I have an extremely longwinded theory on the nature of optimism in the Marvel and DC Universes that no one--no exceptions--wants to hear.
Okay okay: Short version of my theory follows, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Even taking stuff like Dark Reign into account, Marvel doesn't really NEED to be more optimistic.
By virtue of its Lee/Kirby roots, Marvel's always had that peppy, exclamatory feeling underlying everything they've done.
Right: Even if the guy in charge of the world is the guy who chucked Gwen Stacy off a bridge, that's perfectly in keeping with MU.
Marvel's ABOUT optimism. It's about overcoming difficulties.
That's why the two most Marvel characters are Spider-Man and the Thing.
Norman Osborn being in charge isn't "dark," because we know someone's gonna take him down, and it's all gonna be okay.
DC, on the other hand, has spent the last 20 years reacting AGAINST their era of poppy optimism.
Otto Binder, Leo Dorfman, Swan, Schaffenberger, Siegel, Bates, those guys weren't LESS valid than Lee, Kirby and Ditko...
But because of what they were doing, they got painted with the brush of being "immature" comics. And sure, they are.
(also, that's the only time I'll say that someone wasn't less valid than Kirby, so mark your calendar)
But DC broke away from that and redefined themselves in the mid-80s. And that's the key point there: The mid-80s.
DC rebuilt their universe from the ground up in the era where comics were trying to be more "Grown Up" and "Mature" and "Serious."
The founding document for the DCU as we know it today isn't ACTION COMICS #1, it's BATMAN: YEAR ONE.
And dudes, that's like my favorite comic book story, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
But the result is that they've rooted themselves in a rejection of the ATTITUDES without losing the STUFF.
DC wants Kandor and Supergirl and the Justice League Satellite and whatever, but because they're rooted in the attitude...
...of DKR and Watchmen and Swamp Thing and all the other stuff that got such incredible amounts of critical praise (and deservedly so)...
...they want to recapture THAT attitude rather than the era that the stuff CAME from.
Marvel's '60s is their core that's revered, DC's '60s is something that's looked on as immature.
And yeah, I make fun of those stories as much as (way more than) the next guy, but I also totally love them.
And again, a lot of that has to do with Kirby, Ditko, Lee and allathems basically reinventing comics in 1961.
But the end result is that the DCU is dominated (currently) by stories where Dr. Light--DR. LIGHT--is a rapezombie...
...(because zombies that also rape are so grown-up, you know)...
...and when a guy like Grant Morrison comes along who DOES have a genuine love for that stuff and DOES bring that Gee Whiz attitude...
...it's relegated to the sidelines (All Star Superman is great, but it shoulda been the REAL Superman) or met with utter shock by readers.
And the irony of it is, stuff like Byrne's Superman seems so INCREDIBLY lighthearted looking back from today.
It's gotten to the point where so many fans don't get that a story about how Batman Always Wins is better than one where Batman Loses...
...because a story where Batman loses is REALLY STUPID YOU GUYS.
What I'm saying is, in brief (and I mean it this time) is this:
Marvel's never had a Hard Reboot, and for all the legal grousing and whatever, there's nobody there who doesn't know...
..that Kirby and Lee (yes, AND LEE) were geniuses who knew what they were doing.
And again, this is not a knock on DC, but they rebuilt when the In Thing was to be a grown-up, and that's great...
But they wore that "COMICS AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS!" ribbon so hard and so long that it fundamentally changed the universe.
And that's not me saying "Marvel Rulz, DC suxxx," either. Lord knows the House of Ideas has had some awful ones.
And DC's had some stellar work from guys that aren't Grant Morrison in the post-Crisis years.
But in sheer attitude vis-a-vis optimism/hope/etc, DC's lost a lot of it in a pretty fundamental way.
@kenlowery - @theisb: I thought it was DC that MADE being "Grown up" the In Thing, not vice versa.
@kenlowery: Yes, but it was going to happen anyway. Miller and Moore were going to change comics no matter where they were.
And in fact, Miller changed Daredevil so irrevocably that Daredevil can never be the swashbuckling blind adventure character again.
(Which, again, not a bad thing. Ask Ann Nocenti, Ed Brubaker, Andy Diggle, Brian Bendis...)
(But don't ask Karl Kesel and Cary Nord, because they did that book lighthearted for two years and I think I'm the only one who loved it)
But there was a confluence of comics "Growing Up" and DC throwing out their continuity that led to the whole thing.
I don't mean to say that DC set out to kill kids' comics. Or that COIE [Crisis on Infinite Earths] wasn't necessary (guys, it kinda was).
Just that rebuilding it in 1986 led to a fundamental change, as opposed to a universe built in 1961-63, or 1938-55.
And again: Doggs. I love my Alan Moore Swamp Thing and my Frank Miller Daredevil and my John Byrne Superman and all that good stuff.
BUT, and here's the key thing: I think Moore and Morrison & co. saw this stuff coming.
Which is why Alan Moore doesn't write that way anymore. He wrote Tom Strong and Top Ten...
...which were basically the Jeff Parker and Paul Tobin comics of their day.
Fun adventure stories that were straightforward, but still clever and smartly done.
The creators who started the whole thing moved past it (tonally, Morrison's Batman/JLA/FC is WAY different than Animal Man)...
...but now it's sort of ingrained in the universe itself. The End.
Okay okay: Short version of my theory follows, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Even taking stuff like Dark Reign into account, Marvel doesn't really NEED to be more optimistic.
By virtue of its Lee/Kirby roots, Marvel's always had that peppy, exclamatory feeling underlying everything they've done.
Right: Even if the guy in charge of the world is the guy who chucked Gwen Stacy off a bridge, that's perfectly in keeping with MU.
Marvel's ABOUT optimism. It's about overcoming difficulties.
That's why the two most Marvel characters are Spider-Man and the Thing.
Norman Osborn being in charge isn't "dark," because we know someone's gonna take him down, and it's all gonna be okay.
DC, on the other hand, has spent the last 20 years reacting AGAINST their era of poppy optimism.
Otto Binder, Leo Dorfman, Swan, Schaffenberger, Siegel, Bates, those guys weren't LESS valid than Lee, Kirby and Ditko...
But because of what they were doing, they got painted with the brush of being "immature" comics. And sure, they are.
(also, that's the only time I'll say that someone wasn't less valid than Kirby, so mark your calendar)
But DC broke away from that and redefined themselves in the mid-80s. And that's the key point there: The mid-80s.
DC rebuilt their universe from the ground up in the era where comics were trying to be more "Grown Up" and "Mature" and "Serious."
The founding document for the DCU as we know it today isn't ACTION COMICS #1, it's BATMAN: YEAR ONE.
And dudes, that's like my favorite comic book story, so I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
But the result is that they've rooted themselves in a rejection of the ATTITUDES without losing the STUFF.
DC wants Kandor and Supergirl and the Justice League Satellite and whatever, but because they're rooted in the attitude...
...of DKR and Watchmen and Swamp Thing and all the other stuff that got such incredible amounts of critical praise (and deservedly so)...
...they want to recapture THAT attitude rather than the era that the stuff CAME from.
Marvel's '60s is their core that's revered, DC's '60s is something that's looked on as immature.
And yeah, I make fun of those stories as much as (way more than) the next guy, but I also totally love them.
And again, a lot of that has to do with Kirby, Ditko, Lee and allathems basically reinventing comics in 1961.
But the end result is that the DCU is dominated (currently) by stories where Dr. Light--DR. LIGHT--is a rapezombie...
...(because zombies that also rape are so grown-up, you know)...
...and when a guy like Grant Morrison comes along who DOES have a genuine love for that stuff and DOES bring that Gee Whiz attitude...
...it's relegated to the sidelines (All Star Superman is great, but it shoulda been the REAL Superman) or met with utter shock by readers.
And the irony of it is, stuff like Byrne's Superman seems so INCREDIBLY lighthearted looking back from today.
It's gotten to the point where so many fans don't get that a story about how Batman Always Wins is better than one where Batman Loses...
...because a story where Batman loses is REALLY STUPID YOU GUYS.
What I'm saying is, in brief (and I mean it this time) is this:
Marvel's never had a Hard Reboot, and for all the legal grousing and whatever, there's nobody there who doesn't know...
..that Kirby and Lee (yes, AND LEE) were geniuses who knew what they were doing.
And again, this is not a knock on DC, but they rebuilt when the In Thing was to be a grown-up, and that's great...
But they wore that "COMICS AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS!" ribbon so hard and so long that it fundamentally changed the universe.
And that's not me saying "Marvel Rulz, DC suxxx," either. Lord knows the House of Ideas has had some awful ones.
And DC's had some stellar work from guys that aren't Grant Morrison in the post-Crisis years.
But in sheer attitude vis-a-vis optimism/hope/etc, DC's lost a lot of it in a pretty fundamental way.
@kenlowery - @theisb: I thought it was DC that MADE being "Grown up" the In Thing, not vice versa.
@kenlowery: Yes, but it was going to happen anyway. Miller and Moore were going to change comics no matter where they were.
And in fact, Miller changed Daredevil so irrevocably that Daredevil can never be the swashbuckling blind adventure character again.
(Which, again, not a bad thing. Ask Ann Nocenti, Ed Brubaker, Andy Diggle, Brian Bendis...)
(But don't ask Karl Kesel and Cary Nord, because they did that book lighthearted for two years and I think I'm the only one who loved it)
But there was a confluence of comics "Growing Up" and DC throwing out their continuity that led to the whole thing.
I don't mean to say that DC set out to kill kids' comics. Or that COIE [Crisis on Infinite Earths] wasn't necessary (guys, it kinda was).
Just that rebuilding it in 1986 led to a fundamental change, as opposed to a universe built in 1961-63, or 1938-55.
And again: Doggs. I love my Alan Moore Swamp Thing and my Frank Miller Daredevil and my John Byrne Superman and all that good stuff.
BUT, and here's the key thing: I think Moore and Morrison & co. saw this stuff coming.
Which is why Alan Moore doesn't write that way anymore. He wrote Tom Strong and Top Ten...
...which were basically the Jeff Parker and Paul Tobin comics of their day.
Fun adventure stories that were straightforward, but still clever and smartly done.
The creators who started the whole thing moved past it (tonally, Morrison's Batman/JLA/FC is WAY different than Animal Man)...
...but now it's sort of ingrained in the universe itself. The End.
Mr. Sims' website can be found, devoured, and loved, here...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment