38blue

Part 2: The Avengers, Specifically (some SPOILERS here)

I really SHOULD have loved this movie, like everyone else seems to (93% on Rotten Tomatoes, no complaints from my friends). Going in, I had little doubt it was about to become my New Favorite Movie Ever, or at least my favorite superhero film. I’m a huge Joss Whedon fan; I’ve loved his previous work in the Marvel Universe (“Astonishing X-Men” and “Runaways”), and I’ve been waiting for two years to see what he did with the Avengers. I’d enjoyed every previous Marvel movie, especially the two Iron Mans okay, not so much “The Incredible Hulk,” but he was basically being rebooted here anyway. So what went wrong?

Ultimately, for my partner and myself, the movie had four major failures: poor pacing, uneven dialogue, awkward characterization, and sexism.

1. Pacing: My partner and I have a long-standing running joke about “The Serenity Chair” - that the directors of poorly paced films should be tied to a chair and forced to watch the movie “Serenity” over and over until they figure out how good pacing works, how to balance action, exposition, and humor and keep their movies moving. Ironically, Whedon’s own Avengers felt overlong - 2.5 hours that could easily have been cut down to 1.5. The first two-thirds of the movie are taken up with repetitive character conflict and overlong action sequences. The initial car chase was uninventive, and the clumsy town square confrontation with Loki in Germany made me wonder how Joss had never heard of “Godwin’s Law.”

There are great moments even in these first two hours, but they’re entirely too spread out. I sat there waiting for the heroes to GET ON WITH IT! far too often.

2. Dialogue: The movie veers widely from cheesy 1970s comic book stiltedness (right from its awkward and cliche, “The humans don’t know what’s coming for them, master!” opening) to the usual Whedon wit, and back again. I love Joss’ unique and much-discussed dialogue style, but it only felt in evidence about every fifth line here. It felt like a first draft, like someone needed to go back and strike through the jokes that didn’t work. [In case anyone wondered, 60% of my job as J’s editor is to delete the jokes that don’t work. 30% is transitions between scenes and 10% is punctuation and grammar. – RD] When it does work, the movie can really sing, like the first time Black Widow, Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and Banner are together on the Helicarrier, trading banter like a community college study group. R turned to me at that point and said, “Why isn’t the whole movie like this?” I agree, it should have been.

3. Characterization: In the film’s best moments, like the aforementioned banterfest, the characters’ personalities play off each other beautifully. In the worst moments, which are often right upon the best’s heels, the conflict feels forced. Captain America goes far too quickly from, “We need to trust Fury and follow orders, Iron Man is a jerk!” to “I’m gonna sneak around and find out for myself - whoa, Iron Man is right, Fury is a jerk!” The Hulk terrorizes Black Widow on the Helicarrier, but later has little trouble telling friend from foe in the final battle. Loki is heartbreaking when he can’t bring himself to accept his brother’s kindness, yet I never actually got a sense of what he really thought he was going to accomplish with his Evil Scheme - was he a petulant child wanting to crush humans like ants, or was he a lonely child desperate to be loved and/or worshipped? It seemed that he was both, hence the conflict that drives the whole movie, but this was never explored or explained. To simply call Loki “mad” and let him get on with the ranting is a tedious and somewhat ableist cliche. And I really wanted to see Thor take some joy in finding new warriors to play with. I realize he was angsting about his bro, but the joy Thor takes in people in his own movie is the second best thing about it (after Sif), and I wanted to see more of that here.

4. Sexism: Joss Whedon is a feminist. I love that about him. But he and I don’t always agree about what constitutes good feminist storytelling. (See: “Dollhouse.”) He likes to show us women being treated badly and then overcoming that treatment. Sometimes that works (see: Black Widow’s first scene here in Avengers, tied to a chair and totally in control), and other times the comeuppance isn’t nearly enough to justify yet more men being creepy (see: Black Widow’s scene with Loki). Loki calls the only female member of the Avengers a “mewling quim,” (a fancy Shakespearean way to say “whiny c—t”) and threatens her with sexual violence. It’s supposed to be okay because she was only pretending to be scared to get information.

The explanation here is that misogyny is something bad guys do to make them even more bad, and to show the viewer that misogyny is bad. I’m tired of the assumption that every bad guy must be a misogynist one, and even more tired of the idea that every female character is subject to gendered insults and sexual threats. Sometimes I just want to see men and women allowed to get on with being awesome as equals, dealing with threats that have nothing to do with the misogyny all too rampant in the world. [I’ve seen at least a dozen fanboys crowing that “mewling quim” is now their favorite insult. If they actually used the c-word, they’d get called out on it, but because the phrase is archaic, it gets a pass. Even J didn’t remember the meaning of the word “quim” during the movie, so he didn’t understand why I almost wanted to walk out at that point. – RD]

What’s worse, the movie was surprisingly sexist in a host of smaller and more subtle ways as well. It didn’t even come close to passing the Bechdel Test. Maria Hill, the second biggest female role, is a kick-ass agent during the first scene and then spends the rest of the film providing exposition and asking Nick Fury for orders. (Was anyone else reminded of Sigourney Weaver in “Galaxy Quest?”) Black Widow is the only hero who is directly threatened by the Hulk, and the only one shown in a moment of weakness when she cowers in the Helicarrier during the attack. And then there are not a few SHIELD agents wearing tight skirts and chunky heels, which are not the most practical outfits  for agents stationed on a battleship that is also an airship and probably not always an entirely steady surface to walk on. [Really?! – RD]

I’m not saying that there wasn’t a whole lot of awesome in this film.  I loved Black Widow and how she kicked all of the ass, even when the script put her through the wringer. Loved Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner and the bonding with Tony Stark. I loved most of the final third of the movie, with all of the characters finally working together as the team we all know and love from the comics (and fanfic), but it took way too long to get there. I adored the second secret scene way at the end of the credits. Maybe I just expected too much from Whedon; not every movie can be “Serenity.” Maybe some great fanfic spoiled me, and set me up to expect these personalities to bounce off each other in ways different than the actual movie chose to show us. (I wanted so much more from Steve & Tony - sharper conflict, and more sexy subtext. [Please note that J has never before actively shipped two men. This is a proud day for me and for all of the writers of the fic I forced him to read. – RD]) But for me, the disappointments just added up a little too much, overbalancing the love.

Your mileage may vary, and that’s okay. (See Part 1)

[This post was written almost a week ago, just after we saw the movie and then left town. Now we’re home and I have time to edit and add my own comments. Since we saw the movie, we’ve seen a lot more people bringing up the same complaints about the film. This is good because I was getting a wee bit tired of hearing him talk about it. All week. – RD]

Part 1: On Not Liking Things (no spoilers)

After seeing Joss Whedon’s “Avengers,” my partner R posted our disappointment in the film to Facebook. The first response was a mock-horrified, “Defriended!” This was, of course, hyperbole; no actual feelings were harmed in the genesis of this post. Still, I was careful not to wear a Marvel-related t-shirts (of which I own more than a few) to work the next day, preferring to avoid conversations in which I would stand out as the lone voice of dissent.

There is a certain anxiety in not enjoying a piece of entertainment that everyone else you know and/or respect adores. It can make one feel like a killjoy, like there’s something wrong with you for not being able to just let go and enjoy the ride while everyone around you screams their delight. I suspect this feeling might be enhanced sometimes among comic book fans and sci-fi nerds, fans of traditionally unpopular things. We’ve spent so long feeling looked down on by the mainstream that when we find something of our own that many people actually seem to enjoy, that maybe even the mainstream is willing to accept as Pretty Cool, some folks get overprotective.

It’s not unusual to seek validation from others in one’s entertainment choices. I do it all the time. [I can testify to that. – RD] I was raised in a family that had some very specific ideas about Good Entertainment vs. Bad (for us it usually was about good dialogue and characterization), and honestly, I’m working everyday to overcome that. I’ve learned that art, like much of reality, is subjective. There is no film that deserves a five-star review, and nothing that says we have to turn in our Comic Book Fan badge because we didn’t like one film. We like what we like, and the best we can do is try and work out why. If I share a review, it’s not to pass judgment. Reviews are about exposing and sharing our unique viewpoints, offering the angles we see for consideration by others, and that is all. There are no right or wrong answers. I’m still reminding myself of that.

[It’s not unusual to feel like a Bad Fan – or even, perish the thought, Not A Real Fan – if you’re not into something that other geeks you know are raving about. For instance, I will never watch A Game of Thrones or read anything by George R.R. Martin for various personal and ideological reasons. I’m never going to tell others not to read/watch and enjoy those things, and I don’t see any particular shame or hardship in declining if anyone encourages me to do so. I sometimes feel left out when I see people talking about their Great Houses (the only house I’m in is Ravenclaw) but I remind myself that I don’t need to love it just because it’s fantasy, or because my friends do, or even if it were the pinnacle of entertainment and every other series pales in comparison. I don’t need a reason not to like something. All I have to do is be polite about what I like and what I don’t like, and all other fans should do the same in return. – RD]

My brain is finally back online […as much as it ever is - RD] following a busy but amazing weekend at C2E2 2012, where I had a chance to chat with the creators of some of my favorite books - one of which hasn’t even started yet. Don’t care. I’m so excited, I’m already calling it a favorite.

That would be the new Captain Marvel series by Kelly Sue DeConnick. Every interview I’d read about this one has just made me more psyched for the direction she’s taking Carol Danvers here, and then I actually got to chat with Ms. DeConnick during a signing. She shared preview pages from both the CM series itself (art by Dexter Soy) and Avenging Spider-Man #9-10 starring Carol & Spidey and written by DeConnick (with art by Terry Dodson!), and told me about some incredible characters we’re about to meet.

You guys: Captain Marvel #2 is going to introduce the World War 2 Women’s Air Force Auxiliary equivalents of Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos!

Each of the Howlers will have an opposite number; Ms. DeConnick described the Fury character, the Dum Dum Dugan character, and the Dino Minelli a little bit, and they are wonderful. I cannot wait to meet these ladies!

I’ve already started bugging my comic shop about getting Captain Marvel onto my pull list. The instant Marvel actually solicits July’s issue, I’m there. I  may also have made it a point to stop Axel Alonso this weekend and (politely) let him know how much I’m looking forward to this book.

I also got a chance this weekend to tell Dan Slott how much I loved his She-Hulk series, and in return he told me what the next story would have been had he stayed on the book. This is all from memory and thus wildly paraphrased, but essentially:

The next story would have involved Pug’s old high school teacher losing his job for teaching Marvel Creationism. “And then the Celestials came down and split the human genome, creating the Inhumans over there, and the Eternals, and the humans. And then Odin came down from the World Tree… There are no Christian, Jewish, or Hindu gods…” So She-Hulk and her firm are helping the teacher sue for wrongful termination, and eventually they call the Watcher down as a witness. “YES, THAT IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED…” 

Dan Slott is a great verbal storyteller (he does the funny voices and everything), so this was just brilliant to hear. Also a little sad, that we never just got to read this story. I did suggest it still could make a great one-shot or mini-series, but he says he’s “Spidey for life” these days. Ah well!

-JD

[This blog has been harsh to Dan Slott in the past. I stand by that post, because going after fans to argue with them on their own blogs is a jerk move. By all accounts, he’s done much better since then, and he was cool in person. This does not excuse his past behavior but hopefully is evidence that he is learning and growing. - RD]

Graeme McMillan over at Newsarama asked today why DC’s female superheroes sell while Marvel’s don’t.

DC has certain obvious advantages on this front: Wonder Woman’s been around since 1941. She’s one of the first major female heroes, and the standard by which other heroines are still judged today. Supergirl has been around since 1958, Batgirl since 1966. Marvel’s heroines mostly came later, and nearly always served on male-dominated teams rather than starring in their own books.

“DC’s women are just more iconic,” seems to be the fan response every time this question comes up - the first comment to the above post mentions this as well - but why is that? Are they just better characters, or simpler for mass audiences to understand and embrace? I don’t believe that.

I think DC has more iconic women because DC spends more time treating its women like icons.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a thousand ways that DC sidelines their fantastic ladies in favor of the usual white dudes, especially in the new 52. But Wonder Woman always has a solo book, and usually some version of Supergirl and Batgirl is in the monthly line-up as well, while Marvel just cancelled their last superheroine solo titles with X-23 and Ghost Rider. The DC ladies have merchandise lines in every mall and value store; I can’t remember the last time I saw a Marvel heroine on her own t-shirt or lunchbox at Wal-Mart or Hot Topic*. Marvel’s ladies are always lost in a crowd, literally and figuratively.

For years, I’ve heard rumors that Wonder Woman’s comic rarely makes money, and DC essentially keeps publishing it monthly to advertise for all that other merchandise. I’ve no idea if it’s true, but Marvel could do worse than recognize the merchandising potential of their female characters. It’s way past time that Marvel picked out their own Wonder Woman, Batgirl, Supergirl, and committed to them.

Pick Black Widow, with her movie star rising (just don’t overemphasize her sexuality for once, okay?), pick She-Hulk, Storm, Spider-Woman, Dani Moonstar, whoever. But commit. Call your merchandising partners, get them started on new shirts and toys so everyone can make the maximum green** from this new Women of Marvel initiative. Put great writers on the books, pair them with a great artists, and give them starring roles alongside Cap, Thor, and Spidey in your next big crossover event.***

And if these titles sell poorly, well - hasn’t Marvel given fans and retailers every reason to expect the worst, in both quality and performance? That just means the icon-making process takes time. That’s where the commitment comes in. Retool, relaunch, and try again. Like you’ve done with Daredevil and Punisher - how many times now?

Make it work, Marvel.

* Yes, I’ve seen a few on the internet, but that doesn’t reach out into the public consciousness in the same way as walking past Wonder Woman every time you go out to buy socks.

** Not a She-Hulk pun.

*** Y’know, roles that include more than weeping on Nick Fury’s shoulder, or volunteering to clean up the mess afterwards and getting grief from teammates over it.

Everything she says here.

That goes double for the Sif solo movie idea.

APE IN A CAPE: ablipintime: Daresay I enjoyed Batgirl more than Batwoman and Huntress...

therearecertainshadesoflimelight:

… But let’s not forget that we need that Lois Lane driven Daily Planet book that people have been begging for for years.  We’ve been teased with it now several times over by Greg Rucka and even Geoff Johns who made a statement a few years ago that he wanted to write a Lois book.

The one silver lining that I think a lot of fans who were sad about the Superman books were hoping would come out of this relaunch was a Lois driven book for the Superman franchise. Sadly, that hasn’t happened and the new Action Comics has sidelined Lois’s role in the Superman mythos more than any other Superman origin story to date.  Very dissapointing for a franchise that was one of the few male driven narratives to have such a strong female presence for the last 70 years. Very sad that a whole new generation of young readers are going to read a narrative where one of the most famous women in the genre is being treated just like any other supporting character and marginalized/returned to a sexist stereotype. I know people like to worship Grant Morrison. And I understand that people like his vision. I respect that and I respect what he is doing. But he’s failing big time with Lois and that’s a problem. Actually, I’ll go farther and say that he’s actually marginalizing her. That is a real problem that DC should care about and should address. I’ll be honest that it’s hard for me to cheer all the female driven books when one of your most famous female characters is being treated like shit. This is a problem that can be corrected. It’s not too late. But right now it’s a legitimate concern and it’s one that is being brushed under the rug because so many of the other female led books are selling so well. In the meantime, DC’s oldest female character is slowly being reduced. It’s sad…

I’m going to go one step further still and say I don’t respect what Morrison is doing with Action Comics at all. To fail with Lois is to fail Superman. Period.

Because a) Lois Lane is a costar, not an object for Clark Kent to mope over. b) the world is made up of more than men, and any book without strong, well written women in the cast is a failure.

It’s that simple.

-JD

dcwomenkickingass:

Over the last few months concerns around women and comics, particularly comics from the big two have been getting industry attention.

For years people and sites like When Fan Girls attack, founded by Kalinara and Ragnell and run later Maddy and Caitlin, GirlWonder.Org, Sequential Tart, and others have talked and talked and talked about the how the representation of women in comics, both from the creative side and the content side, is problematic.

In the last year there seems to have been change in this conversation. The participants in the dialogue are growing. The dialogue and issues moving from rumblings of a few to the roar of many.

There was the showdown at SDCC between Kyrax2 and DC which had people talking about women and comics and sites that had never talked about it before discussing gender issues in comics.

There was the successful Geek Girl Con that showed off the power of the female geek and comic fans. In fact Gail Simone said it “changed the game” and likened it to Woodstock.

More and more the dialogue and debate is moving out of sites like mine which critics deride as representing a “vocal minority” to other sites like Comics Alliance, CNN, Jezebel and the Beat who wrote a few weeks ago about New York Comic Con:

The New 52 has been a success at getting outliers interested in comics again. But looking around the Javits, at the ocean of non-white faces, and of female faces, it became VERY clear to me that all the angry blog posts begging for more diversity in the comics isn’t just a few loudmouths—even though they are treated as such by the big companies. It’s the reality of the world. Reaching this audience through inclusion might just be the most important goal for the mainstream comics industry’s continued survival.

And now today on Wired’s GeekMom where Corrina Lawson just nailed it.

You need to go read the whole thing, but I’m going to pull out this:

We’ve reached a tipping point where this idea of “superheroes are only male adolescent power fantasies” is going to be challenged and, eventually, proven a myth. It wasn’t always so and there’s no reason it should be that way. Superheroes are a mythic fantasy about taking control to do the right thing. There’s nothing inherently male about that.

DC said with the reboot that they wanted to push past the boundaries of their current audience, yet the majority of their content so far says otherwise. It was a perfect storm in which many of these women, myself included, said “enough is enough.”

And this

But I object to the idea that somehow, well-written and well-drawn female characters who look beautiful and powerful at the same time will suddenly make the male audience run for the hills. Women read a ton. They love male characters. They’re not asking for a radical changeover. They”re just asking, as Busiek said and Hudson said in her article, that the two major superhero companies stop actively trying to drive them away. The movies, especially Marvel’s movies, do a great job also appealing to the female audience.

I don’t see why that’s so hard to replicate in comics.

If there was a major corporation that said “you know, our audience is just white people, we don’t have to listen to any concern of minorities because they just don’t buy our comics, we want the white consumer” I don’t think that would go over well at all. But because it’s women, it’s somehow more accepted. It shouldn’t be.

Again you have to go read this. But she’s right. You know she’s right. I know she’s right. Hell I’ve been saying the same things for the past year. Others, as I’ve said, have been saying it for YEARS. But of course when you say these things there’s pushback, derision, and outright anger. Just last night after there was a link in my site from the CNN story, I had this posted on my blog:

Women have their pop culture niches, men have theirs.  If you are drawn to ours fine, but don’t come complaining about our world because it wasn’t made for you, because IT WASN’T MADE FOR YOU.  Make your own crappy comics that nobody but women will read and see how loudly we don’t care.

And that’s one of the mild ones.

But Corrina is right, this is the tipping point. This is the time. This is it.

We’ve 51% of the Goddamn world and I think we’re more than just a “vocal minority” in the readership.

Change can happen. Change has happened. But there needs to be more. So help tip it.

Be a “Loudmouth”. Raise your voice. Let the companies know you don’t want crappy portrayals of women or art that objectifies women or being told that you don’t matter. Write letters. Speak out on line. And vote with your pocketbook.

As Corrina says “Enough is Enough.”

Tip it.

1. Go here.

2. Read what the creators there have to say. Yes, it’s long. Also it’s worth it.

3. Follow their instructions.

4. PROFIT!*

* Hopefully in cashy money, absolutely in karma.

The X-Men’s Schism event has only an issue to go at this point. While the philosophical nature of the Cyclops-Wolverine fight about to split Marvel’s mutants asunder and entirely redefine a classic franchise remains unclear, we know this much: they’re fighting over Jean Grey.

My personal ‘shipper proclivities aside, there’s an inherent problem here, as in many fictional m-m-f love triangles. The interests of the female character are secondary if not outright immaterial to the power struggle between the two men. It’s a demeaning trope for women and men alike, reducing men to their desires and women to objects of said desires. And the problem is only further highlighted by Marvel’s announcement yesterday that Wolverine will be opening The Jean Grey School for Higher Learning in Jason Aaron’s upcoming Wolverine & the X-Men series. X-Men editor Nick Lowe is quick to point out that Cyclops will not be happy when he learns that a school has been named for his dear departed wife; the name can’t simply be a tribute, it has to be a way for Logan to get back at Scott. In the CBR comments thread discussing the announcement, one fan puts it more colorfully, saying this is “what happens when Scott plays at being alpha male. The real dogs like Logan piss all over what they want to mark their territory.”

This is what the noble X-Men franchise has become: the story of two big squabbling dogs and the people who follow them around. Cyclops and Wolverine, once great heroes and great friends, are just animals. Yet Jean Grey is even further dehumanized - she’s territory, a school, a building that Logan can own and Scott can hate and probably eventually blow up with his eyebeams. Jean’s dead, she has no agency left in the story, but Marvel puts the battle to possess her front and center in a series that used to be about the struggle to make a hostile society recognize one’s personhood.

- JD

Dear DC,

For most of my life, I’ve been a fan of your characters: Superman and Lois Lane, intrepid journalists helping each other save the world; Peter David’s wacky Young Justice crew, growing up into the newest Teen Titans; Gail Simone’s witty and utterly kick-ass Birds of Prey; the Justice Society, proving classic idealism never goes out of style; Palmiotti, Gray, and Amanda Conner’s fantastically warm, funny, Power Girl; Keith Giffen and John Rogers’ new Blue Beetle, boasting one of the greatest supporting casts in comic history. Sadly, in recent years I’ve rarely seen them outside of old trade paperbacks, having been driven away from your monthly offerings by excessive crossovers.

Then you announced your “new 52.” As a comic book fan not living under a rock, I found myself reading a lot about this in the months leading up to the big debut. I had some doubts as the creative teams were announced and so few female creators were involved, despite promises of greater diversity in the new DCU. Still, you had some fantastic writers out there stumping for you, talking excitedly about their new series, people like Gail Simone and Paul Cornell. There was potential here, I realized: a whole comic book universe offering a ground floor entry all in the same month. Simone, Cornell, and the rest being given the chance to start their new series virtually from scratch, and rebuild the DC world to best showcase the strengths of its individual heroes. I found myself making lists of the characters I wanted to check out. Comics are expensive these days, but for one month at least, I could give six or eight titles a try.

So I did. And it’s the last time I’ll be spending my money on DC comics for a very long while.

In case after case, I found this shiny new DC Universe had been designed specifically to diminish its women. The “new” Batgirl is a fascinating, smart, witty, wounded survivor, a character I would love - if I hadn’t already seen Barbara Gordon as Oracle, a stronger and far more unique heroine. The other Batgirls, Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain, have apparently never been Batgirls at all - while all four of Batman’s male Robins remain in continuity, (which makes no sense at all given the new timeline). Meanwhile, the starting line-up for the new Justice League, DC’s best of the best, consists of six men and one Wonder Woman. Lois Lane, for years Clark Kent’s partner and equal, has been reduced to her worst 1930s caricature: a dismissive rival who won’t give Clark the time of day, and clearly readers are expected to feel bad for Superman - because Lois is the object of Clark’s affections, and as the hero of the story it’s supposed to be his right to possess that object. Power Girl is introduced to the new DCU not as a hero in her own right, but as the arm candy of her former teammate Mr. Terrific. Voodoo, the only woman of color to star in her own DC title, opens her book working as a stripper, having money thrown her way by leering men in suits. Catwoman spends most of her first issue in her underwear as well, and finishes up by having graphic and raunchy sex on a rooftop with Batman. Starfire is re-imagined as a hideous parody of her former self, a promiscuous alien animal having sex with every man on her team, but unable to retain any memory for the people who were once her dearest friends.

I don’t know where you plan to take these characters in the future; but however they might develop, the fact is that this is the bold new world you chose to show every reader peeking in this month to see what DC is all about. I’m a thirty-year-old male, a lapsed DC reader, firmly in the middle of the demographic your company has so publicly sought, and I am disgusted. I read superhero comics because I love imagining a world better than ours, where every type of person might use her or his unique gifts to make the world a better, richer place. Instead you offer a world in which women exist primarily as supporting players in the lives of men, most often as objects of sexual desire or frustration.

I’ll have no part of that.

Sincerely,

JD

Greg Rucka has written a fantastic commentary on Smart vs. Gritty in comics (and superhero films as well); I’m linking via Newsarama because they’ve done a great job of pulling out the must-read excerpt. Go read that at the very least, then come back here and I’ll explain the title of this post.

“Gritty realism” is overused and overemphasized these days, to the detriment of comics as a whole, because too many fans, reviewers, creators, and publishers are trapped in a Good vs. Bad understanding of art. They determine that certain comics are Good/Worthy, and if a comic isn’t like these comics, then it must not be of value. There are a few sainted writers (Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller), a few classic stories (The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen) and a few popular characters (Batman, Wolverine) that receive wide acclaim, and by these standards every other creator and comic are judged.

Batman is popular, so Morrison’s upcoming Action Comics reboot promises a grittier, edgier Superman. Which kinda misses the whole point of Superman. He’s the guy who makes it cool not to be cool. The fact that the intensely kind, optimistic, and well-adjusted Clark Kent is never as popular as the dark, tormented but more traditionally cool Batman is a problem with our society, not with the character.

Wolverine is popular, so in the last decade the rest of the X-Men franchise has been gradually warped to be more like him. He’s angry a lot, he’s frequently forced to do bad things to survive; now the whole mutant race is a struggling “endangered species,” forced to kill or be killed. Once Wolverine stood as an outsider that made the heroism of the rest seem even brighter - they could take the man rebuilt as a weapon and show him how to be a force for peace. Now Wolverine is the mutant poster boy, though more violent than ever before. Meanwhile Cyclops, ever the quixotic idealist, has been reinvented in Logan’s morally ambiguous image.

Similarly, when Marvel Editorial chose five “Architects,” writers who were supposed to be the lifeblood of Marvel’s line, they chose Brian Bendis, Matt Fraction, Ed Brubaker, Jonathan Hickman, and Jason Aaron - guys who have spent a lot of time writing crime drama. They did not choose Fred Van Lente, Paul Tobin, Peter David, or Jeff Parker - great Marvel writers who put a lot more quirky humor into their books. They did not choose Dan Slott, the writer of Amazing Spider-Man. How can Spider-Man not be central to Marvel’s publishing line? How can its writer not be considered a driving force in the Marvel universe? Because Peter Parker’s just not gritty enough, and Dan Slott doesn’t do noir. (Then there are Marvel’s female writers, people like Kelly Sue DeConnick, Jen Van Meter, or Kathryn Immonen, who can’t even get on the Architect ballot because they’re not given regular books. The only woman writing an ongoing series for Marvel currently is Marjorie Liu. Unfortunately for Liu, she writes about X-23, who is an actual clone of Wolverine, but too teenaged, too female, and too awesome to make the A-list.)

It’s the same kind of thinking that ensures that comedies and comedians get ignored every year at the Oscars - along with superhero movies and everything else that is not a Serious Drama. There’s an assumption out there that anything lighthearted or fun cannot be real art, cannot truly be important. That anything that is optimistic about humanity’s capacity for good must be a lie, and/or a distraction for children.

Somewhere along the line, superhero comics got swept up in this crap thinking. As comic publishers, creators, and fans fought to be taken seriously, to get people to stop writing comics off as “funny books,” they forgot that humor is an essential ingredient in any good life, and optimism about humanity is what the entire concept of SUPERheroes was built upon.

-JD

“THE TRUTH IS PEOPLE ARE LEAVING ANYWAY, THEY’RE JUST DOING IT QUIETLY, AND WE HAVE BEEN PAPERING IT OVER WITH INCREASED PRICES…WE DIDN’T WANT TO WAKE UP ONE DAY AND FIND WE HAD A BUNCH OF $20 BOOKS THAT 10,000 PEOPLE ARE BUYING.”

This quote from DC publisher Dan Didio opens Von Allan’s fascinating study of the rising cost of comics as a percentage of minimum wage, which Rachael just posted about. It also tells us exactly why the DC relaunch can only fail.

Because they’re not going far enough.

For all the sturm and drang about the ‘radical’ changes to DC continuity, the changes we’re seeing really only matter to the people who are already reading superhero comics. And probably reading at least some DC. The changes are essentially cosmetic. (Except for the “day and date” digital thing, but the above link about minimum wage covers why that won’t really make an impact either.)

If DC (and/or Marvel) really wants to expand their readership, at least one of two things need to happen.

1) A price reduction, making comics truly affordable again, and encouraging people to try out more than two at a time.

2) A shift in their demographics - comics clearly written and drawn to attract and satisfy an audience composed of more than the same mostly straight, mostly white, mostly unmarried men in their 30s currently reading superhero books.

What’s REALLY frustrating about the DC reboot - even more than the loss of Oracle, or the demotion of Lois Lane, Cassie Cain and Stephanie Brown - is that the company can recognize the need for radical change, but clearly have no clue what the concept of change actually entails. The reboot will probably score some great sales figures for the first month or three, as the same old fans try a few new books, but they won’t be able to afford buying more than one or two on a regular basis, and the numbers will snap right back to where they were before.

Because people who already care about superhero comics are already buying as many as they can budget for, and people who don’t haven’t been given any reason to try.

-JD

Let’s me put this in even more context. It’s May 1977 and Star Wars has just arrived in theatres. You work full-time at a minimum wage job. You’d have been earning $2.30 per hour or $82.80 for a 36 hour work week. You’re willing to spend about 6% of your pay on comics and movies. A ticket to see Star Wars was, on average, $2.23 or 2.69% of your pay. That’s quite a bit but you still had 3.31% left over. Comics were, on average, 30 cents. You could have bought nine of them and it would have only cost you $2.70. Or 3.26% of your pay cheque. You can see Star Wars and still buy all those comics and you’re just under budget.

Fast forward to May 2010. Same situation. This time you want to go see Iron Man 2. That would cost you $7.89, but you’re now earning $7.25 per hour or $261.00 per week. Iron Man 2 will set you back 3.02% of your weekly pay. Not bad, not bad, especially in comparison to 1977. You also want to buy some comics. A comic now costs $2.99 or 1.15% of your pay. Two comics will cost you 2.29% of your pay. You might be able to squeeze a third one in, but you’re going to go over budget to do it. Ouch.

This is from an absolutely fascinating article about the price of comics. John has some more to say, but for now, just read the whole thing. You will not regret it.

I love Gail Simone. I’m reading her Birds of Prey and really enjoying it.

Mostly.

Because I hate Ed Benes. I loathe the way he draws women. It makes me ill to see Simone’s fantastic characterization attributed to these bubble-breasted, scantily clad forms. It distracts me from some otherwise great comics. I do not know why this kind of objectifying art is required for DC comics. It makes me sad.

Grant Morrison (in)famously ended his 1988-1990 run on Animal Man with an issue involving Animal Man confronting Morrison himself. The writer explains that he is the god of Animal Man’s world; the character demands to know why the writer would put Animal Man, his wife, and his children through so many terrible tribulations. The writer explains that he’s had a rough year, his cat died, etc.

I read the story a while back, and remember enjoying it. Meta-humor usually goes over quite well with me - I’m a big Thursday Next fan, and adored Paul Cornell’s Fantastic Four: True Story - but until I read today’s “Comic Book Legends Revealed,” I’d entirely forgotten about this extremely prescient page of Morrison’s story:

“I can make you say and do anything. I can make you hate your wife and children. I can make you forget you were ever married.”

Ten years after this issue came out, Morrison started a run on New X-Men that dismantled the Cyclops - Jean Grey marriage, with Scott Summers suddenly deciding that it was all a “teenage infatuation” gone wrong.

Now, just over twenty years since Animal Man #26, Morrison heads up a Superman reboot at DC which wipes the Lois-Clark marriage out of continuity all together.

Grrr, argh.

- JD