The Curse of Shazam! Thread

[Kurosawa]

"Realism" is bad for superhero comics and it's doubly bad for a character like Captain Marvel.

The truth is, the character died when Fawcett gave up on the lawsuits in the 50's.

 

[Lone]

"Realism" is bad for superhero comics and it's doubly bad for a character like Captain Marvel.

The truth is, the character died when Fawcett gave up on the lawsuits in the 50's.

I should clarify. I don't like adding too much realism to my superhero comics but it seems like that's what they're going for apparently with Shazam and if that's the case, Superior did it better. I actually liked Simon Pooni's character right off the bat.

Realism doesn't mean dark and *****ey.

 

[Kurosawa]

The kind of realism I like is things like Jim Shooter's Star Brand.

 

[Czar Colossus]

"Realism" is bad for superhero comics and it's doubly bad for a character like Captain Marvel.

The truth is, the character died when Fawcett gave up on the lawsuits in the 50's.

In many respects yes, but I feel Alex Ross really got the character right in his interpretations. You could see his love for Cap through his work. I really wish Ross was involved editorially and creatively with DC instead of Lee and Johns (though I do respect much of what Johns has done in the past.)

 

[Motown Marvel]

realism might be the wrong word, but i do enjoy a bit of verisimilitude. whatever they present needs to be realistic for the universe of the comic, and it needs to be consistent.

 

[Czar Colossus]

verisimilitude

I love that word. t:

 

[TheCorpulent1]

realism might be the wrong word, but i do enjoy a bit of verisimilitude. whatever they present needs to be realistic for the universe of the comic, and it needs to be consistent.

Given the breadth of the DC universe, isn't pretty much anything realistic within its bounds?

 

[Phatman]

Yes; those trying to recreate the DCU in their IMAGE!

The way Image published comics back in the 90's showed us what happens when there is no editorial oversight over creative types and they're left to run amok. Lots of big ideas, but no structure or direction to them when they were executed. That's why many of the books there crashed and burned and many of the concepts didn't last past 1997.

Now the DCU is being infected with this type of mismanagement. This can't be good for the long-term value of their catalog.

I'll keep saying this DC truly needs an editor who with the juevos to be a boss and lead the creatives, not someone who will go along with every XTREME idea presented to them.

 

[Czar Colossus]

Amen to that Phatman!

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I don't like this d-bag Billy

 

[CConn]

The way Image published comics back in the 90's showed us what happens when there is no editorial oversight over creative types and they're left to run amok. Lots of big ideas, but no structure or direction to them when they were executed. That's why many of the books there crashed and burned and many of the concepts didn't last past 1997.

Now the DCU is being infected with this type of mismanagement. This can't be good for the long-term value of their catalog.

I'll keep saying this DC truly needs an editor who with the juevos to be a boss and lead the creatives, not someone who will go along with every XTREME idea presented to them.

Um, DC has very recently pissed off multiple writers because they refused to let them just run amok with whatever ideas they wanted to it.

A lack of editorial direction isn't DC's problem at all. DC's only major problem right now is that they gave so much major creative control to Johns. Outside of him - and maybe Lobdell - DC's books really don't have much of an issue with rampant writers.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, there's a clear direction DC editorial is pushing their line. It's just a sucky direction, in my opinion.

 

[CConn]

Eh, I think it's hit or miss. Editorial direction always seems that way.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Far more misses than hits for me. I'm down to about 5 or 6 regular DC ongoings at this point. I think I started out trying around 10 at the start of the New 52.

 

[CConn]

Yeah, but you have to admit, you're a pretty big cramudgeon.

Subjectively speaking, I'd say there's at least 15 good-to-really good DC titles right now.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I'm reading a solid 12 or so

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, but you have to admit, you're a pretty big cramudgeon.

Subjectively speaking, I'd say there's at least 15 good-to-really good DC titles right now.

I'm the nicest motherf***er I know.

 

[Phatman]

Um, DC has very recently pissed off multiple writers because they refused to let them just run amok with whatever ideas they wanted to it.

A lack of editorial direction isn't DC's problem at all. DC's only major problem right now is that they gave so much major creative control to Johns. Outside of him - and maybe Lobdell - DC's books really don't have much of an issue with rampant writers.

They have an issue with writers going into crazy directions and editorial not being consistent. One group of writers on second-tier books get micromanaged, while another gets to run out of control. That keeps the quality of the product from being the best it can be.

DC's editorial is absolutely directionless. No one there really understands who the characters are, what their core mission is or what they're about. And because no one at DC has an understanding of what a DC superhero is no one in editorial currently knows how to manage the DC catalog of characters effectively.

And because editorial has no direction they give some of the more acclaimed writers more power than they have earned. When writers and artists are placed above characters, a comic publisher is in serious trouble.

That's why Image was such a disaster in the 1990's. Lots of big ideas, but no direction or focus. No plan on how to develop great stories, just big splash pages, model poses and other gimmicks to cover the lack of storytelling ability. No plan to create a catalog of properties that could be licensed or marketed outside of the comic book industry and grow the company long-term.

Moreover, no standards set for house style. This prevents artists and writers from developing their craft.

Editorials job is to rein in the excesses so that the integrity of the character is maintained. Their job is to make the writer and the artist understand that the character comes FIRST. Their jobs are to lead the bullpen and help the writers and artists develop skills they can use in the commercial marketplace.

Letting guys like Johns, Azzarello and Lobdell go crazy does long-term damage to DC characters and their brands.

Looking at John's Shazam and it's going to do long-term damage to the character.

Azzarello's Wonder Woman is just an abomination. Nothing like the Diana people knew for close to 75 years.

And Lobodell's Titans....Just a mess.


On top of this freedom they give to top writers they micromanage experienced and talented writers like John Rozum and sabotage their books with incompetent mismanagement.

Read John Rozum's explanation about quitting Static Shock. That will give anyone perspective about the hot mess that is DC. Didio insisted on taking the character out of Dakota and put him in NYC. That dlearly showed his lack of understanding of Static's history. Having read every issue of Static and watching all four seasons of Static Shock, I know Dakota is to Static what New York is to Spider-Man. His supporting cast, his villians, all LIVED THERE. But Didiot decided Static goes to NYC. That one decision alone KILLED that series and kept a book that could have been a breakout hit for the new 52. Static could have pulled in 100K sales and new readers, but thanks to mismanagment it wound up getting cancelled by issue #8.

Because editorial has no understanding of the characters or the DC catalog, they don't keep writers in line and present to them core reasons why they can't go in the crazy directions they go into.

 

[Czar Colossus]

Looking at John's Shazam and it's going to do long-term damage to the character.

I'm with you Phatman.

Thank God for Young Justice.....Cap looks the way he should, is portrayed the way he should be and goes by his proper name;Captain Marvel!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA2zt1Y7btw

 

[Mystirious]

Overall i really like the new DCU. There are some things that really frustrate me but I'm digging most of DC's comic books right now

I don't like this d-bag Billy

I don't get why its so hard for writers to get Cap right

He's a nice heroic guy but so many interpret that as being naive or stupid or narrow minded

To me Billy and Cap are easy to understand. He's someone who wants to help people who tries to see the best in people and who is just a good person to be around

Young Justice got him perfect. He loves being a hero becuse it means he gets to help people who need it he loves to have fun and he really enjoys being a superhero

He's willing to do battle with villains but he doesn't enjoy violence and fights only to protect others from harm

 

[Czar Colossus]

You've got it! Now why do some writers find that so hard to grasp or write good stories about? DCU animated short "The Return of Black Adam" did justice to Cap as well.

 

[Mystirious]

I think some writers feel that everything has to be grim and dark

I don't mind stories that are dark or that are sometimes violent as long as their well written but there's nothing wrong with upbeat and optimistic stories too and those are the kind Billy works well in

 

[CConn]

They have an issue with writers going into crazy directions and editorial not being consistent. One group of writers on second-tier books get micromanaged, while another gets to run out of control. That keeps the quality of the product from being the best it can be.

That can be as much a good thing as bad. I'd want them to give guys like Morrison, Rucka, Waid, etc. (at least when they were willing to work for DC) as much freedom as possible.

DC's editorial is absolutely directionless. No one there really understands who the characters are, what their core mission is or what they're about. And because no one at DC has an understanding of what a DC superhero is no one in editorial currently knows how to manage the DC catalog of characters effectively.

See, I just see that as bad editing, not a lack of it.

And because editorial has no direction they give some of the more acclaimed writers more power than they have earned. When writers and artists are placed above characters, a comic publisher is in serious trouble.

Not really. Currently Image comics is thriving by giving creators total freedom to make great comics.

It's just the few bad eggs at the big two like Johns and Bendis who kinda foul things up.

That's why Image was such a disaster in the 1990's. Lots of big ideas, but no direction or focus. No plan on how to develop great stories, just big splash pages, model poses and other gimmicks to cover the lack of storytelling ability. No plan to create a catalog of properties that could be licensed or marketed outside of the comic book industry and grow the company long-term.

Moreover, no standards set for house style. This prevents artists and writers from developing their craft.

Editorials job is to rein in the excesses so that the integrity of the character is maintained. Their job is to make the writer and the artist understand that the character comes FIRST. Their jobs are to lead the bullpen and help the writers and artists develop skills they can use in the commercial marketplace.

Letting guys like Johns, Azzarello and Lobdell go crazy does long-term damage to DC characters and their brands.

Looking at John's Shazam and it's going to do long-term damage to the character.

Azzarello's Wonder Woman is just an abomination. Nothing like the Diana people knew for close to 75 years.

And Lobodell's Titans....Just a mess.

On top of this freedom they give to top writers they micromanage experienced and talented writers like John Rozum and sabotage their books with incompetent mismanagement.

Read John Rozum's explanation about quitting Static Shock. That will give anyone perspective about the hot mess that is DC. Didio insisted on taking the character out of Dakota and put him in NYC. That dlearly showed his lack of understanding of Static's history. Having read every issue of Static and watching all four seasons of Static Shock, I know Dakota is to Static what New York is to Spider-Man. His supporting cast, his villians, all LIVED THERE. But Didiot decided Static goes to NYC. That one decision alone KILLED that series and kept a book that could have been a breakout hit for the new 52. Static could have pulled in 100K sales and new readers, but thanks to mismanagment it wound up getting cancelled by issue #8.

Because editorial has no understanding of the characters or the DC catalog, they don't keep writers in line and present to them core reasons why they can't go in the crazy directions they go into.

This whole portion of your post just strikes me hyperbolic ranting.

EDIT: I did read the Rozum thing, though. Again, that's not a lack of editing. That Harvey ******* was quite obviously deeply involved in the creative process. It was, as I said before, bad editing. McDaniel didn't know what he was doing, Richards didn't know what he was doing, and boom, you have a bad comic book.

You're right, the job of an editor is to protect the integrity of the characters, etc., etc. but holding true to that pledge does not prevent characters from being royally screwed over simply because an editor doesn't know what he's doing. And that's the major problem at DC. Grant Morrison has total creative freedom, and it's great. Scott Sydner seems to have a very large amount of freedom, and it's great. If you gave Jeff Smith free reign or Shazam, or Greg Rucka free reign on WW, they'd probably be pretty damn great too.

 

[Mystirious]

Greg Rucka should be allowed to do whatever he wants on any title he works on. He's one of the best writers in comic books

If DC got him on Wonder Woman and let him do whatever he wanted the title would be better than it has been in years

 

[Colossal Spoons]

I don't get why its so hard for writers to get Cap right

He's a nice heroic guy but so many interpret that as being naive or stupid or narrow minded

To me Billy and Cap are easy to understand. He's someone who wants to help people who tries to see the best in people and who is just a good person to be around

Young Justice got him perfect. He loves being a hero becuse it means he gets to help people who need it he loves to have fun and he really enjoys being a superhero

He's willing to do battle with villains but he doesn't enjoy violence and fights only to protect others from harm

YJ's Cap is awesome. I just wish the new comic version kept that version of Billy but had him mature when he turns into Cap.