DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)

[Hound of UIster]

The people at Marvel would disagree with that viewpoint

We know of one case where it did abort a run: Hickman on Ultimates.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The people at Marvel would disagree with that viewpoint

We know of one case where it did abort a run: Hickman on Ultimates.

What's the connection between the New 52 and Hickman's Ultimates run?

 

[Hound of UIster]

Lower than expected sales because of Nu52 lead to his departure apparently.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Lower than expected sales because of Nu52 lead to his departure apparently.

Hmm. I wonder what sort of sales Marvel expected from Ultimates. I think history's shown over the past decade that the Ultimate Universe simply isn't especially viable in the marketplace as anything more than a mid-tier property (excepting Ultimate Spider-Man, because it's manifestly different than the 616 version). If they expected something more than that, I'd wonder what they were smoking. Ultimates launched with a perfectly respectable number the month before the Nu52 launched, and when Hickman left ten months later he'd only bled about 15k in readers over his run which, frankly, was a pretty good capture rate.

 

[JD]

Spoiler: The Superman "Truth" spoiler discussed above

I actually find the idea of Lois Lane revealing Superman's identity kind of interesting. It's definitely a great recipe for a shocking moment when it actually happens, and could lead to some interesting complications for Clark to deal with.

It sounds like DC might be making some pretty interesting decisions in the post-Convergence comics. Honestly, some of the stuff I'm hearing about is making me think again about switching from the Pre-Flashpoint to N52 comics.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Lower than expected sales because of Nu52 lead to his departure apparently.

Hmm. I wonder what sort of sales Marvel expected from Ultimates. I think history's shown over the past decade that the Ultimate Universe simply isn't especially viable in the marketplace as anything more than a mid-tier property (excepting Ultimate Spider-Man, because it's manifestly different than the 616 version). If they expected something more than that, I'd wonder what they were smoking. Ultimates launched with a perfectly respectable number the month before the Nu52 launched, and when Hickman left ten months later he'd only bled about 15k in readers over his run which, frankly, was a pretty good capture rate.

Hickman iirc was the center piece of their effort to revive the ultimates line. They had given it to him after he had taken the scripting job for Ultimate Thor (according to some stories).

Was the Ultimate Universe always an important part of this?

Hickman:I think that Ultimate stuff that Esad and I did is one of the best things I’ve done at Marvel. It was unquestionably a failure, but it wasn’t because the book wasn’t good, it was because it was the same time the New 52 came out. Our #1 issue came out the same time DC launched a bunch of New 52 number ones. It got completely crushed under a wave of product. That was a bummer, because the one book that I wanted to do when I started at Marvel was the Ultimates, and do it in a way where I’m basically building in the Ultimate universe. There’s only three other books coming out in the entirely Ultimate line, so you’re not constrained by continuity in the same way that you are when you’ve got 60 other books coming out in the regular Marvel line. I desperately wanted that book to succeed. I would’ve done that book for years.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/01/29/jonathan-hickman-secret-wars-its-end-horror-story

Spoiler: The Superman "Truth" spoiler discussed above

I actually find the idea of Lois Lane revealing Superman's identity kind of interesting. It's definitely a great recipe for a shocking moment when it actually happens, and could lead to some interesting complications for Clark to deal with.

It sounds like DC might be making some pretty interesting decisions in the post-Convergence comics. Honestly, some of the stuff I'm hearing about is making me think again about switching from the Pre-Flashpoint to N52 comics.

I really would recommend that you wait awhile to pull the trigger especially on Superman/Action at least. Batman and Justice League sound interesting enough.

But the editorial politics on the Superbooks is a little messed up. If the identity idea was Gene Yang's and not really forced on him, then I could see potential for an interesting run. But if it's being forced on him by the editor (who has a bad record with writers on the previous JLA imo) then it could be an absolute clusterfuck.

Edit:

http://gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117619743363/who-created-caitlin-snow-on-theflash-according

Who created Caitlin Snow on #TheFlash? According to @DCComics, nobody

Who created Caitlin Snow, the alter ego of Firestorm super-villain Killer Frost, who appears regularly on The Flash?

According to DC Entertainment, nobody.

That’s right. Caitlin Snow, the brilliant scientist working for Harrison Wells, fiancée of Ronnie Raymond and friend of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, sprang fully formed into existence without a creator or creators.

But that’s okay, because, by the logic employed by DC Entertainment, nobody created Barry Allen either.

Let me explain. See if you can follow me here.

As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.

The reason, I believe, is the shift of corporate culture at DC Comics that occurred around the time Paul Levitz left his position as publisher.

As a comic book creator himself, Paul displayed a protective empathy for creators. Once the creator equity concept became policy, Paul applied it liberally and proactively– often notifying writers and artists their creations were due to receive equity participation when creators would otherwise have no idea. For thirty plus years, under Paul, creators were valued and supported as equity partners. (We can argue about the level of support, whether the percentage creators received was commensurate with their contributions, but we can’t deny that the support was there, and it was consistent.)

All of that changed when Paul left, and DC Comics became, officially, DC Entertainment, a fully subsumed cog in the Warners Entertainment wheel.

I first learned how this change would effect DC’s approach to creators equity when I received a letter from DC Entertainment’s new president, Diane Nelson, informing me I would no longer receive equity payments for Power Girl because she was now considered a “derivative” character. To soften the blow and show “appreciation” for my “contribution” she enclosed a check for $1000.

Thank you, Diane.

The next thing I learned about DC Entertainment’s new approach to their comic creators equity program was just as distressing, given how many characters I created for DC over the decade-plus I wrote for the company: if I wanted to receive an equity participation contract for a character I created, I had to request one, in writing, for each character, before that character appeared in another media, because DC would refuse to make equity payments retroactively.

By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.

Thank you, DC.

But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.

What, exactly, is DC’s definition of a “derivative” character?

It’s a character that DC decides was “derived” from some other previously existing character.

For example, Power Girl– “derived” from Superman, because, like Supergirl, she’s a relative of Superman. Which means I can’t claim to be her co-creator because Superman is a pre-existing character. Fair enough, I suppose. The logic here is that Superman is the original creation, so Power Girl is derived from that original creation, so in effect, Power Girl is an extension of Superman, which means, by this tortured logic, that Power Girl was more or less created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Uh, no.

This was the tortured logic National Periodical Publications tried to use back in the 1940s when Siegel and Shuster sued National for the rights to Superboy. National (the company that preceded DC) argued that Superman was the original creation, which Siegel and Shuster sold to National, and that Superboy was just a “derivative” creation. A court-appointed legal referee found that Superboy was in fact a unique creation and that National was guilty of copyright infringement. Sadly for Siegel and Shuster (and for creators everywhere), legal expenses forced the creators to sell National the rights to Superboy in a consent decree that obscured this fundamental finding. But the finding is pretty clear:

Characters “derived” from other characters are legally unique, and DC’s claim that “derivation” deprives creators of any equity participation rights in those characters is nothing more than an immoral, unethical, deceitful and despicable money grab.

Yet, it gets worse.

Let’s say DC agrees you created a character, like, for example, Killer Frost. In your original creation, Killer Frost had a secret identity named Crystal Frost. Later, a “new” Killer Frost is created for the New 52, and this new Killer Frost has a secret identity named Caitlin Snow.

You’ll be pleased to hear (I hope) that DC agrees I and Al Milgrom are the co-creators of all manifestations of “Killer Frost.” We are also considered the co-creators of Crystal Frost. And, of course, by the twisted logic that credits Power Girl as a derivation of Superman, Al and I must also be the creators of Killer Frost’s New 52 secret identity, Caitlin Snow.

Right?

No. We’re not. And DC insists we are not. And I agree with DC.

Caitlin Snow was created by Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz.

Except, according to DC Entertainment, she wasn’t. Because she was “derived” from the original creation of Killer Frost.

Which means Al Milgrom and I created her.

Except, according to DC Entertainment, we didn’t.

Nobody created her.

Or, rather, nobody gets credit and creator equity participation for creating her.

And that, my friends, is truly obnoxious and despicable.

DC Entertainment has created a marvelous catch-22 that allows them to cheat creators by using both sides of an argument to serve DC’s interests.

According to DC, Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz didn’t create Caitlin Snow. Don Newton and I didn’t create Jason Todd. Ric Estrada and I didn’t create Power Girl. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn’t create Superboy. Bob Kanigher and Carmine Infantino didn’t create Barry Allen.

These characters just appeared out of nowhere.

But the money for their exploitation goes directly into DC’s bank account.

I definitely have a new appreciation for the Kahn-Levitz era.

 

[JD]

I really would recommend that you wait awhile to pull the trigger especially on Superman/Action at least. Batman and Justice League sound interesting enough.

But the editorial politics on the Superbooks is a little messed up. If the identity idea was Gene Yang's and not really forced on him, then I could see potential for an interesting run. But if it's being forced on him by the editor (who has a bad record with writers on the previous JLA imo) then it could be an absolute clusterfuck.

I'm probably going to start with the beginning of the N52. I figure since most of them are only 40ish issue so far, and 30ish are already collected in 5 or 6 volumes each, it won't take long to get caught up.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/01/29/jonathan-hickman-secret-wars-its-end-horror-story

Spoiler: The Superman "Truth" spoiler discussed above

I actually find the idea of Lois Lane revealing Superman's identity kind of interesting. It's definitely a great recipe for a shocking moment when it actually happens, and could lead to some interesting complications for Clark to deal with.

It sounds like DC might be making some pretty interesting decisions in the post-Convergence comics. Honestly, some of the stuff I'm hearing about is making me think again about switching from the Pre-Flashpoint to N52 comics.

I really would recommend that you wait awhile to pull the trigger especially on Superman/Action at least. Batman and Justice League sound interesting enough.

But the editorial politics on the Superbooks is a little messed up. If the identity idea was Gene Yang's and not really forced on him, then I could see potential for an interesting run. But if it's being forced on him by the editor (who has a bad record with writers on the previous JLA imo) then it could be an absolute clusterfuck.

Edit:

http://gerryconway.tumblr.com/post/117619743363/who-created-caitlin-snow-on-theflash-according

Who created Caitlin Snow on #TheFlash? According to @DCComics, nobody

Who created Caitlin Snow, the alter ego of Firestorm super-villain Killer Frost, who appears regularly on The Flash?

According to DC Entertainment, nobody.

That’s right. Caitlin Snow, the brilliant scientist working for Harrison Wells, fiancée of Ronnie Raymond and friend of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, sprang fully formed into existence without a creator or creators.

But that’s okay, because, by the logic employed by DC Entertainment, nobody created Barry Allen either.

Let me explain. See if you can follow me here.

As I’ve described elsewhere (http://comicsequity.blogspot.com), many years ago DC Comics established the first program to provide comic book creators with a share in the revenues generated by their creations in other media. This concept became known as “creator equity participation” and it was a small but significant step toward compensating creators for their work beyond a simple page rate. For me, personally, it’s been moderately lucrative (thank you, Bruce Timm, for putting Killer Croc in the animated Batman) but in recent years it’s also become an increasingly frustrating and, lately, infuriating process.

The reason, I believe, is the shift of corporate culture at DC Comics that occurred around the time Paul Levitz left his position as publisher.

As a comic book creator himself, Paul displayed a protective empathy for creators. Once the creator equity concept became policy, Paul applied it liberally and proactively– often notifying writers and artists their creations were due to receive equity participation when creators would otherwise have no idea. For thirty plus years, under Paul, creators were valued and supported as equity partners. (We can argue about the level of support, whether the percentage creators received was commensurate with their contributions, but we can’t deny that the support was there, and it was consistent.)

All of that changed when Paul left, and DC Comics became, officially, DC Entertainment, a fully subsumed cog in the Warners Entertainment wheel.

I first learned how this change would effect DC’s approach to creators equity when I received a letter from DC Entertainment’s new president, Diane Nelson, informing me I would no longer receive equity payments for Power Girl because she was now considered a “derivative” character. To soften the blow and show “appreciation” for my “contribution” she enclosed a check for $1000.

Thank you, Diane.

The next thing I learned about DC Entertainment’s new approach to their comic creators equity program was just as distressing, given how many characters I created for DC over the decade-plus I wrote for the company: if I wanted to receive an equity participation contract for a character I created, I had to request one, in writing, for each character, before that character appeared in another media, because DC would refuse to make equity payments retroactively.

By a rough guesstimate, I probably created over five hundred characters for DC between 1969 and 1985. Most of them were minor one-shot creations, and some of them, like Felicity Smoak (now a regular on Arrow) were minor supporting characters who’ve taken on a new life in other media. Unless I’m willing to commit a large chunk of my life to tracking down each character and filing a separate equity request in anticipation that somehow, some day, one of these characters might end up on a TV show, I risk being cut off from any share in the fruits DC enjoys from the product of my labor. A share which DC acknowledges I’m due– but which DC refuses to assist me in receiving.

Thank you, DC.

But now we come to the catch-22 of DC’s new approach to creator equity agreements. Assuming I perform my due diligence (which should really be DC’s due diligence) and dig up references to characters I’ve created that might soon be appearing in other media (maybe as a chess piece, or a Heroclix figure, or a recurring character on The Flash), and assuming I file the necessary request form in a timely fashion– DC can still decide, unilaterally, that my creation is “derivative” and they don’t owe me a dime.

What, exactly, is DC’s definition of a “derivative” character?

It’s a character that DC decides was “derived” from some other previously existing character.

For example, Power Girl– “derived” from Superman, because, like Supergirl, she’s a relative of Superman. Which means I can’t claim to be her co-creator because Superman is a pre-existing character. Fair enough, I suppose. The logic here is that Superman is the original creation, so Power Girl is derived from that original creation, so in effect, Power Girl is an extension of Superman, which means, by this tortured logic, that Power Girl was more or less created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Uh, no.

This was the tortured logic National Periodical Publications tried to use back in the 1940s when Siegel and Shuster sued National for the rights to Superboy. National (the company that preceded DC) argued that Superman was the original creation, which Siegel and Shuster sold to National, and that Superboy was just a “derivative” creation. A court-appointed legal referee found that Superboy was in fact a unique creation and that National was guilty of copyright infringement. Sadly for Siegel and Shuster (and for creators everywhere), legal expenses forced the creators to sell National the rights to Superboy in a consent decree that obscured this fundamental finding. But the finding is pretty clear:

Characters “derived” from other characters are legally unique, and DC’s claim that “derivation” deprives creators of any equity participation rights in those characters is nothing more than an immoral, unethical, deceitful and despicable money grab.

Yet, it gets worse.

Let’s say DC agrees you created a character, like, for example, Killer Frost. In your original creation, Killer Frost had a secret identity named Crystal Frost. Later, a “new” Killer Frost is created for the New 52, and this new Killer Frost has a secret identity named Caitlin Snow.

You’ll be pleased to hear (I hope) that DC agrees I and Al Milgrom are the co-creators of all manifestations of “Killer Frost.” We are also considered the co-creators of Crystal Frost. And, of course, by the twisted logic that credits Power Girl as a derivation of Superman, Al and I must also be the creators of Killer Frost’s New 52 secret identity, Caitlin Snow.

Right?

No. We’re not. And DC insists we are not. And I agree with DC.

Caitlin Snow was created by Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz.

Except, according to DC Entertainment, she wasn’t. Because she was “derived” from the original creation of Killer Frost.

Which means Al Milgrom and I created her.

Except, according to DC Entertainment, we didn’t.

Nobody created her.

Or, rather, nobody gets credit and creator equity participation for creating her.

And that, my friends, is truly obnoxious and despicable.

DC Entertainment has created a marvelous catch-22 that allows them to cheat creators by using both sides of an argument to serve DC’s interests.

According to DC, Sterling Gates and Derlis Santacruz didn’t create Caitlin Snow. Don Newton and I didn’t create Jason Todd. Ric Estrada and I didn’t create Power Girl. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster didn’t create Superboy. Bob Kanigher and Carmine Infantino didn’t create Barry Allen.

These characters just appeared out of nowhere.

But the money for their exploitation goes directly into DC’s bank account.

I definitely have a new appreciation for the Kahn-Levitz era.

It really is amazing the lengths companies will go to not to pay people what they deserve.

EDIT: I just read about the end of Batman #40 on IGN's interview with Snyder and Capullo, crazy stuff.

Spoiler: Batman #40 ending

If the characters are going to die, then I think that is a perfect way for them to go out. I have to laugh though, because they pretty much admit they already know how they are going to come back.

 

[Mr Light]

Batman #40 was a solid ending, but like the last issue of Zero Year it was slightly perfunctory. The ending was certainly interesting... and as I suspected they did NOT reveal whether he was lying or not...

Justice League #40 was an interesting prologue with a big new revelation about the Anti-Monitor. Was that a brand new character at the end? I loved the meta-textual commentary about how this reality has been cobbled together from previous worlds and is unstable and falling apart. Is there something you want to tell us, Geoff?

 

[Mr Light]

I was thinking about Batman #40 all day today. It really stuck with here. Here's a great interview with Snyder and Capullo about it:

http://www.newsarama.com/24337-batman-40-snyder-and-capullo-explain-surprise-ending-spoilers.html

Looking back at the issue as Snyder's take on the Death of Batman makes it work a lot better. Obviously he and the Joker will come back a few issues down the road. But it really was a beautiful ending, them dying together like that.

According the interview, this issue proves that Joker was NOT the Pale Man of legend. I re-read the issue and I see that now. I'm a little disappointed, I thought that was a real mind blowing twist that would have explained all of Joker's miraculous survivals over the years. So was the Pale Man thing entirely invented by him then?

EDIT: I was just wondering to myself, when is Bruce Wayne going to make his big return? How long will this latest Replacement Batman arc run? Then I realized, the Batman Superman movie comes out in March 2016 and he'll return at that exact moment. So that means we'll get nine issues without Bruce.

 

[Mr Light]

Superman #40... man, that was embarrassing. JRJR should not be on writing duties. They were waaaaaay too jokey and goofy with each other. Particularly Batman. And Superman's dialogue was so juvenile and out of character.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Putting experienced artists on writing gigs is never a good idea. I don't expect anything good from the Hitch JLA giving the disaster from the Finch WW and Liefeld Grifter/Hawkman/Deathstroke.

 

[Mike Farley]

Putting experienced artists on writing gigs is never a good idea.

John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Jerry Ordway, George Perez, Keith Giffen, and Mike Mignola all disagree.

 

[Mr Light]

Actually, in the forward for the first Hellboy collection Mignolia thanks John Byrne's help writing his first stories because he knew he was terrible at first

 

[Admiral_Young]

I actually really didn't mind it and quite enjoyed John Jr's writing stint aside from Bruce's characterization, and them just hanging out was a welcomed reprieve from the shit storm that's about to hit with "TRUTH" and just the usual regular darkness that is around the 52'Verse. I wouldn't put him on it on a regular basis, but as a one off here and there, you could certainly do worse, like say Adam Kurbert writing "Damian: Son of Batman".

 

[JD]

Has JRjr written anything before?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Putting experienced artists on writing gigs is never a good idea. I don't expect anything good from the Hitch JLA giving the disaster from the Finch WW and Liefeld Grifter/Hawkman/Deathstroke.

I liked his "Real Heroes". What little of it made it to print, anyway.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I don't believe John Jr. has written anything before. This issue was touted as his debut.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Putting experienced artists on writing gigs is never a good idea.

John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Jerry Ordway, George Perez, Keith Giffen, and Mike Mignola all disagree.

These aren't exactly the most ringing endorsements especially Byrne and Ordway and Giffen. Given the high failure rate here I think you have made at least a better case that artists turned writers just are not really reliable.

 

[Mr Light]

Just read "Divergence". The Batman story was pure set-up but I did love how meta it was, down to Gordan saying this was the stupidest idea ever It was jarring to see the news talking about Batman so openly, but I guess with the Zero Year story he is a public figure, versus in the 90s when he was an urban myth.

The Superman story... is clearly something that's going to be undone somehow, so really the question is how, a global mind-wipe?

The Justice League story... very interesting to learn Darkseid's Daughter was born from an Amazon! Interesting twist on the story.

 

[theenglish]

Putting experienced artists on writing gigs is never a good idea.

John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Jerry Ordway, George Perez, Keith Giffen, and Mike Mignola all disagree.

These aren't exactly the most ringing endorsements especially Byrne and Ordway and Giffen. Given the high failure rate here I think you have made at least a better case that artists turned writers just are not really reliable.

Byrne and Giffen have had some of the most critically acclaimed runs on series in comics history!