thing and I think it's really incorrect in this case. Much moreso was the Winter Soldier's earlier series a James Bondian spy-thing.

[Deniz Camp]

They were the two most orthodox sidekicks ever. Born naturals in domino masks. They had and maintain relatively similar relationships with mentors and have proven themselves as competent successors, particularly in the (strangely similar) "deaths" of Bruce and Steve. Their graduated roles gain them their own fans, they've gained a measure of operational freedom from their public "deaths", and basically last year was part two of their independent, respective journeys, as special agents on a higher level.

Jason... is a dudebro with Arsenal.

They were both fairly traditional side kicks who were killed in action and resurrected - at exactly the same time - with a grittier aesthetic, demeanor and identity. Their deaths were serious touchpoints for each of their heroes, respectively. And they both ended up doing grittier, murder-y things upon their return.

The careers of Jason & Bucky have been far more analogous than the careers of Grayson and Bucky. Almost eerily so.