Chris vs. LGS #61
Chris M.
Look! It's the original, pre-boot, pre TMK Legion! So why ain't I happy
about it?
.
.
.Away we go...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.If I could save spoiler space in a bottle...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I figure you guys've read this thing, so there's no need for me to recap.
What was good about this issue? Really the only thing that was good about
this issue was getting to see the pre-boot, pre-TMK, pre-stupidity,
pre-all-that-is-currently-wrong-with-DC-comics Legion. Of course, the certain
knowledge that after this 40th Anniversary thing we won't see them again makes
this as much a downer as anything.
In fact I may as well get this rant out of the way now (you had to know this
was coming). I was actually really pissed at seeing what is for me the real
Legion. DC threw Crisis on Infinite Earths at us because, allegedly, some
group of suits (or fans, or focus group baboons) somewhere thought it was too
confusing or whatever. But of course since then we've seen a barrage of
alternate reality / alternate timeline stories (not to mention the whole
"Elseworlds" franchise). Clearly alternate earths was never the problem.
Then we get the death of Superboy because we can't have alternate versions of
Superman running around because to do so would soil Byrne's pristine vision of
there being only one true Superman. Of course we later get plenty of
alternate versions of Superman,including a new version of Superboy himself.
Clearly Superboy was never the problem.
Then we get TMK's adult Legion (which was not, in itself, an idea without
merit or room for some good stuff, they just fucked it up beyond
comprehension) because, allegedly, the old heroes-in-tights Legion was too
goofy and not cool enough to sell or whatever. Of course we then get good ol'
Batch SW6, and then the reboot to Adventure-era characters after that.
Clearly young heroes in tights was never the problem.
In that same span we get the whole Mordru-Glorith-Time Trapper whitewash job
to "correct" (or whatever) the "Superboy problem." It took a while but, now
once again, we see an alternate reality (a pocket universe perhaps even) with
Superboy and Supergirl. once again Superboy was never the problem, and
whatever the problem was, Glorith *clearly* was never the solution.
Then we get a reboot of the entirety of Legion continuity so that if there are
any characters left unscathed after TMK (which, now that I think about it,
there probably weren't) they're gone too and we can get a modern
reinterpretation (or whatever you wanna call it) of the Legion we all knew and
loved. And while the post-boot has addressed some of the things that pissed
off us ROTs, it has ignored the majority of those things (particularly those
things that pissed us off the most) and has instead given us new things to be
pissed off about like Sneckie. And now, lo, we find that either the real
Legion universe is still out there or at the very least it exists within the
Time Trapper's power to recreate it. So clearly the old pre-TMK continuity
was never the problem.
I don't really get what reaction they're going for with this. Do they expect
those of us who care about the old Legion to take this as some kind of
respectful nod to the continuity we love and miss? Does that make any sense
at all to anyone who isn't on crack?
What they seem to be saying to me is "Hey, here's that old Legion continuity
you love so much, intact and whole! Unsoiled by the Death of Superboy, TMK,
or the reboot! Look, there's all your old favorites, ready and waiting to
head off in a Legion cruiser on some adventure! Well guess what? You can't
have 'em -- this is just an Anniversary story! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
That pisses me off. Look, I understand that there are a lot of you who came
onboard with the post-boot Legion and you like it, prefer it, whatever.
That's fine. You guys are going to have a very different read on this issue
than I did. But for me the reboot hasn't done much more than continue the
problems started by the Death of Superboy and the TMK run, which is of course
the ruination of the Legion of Superheroes. I admit that the post-boot run
has been more palatable than the TMK run and what came after it, but it's
still not the *real* Legion to me. And what this issue said to me was that
the Legion creative staff can bring back the pre-everything-wrong Legion any
time they feel like it, they simply choose not to. That sucks. Why throw
Wildfire, or Superboy, or Sunboy, or Timberwolf in our faces when you have no
intention of bringing them into the current book any time soon if ever?
Seeing the new post-boot Legionaires alongside two different eras of classic
Legionaires underscored one thing to me: The current run is a pale imitation
of something that even now is still much stronger and better.
Okay, enough of that. As for this issue specifically: I thought the initial
"Hey, that's familiar...but not right!" thing was obvious, cliche'd, and slow
to cut to the chase we all knew was coming.
I thought it was made even more annoying by Monstress and Lori getting so much
dialogue while the post-boot characters I actually care about are along for
the ride.
Moy apparently has some trouble drawing Superman and Superboy.
You already know how I feel about getting to see the Adventure and Grell era
Legions.
And lo, new Giant-Sized Time Trapper! The culmination of much clumsy
foreshadowing. Now that we get to this point I really don't have much to say
about it.
Y'know, for me the whole thing was made even more perfect by the inside back
cover ad plugging the team-up between Crab-Face Guy and the Silver Age Green
Lantern. Is this official "Flog the Fans with How Badly We've Handled Our
Characters Over the Years" week or something?
Oh well.
--Chris M.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mr Reaus
<< snipped for brevity >>
HERE HERE!!!
WELL SAID!!!
I'm sure there are many fans who feel that exact same way.
Any bets on how long it'll take DC Apologist Lass...errr... umm...
Johanna... to post a rebuttal telling us how wrong we are, and what
morons we are for not loving this new legion even more that the old one?
--
Tim
aka Bl...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/MrReaus/index4.html <<- my Legion Page
----------====================
There is nothing left for you here, Monster....
... except to shrivel up.. surrender your energies...
and were it not for the Legion Code I would stay by you yet longer...
...and take your life!
Blok - LSH#284
Triaxm'l
<snip much ranting>
>And lo, new Giant-Sized Time Trapper! The culmination of much clumsy
>foreshadowing. Now that we get to this point I really don't have much to
say
>about it.
>
>Y'know, for me the whole thing was made even more perfect by the inside
back
>cover ad plugging the team-up between Crab-Face Guy and the Silver Age
Green
>Lantern. Is this official "Flog the Fans with How Badly We've Handled Our
>Characters Over the Years" week or something?
>
>Oh well.
>
>--Chris M.
Sorry, I like the new Green Lantern. I actually like what they did to the
character Hal Jordan. It really fit with what little I knew of him. The
stories worked and didn't "retcon" anything out of existance. They made
logical changes to a character becuase of what happened to him.
And I truly have been enjoying the Legion of Super Heroes since I found
them. I've always known that they were out there, but the stories never
gabbed me. The only Pre-crisis story that I've read, has the the
Darkness/Darkseid saga (in TPB).
Maybe you should do one of two things;
A> Enjoy the stories for what they are, or . . . .
B> Quit reading stories that you don't enjoy.
Nobody is forcing you to read anything published these days. It's just sad
that you have to have a lot of anger about something you don't *have* to
read, and complain that your Legion doesn't exist.
DC (and most comic book companies) *try* to write interesting stories, to be
entertaining to their fans.
Do they always succeed? No, but that doesn't mean you have to take it
personally. Because they aren't trying to hurt anyone. They are trying to
write decent stories.
SDelMonte
> DC threw Crisis on Infinite Earths at us because, allegedly, some
>group of suits (or fans, or focus group baboons) somewhere thought it was too
>confusing or whatever. But of course since then we've seen a barrage of
>alternate reality / alternate timeline stories (not to mention the whole
>"Elseworlds" franchise). Clearly alternate earths was never the problem.
OK, I won't debate your opinion about the curent vs. old. vs. middle LSHes.
But...
But will will debate your interpretation of Crisis. DC did Crisis because DC
was dying. DC was desperate, losing readers and money to all the independents
as well as Marvel. DC looked at Marvel, saw how the Marvel Universe worked,
saw how hopeless confused the multiple versions of the major characters had
gotten. It was impossible to tell a Superman story and know what did and
didn't happen. Thus, the decision was made to streamline things.
Again, I won't debate your assessment of the results of Crisis - I miss the
parallel worlds and potential of Earth-2 to be as intriguing as Earth-1. But
DC had to do something. It was and is a business, and if it didn't do
something, Warner Communications wouldn't have waited too long to sell it off
along with Atari. And that something worked, like gangbusters.
Simon DelMonte
"Revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins." - Armando
Guttierez
Dale Hicks
Mr Reaus <MrR...@nospam.aol.com> wrote in article <353569...@nospam.aol.com>...
> << snipped for brevity >>
>
> HERE HERE!!!
>
> WELL SAID!!!
>
> I'm sure there are many fans who feel that exact same way.
>
> Any bets on how long it'll take DC Apologist Lass...errr... umm...
> Johanna... to post a rebuttal telling us how wrong we are, and what
> morons we are for not loving this new legion even more that the old one?
I'll take the over on that. The former DCJohanna has decided that she's
no longer interested in USENET. Judging by the recent past, I'm thinking
she meant it.
Now as for Elayne "the DC people are really not that bad" Wessler "honestly,
I was just talking to ..." Chaput, I dunno.
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who feels that yes, there is a bitchiness on USENET, who feels that it's not
completely undeserved, and who respects the guys who bite the bullet and
open themselves for persecution by the hive)
Dale Hicks
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote in article <6h2vro$enh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> What was good about this issue? Really the only thing that was good about
> this issue was getting to see the pre-boot, pre-TMK, pre-stupidity,
> pre-all-that-is-currently-wrong-with-DC-comics Legion. Of course, the certain
> knowledge that after this 40th Anniversary thing we won't see them again makes
> this as much a downer as anything.
I feel that this post deserves a great big "ME TOO!", if for no other reason
than to transmit the idea that you're not alone to any lurking PTB. Thanks,
Chris. You've put down the most important points in a way that explains
exactly the way I feel.
I picked the comic up, hoping against hope that this and the Superman
and GL tease could be a return to greatness for DC. Now, it's abjectly
clear that there are no changes in store, and that the Silver Age has been
closed.
Also, the idea that the Legions would meet is an interesting one. Instead
of this (they meet, but the Legion seems more like a holovid host than
flesh and blood L*), we see the new kids' reactions to their altered
timeline. Suddenly we're interrupted by a Superman (we know cause he
told us) talking to the original three. Then, the new kids talk to Rond,
and when things seem to be moving toward a confrontation (Lightning Lad
was about to visit) BOOM, they're gone. So very rushed, so anticlimactic.
Instead of reading about super-meetings, we're reading about super-tours.
On to the Sherman Legion (right at the Conway/Levitz changeover, IIRC).
I was waiting for this. Like many here, these were my favorites. And
I get to see them for 5 panels. <sigh> What a letdown. I'm also
slapped in the face with the fact that while Moy/Carani's beautiful
work is perfect for the postboot, it doesn't recapture the harder-
edged Grell/Sherman/Staton work. If a miracle happened and my Legion
returned, I'd have to ask for a new artist team. After the super-tour,
we get an almost fight.
Finally, we learn the big guy behind the event was the Time Trapper.
I'm guessing that this surprised fewer people than the Darkseid
revelation did.
> Clearly alternate earths was never the problem.
> Clearly Superboy was never the problem.
> Clearly young heroes in tights was never the problem.
> Glorith *clearly* was never the solution.
Clearly.
> And while the post-boot has addressed some of the things that pissed
> off us ROTs, it has ignored the majority of those things (particularly those
> things that pissed us off the most) and has instead given us new things to be
> pissed off about like Sneckie.
My only point of disagreement. I'm an OT (I don't guess I qualify for ROT)
that likes the idea of Sneckie. The only point of contention that I can
see would be the Val-Jeckie romance, but I can live without it, simply
because it's been told, and I doubt that the new writers could improve it.
OTOH, having a non-humanoid project a humanoid appearance is novel. I
like the twists thrown throughout the postboot. I think you ROT's should
remember that many a Silver Age (SA) story threw twists in, simply for fun's
sake.
> What they seem to be saying to me is "Hey, here's that old Legion continuity
> you love so much, intact and whole! Unsoiled by the Death of Superboy, TMK,
> or the reboot! Look, there's all your old favorites, ready and waiting to
> head off in a Legion cruiser on some adventure! Well guess what? You can't
> have 'em -- this is just an Anniversary story! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Arrgghh! Now I'm seeing red.
> I admit that the post-boot run
> has been more palatable than the TMK run and what came after it,
How kind of you :)
> And what this issue said to me was that
> the Legion creative staff can bring back the pre-everything-wrong Legion any
> time they feel like it, they simply choose not to. That sucks.
Y'know, someone just posted something in the DCU ng to the effect that
with 4 Superman books, why not appeal to the SA fans and give them one
of the titles? If everyone would be willing to drop these rabid ideas
of continuity, we could have our cake, and eat it too. Let Moy/Carani
do their nice work on L*. And get a new team to work on LSH, giving
us a Levitz-era (preferably early, but whatever) story. Publish it
under a different imprint, if need be. Make one up, if you have to.
Go tell the Superman editors to go do rude things to themselves if they
bitch about Superboy and Krypto and others.
I'd buy both books. Gladly. (course I get both now, so my argument
boils down to just a few wasted keystrokes)
> Seeing the new post-boot Legionaires alongside two different eras of classic
> Legionaires underscored one thing to me: The current run is a pale imitation
> of something that even now is still much stronger and better.
And the people said "Amen!"
> Okay, enough of that. As for this issue specifically: I thought the initial
> "Hey, that's familiar...but not right!" thing was obvious, cliche'd, and slow
> to cut to the chase we all knew was coming.
I'll agree to slow, but it simply was a result of all the bases that the
writers wanted to cover.
> Moy apparently has some trouble drawing Superman and Superboy.
Everyone, including Moy, admits this. I think the biggest thing is the
puppy-dog eyes that Moy gives everyone. I did think Superboy was
reminiscent of the Ditko version.
> Y'know, for me the whole thing was made even more perfect by the inside back
> cover ad plugging the team-up between Crab-Face Guy and the Silver Age Green
> Lantern. Is this official "Flog the Fans with How Badly We've Handled Our
> Characters Over the Years" week or something?
All month, it seems.
Good points of the comic:
- the splash page was way-cool. M/C could work on an Adventure-era Legion.
- it's also nice to see Mon-El without waffles on his shoulders
- the bits that led to the new kids regaining their memories was a fun read
- Karate Kid's in his coolest costume ever! (I guess by the time frame and
style it was a Cockrum design)
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
Chris M.
In article <01bd68e6$73541920$45c5...@dhicks.always-online.com>,
Thanks, although I would imagine that I'm exactly the sort of voice the PTB
routinely ignore.
> Thanks,
> Chris. You've put down the most important points in a way that explains
> exactly the way I feel.
All part of the service.
> I picked the comic up, hoping against hope that this and the Superman
> and GL tease could be a return to greatness for DC. Now, it's abjectly
> clear that there are no changes in store, and that the Silver Age has been
> closed.
Well the Silver Age has really been dead since the early 70's, although it's
pretty much getting officially burried now. Is there even one Silver Age
version of a major DC character that's still intact? I doubt it. What we're
also seeing killed here and elsewhere at both Marvel and DC is that wonderful
70's/early-80's period (The Obscenely-Wide-Lapel Age?) where comics were
maturing while still retaining their sense of wonder.
> Also, the idea that the Legions would meet is an interesting one. Instead
> of this (they meet, but the Legion seems more like a holovid host than
> flesh and blood L*),
That's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of. Good observation.
> Then, the new kids talk to Rond,
> and when things seem to be moving toward a confrontation (Lightning Lad
> was about to visit) BOOM, they're gone. So very rushed, so anticlimactic.
> Instead of reading about super-meetings, we're reading about super-tours.
No kidding. You know what just occurred to me? This is something that's been
bouncing around the back of mind and bothering me and I just realized what it
is. Rond Vidar behaves like a post-boot character. In other words he sees
these people from some alternate future timeline and instead of jumping up and
saying "Great galaxies! We better talk to Braniac 5 RIGHT NOW!" and rushing
off to find Brainy with the other characters in tow he just sits there and
says, basically, "Really? That's interesting. I wonder what that means.
Let's see..." and starts puttering. That really bothers me.
> On to the Sherman Legion (right at the Conway/Levitz changeover, IIRC).
> I was waiting for this. Like many here, these were my favorites.
Same here. :-)
> > And while the post-boot has addressed some of the things that pissed
> > off us ROTs, it has ignored the majority of those things (particularly
> > those
> > things that pissed us off the most) and has instead given us new things to
> > be pissed off about like Sneckie.
>
> My only point of disagreement. I'm an OT (I don't guess I qualify for ROT)
I guess not. :-) You have to be a hard-liner to earn the "R." :-)
> that likes the idea of Sneckie. The only point of contention that I can
> see would be the Val-Jeckie romance, but I can live without it, simply
> because it's been told, and I doubt that the new writers could improve it.
This is kind of a side-issue here, but my views on this, in
bullet-point-style, are:
* Every old character is somebody's favorite and shouldn't be radically
altered.
* Just because it hasn't been told doesn't mean it shouldn't be told again.
Jo and Tinya's romance has been told many times over, and is made even more
cliche' in the postboot where it basically becomes good-girl/high-society-girl
falls for guy-from-wrong-side-of-the-tracks. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be
done again and doesn't mean it can't be done well.
* If your writers look at a plotline as simple as that and tell you that they
can't improve on it anyway then they should be fired. A writer's reaction to
anything like this should be "I don't know if I can do it better, but I can do
it my way and do it as best I can and make it entertaining."
> OTOH, having a non-humanoid project a humanoid appearance is novel. I
Except:
* You could do basically the same character without making her Jeckie.
* Since she's been introduced she's projected a humanoid guise like, what,
twice? Besides, avoiding prejudice by hiding behind a projected image isn't
exactly the kind of thing the Legion should be about.
> like the twists thrown throughout the postboot. I think you ROT's should
> remember that many a Silver Age (SA) story threw twists in, simply for fun's
> sake.
Except that your classic Silver Age twist was almost always un-twisted by the
end of the story. That's what made it fun. You knew the Justice League
weren't really going to be tree people when all was said and done.
> > I admit that the post-boot run
> > has been more palatable than the TMK run and what came after it,
>
> How kind of you :)
Well, okay. At least I'm trying. :-)
> > And what this issue said to me was that
> > the Legion creative staff can bring back the pre-everything-wrong Legion
> > any time they feel like it, they simply choose not to. That sucks.
>
> Y'know, someone just posted something in the DCU ng to the effect that
> with 4 Superman books, why not appeal to the SA fans and give them one
> of the titles? If everyone would be willing to drop these rabid ideas
> of continuity, we could have our cake, and eat it too.
Sort of. The problem with that, though, is that though is that no one wants
to be told the characters they love the best are taking place in "imaginary"
stories that don't "count." That may sound goofy, but that's the power of
continuity. What *would* solve the problem is, of course, ALTERNATE EARTHS.
Slap the old Sherman-Levitz-etc Legion in Earth-L and leave the postboot
Legion in Earth-1 and there you go. Of course, there's no way DC would do
this as they would expect that such a move would pretty much halve their sales
on the current Legion books while adding the production cost of printing a
third Real Legion book.
> > Seeing the new post-boot Legionaires alongside two different eras of
> > classic Legionaires underscored one thing to me: The current run is a pale
> > imitation of something that even now is still much stronger and better.
>
> And the people said "Amen!"
Thank you, my brothers and sisters! Praise Levitz!
> > Okay, enough of that. As for this issue specifically: I thought the
> > initial
> > "Hey, that's familiar...but not right!" thing was obvious, cliche'd, and
> >slow
> > to cut to the chase we all knew was coming.
>
> I'll agree to slow, but it simply was a result of all the bases that the
> writers wanted to cover.
Yeah, but what they wanted to cover was just each character getting the same
"Gee, that's familiar...but not right!" moment.
> Good points of the comic:
>
> - the splash page was way-cool. M/C could work on an Adventure-era Legion.
Agreed.
> - it's also nice to see Mon-El without waffles on his shoulders
Definitely agreed!
> - the bits that led to the new kids regaining their memories was a fun read
... It was alright. Too slow. :-)
> - Karate Kid's in his coolest costume ever! (I guess by the time frame and
> style it was a Cockrum design)
And a big amen! As far as who designed it...I think it was Grell actually.
I'm not sure. Anybody out there know for sure?
Chris M.
In article <199804160130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sdel...@aol.com (SDelMonte) wrote:
>
> In article <6h2vro$enh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
writes:
>
>
> DC was dying. DC was desperate, losing readers and money to all the
> independents as well as Marvel.
From what I have read, which may or may not be accurate, DC was not on the
verge of folding or anything so dramatic. They were losing more market to
Marvel than the higher-ups were comfortable with. Is there evidence to the
contrary?
Asided from that, it doesn't really logically follow. DC has lost money and
readers to Marvel and especially the indies and the pseudo-indies all through
the early 90's and is still kicking, and sales and number of readers have been
much lower through the mid-90's than they were at any point through the 80's.
So saying that DC *had* to do it because if they didn't they would've had to
fold doesn't seem to hold water.
>DC looked at Marvel, saw how the Marvel Universe worked,
Now this I have no doubts about at all. :-/
> saw how hopeless confused the multiple versions of the major characters had
> gotten.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Are you serious? The Multiple EArths were *NEVER* as
hopelessly confusing as the present state of DC continuity! One word:
Hawkman. 'Nuff said.
> It was impossible to tell a Superman story and know what did and
> didn't happen.
Stop it, man, you're killing me! Anyone with elementary reading skills could
read a pre-Crisis story and know that everything *did* happen, it was just a
matter of which Earth it happened on, a fact that was never, in any
Multiple-Earth story I *ever* saw, not made *perfectly* clear.
As oppossed to now when we really *don't* know from month to month what did
and didn't happen, and a month from now it could be different anyway!!
Was Batman a founding member of the Justice League? Was Red Tornado ever a
member, and if so when and with whom did he serve? When and why did Katar Hol
come to Earth and was he a member of the JLA while here? Is Aquaman really
half-human or not?
Is there any way that anyone could possibly know the answers to all of these
questions unless they read every DC title religiously or participated in an
online forum or read every FAQ out there ? Hell no.
> Thus, the decision was made to streamline things.
I doubt it. I imagine it went much more like this:
Suit #1: Our market share has dropped below 60% [or whatever] for the first
time in forty years!
Suit #2: That's unacceptable!
Suit #1: Why are we losing all this market share to Marvel? What do they do
that we don't? You there! Comic-creating editor worm! What does Marvel do
that we don't? Tell us or you're fired!
Editorial Staff Person: Uhh...well, they only have one Earth and we have lots
of different Earths?
Suit #2: What?! What the hell do we have more than one Earth for? Get rid
of those other Earths right now! Tell the kids we're just like Marvel now
only better because our characters are on TV, and we'll get our sales back!
Editorial Staff Person: Uh, great idea, sir! You're a genius!
Just a guess, but I'm imagining it was much more like that than some
idealistic, damn-those-confusing-multiple-Earths! crusade.
> Again, I won't debate your assessment of the results of Crisis - I miss the
> parallel worlds and potential of Earth-2 to be as intriguing as Earth-1.
> But
> DC had to do something.
I don't think they had to. Of course, what's done is done. Obviously it
still rankles, but it is what it is. What bothers me even more is what has
come to pass since Crisis. Crisis wouldn't've been that bad if they'd started
every title over from scratch at the same exact time and said "Make whatever
changes you want *right now!*. After this it's all set in stone again!" and
enforced that policy. The problem now is that hardly any creators seem to
take continuity seriously, and if they don't why will the readers? I think it
makes comic books way more confusing and seem way more immature than
pre-Crisis continuity. I don't care that Batman is now a really mean, really
unfriendly guy dressed all in black who fights Uzi-wielding drug dealers.
That doesn't make comics more real or respectable or whatever; however, the
fact that continuity doesn't matter from one month to the next *does* make the
whole industry seem like a kiddie-fare, throwaway medium where a writer can
just stamp his foot and say "No fair! I don't want Hawkman to be in the JLA
so he never was!!" and get his way.
> It was and is a business, and if it didn't do
> something, Warner Communications wouldn't have waited too long to sell it
> off
> along with Atari.
So what if they did? It doesn't necessarily follow that DC would've been
doomed if Warner had done that.
> And that something worked, like gangbusters.
Which is why comics have enjoyed such a booming renaisance, have gained public
credibility, and why every DC title now sells twice what it was selling in
'84? Oh wait, none of those things is true!
The only reason comics sold as well as they did through the early 90's is
because of collector-driven speculation, which I think most of us would agree
has, in the long run, hurt way more than it helped.
Atashi no namae wa Mecha-Elmo desu!
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> writes:
> Suit #2: What?! What the hell do we have more than one Earth for? Get rid
> of those other Earths right now! Tell the kids we're just like Marvel now
> only better because our characters are on TV, and we'll get our sales back!
>
> Editorial Staff Person: Uh, great idea, sir! You're a genius!
>
> Just a guess, but I'm imagining it was much more like that than some
> idealistic, damn-those-confusing-multiple-Earths! crusade.
I think you're probably wrong. Jenette Kahn and Dick Giordano and Paul
Levitz may be suits, but they're not as out of touch as you painted them.
And Paul certainly understood the multiple Earths (although I could
believe that Jenette and Dick didn't).
--
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
--Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Dale Hicks
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote in article <6h57pq$b7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
[on an Elseworlds version of the decision to launch Crisis]
> Suit #1: Why are we losing all this market share to Marvel? What do they do
> that we don't? You there! Comic-creating editor worm! What does Marvel do
> that we don't? Tell us or you're fired!
>
> Editorial Staff Person: Uhh...well, they only have one Earth and we have lots
> of different Earths?
>
> Suit #2: What?! What the hell do we have more than one Earth for? Get rid
> of those other Earths right now! Tell the kids we're just like Marvel now
> only better because our characters are on TV, and we'll get our sales back!
Wasn't Spidey and his Amazing Friends still airing? Or was this in the
gap between that show and the new Spiderman and X-men shows?
Also, wasn't there a gap between SuperFriends and BTAS? Was Crisis in it?
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who was gonna add the other-media ng, but discovered that he doesn't get it)
Alan Williams
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:23:39 -0600, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>In article <199804160130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> sdel...@aol.com (SDelMonte) wrote:
>> But will will debate your interpretation of Crisis. DC did Crisis because
>> DC was dying. DC was desperate, losing readers and money to all the
>> independents as well as Marvel.
>
>From what I have read, which may or may not be accurate, DC was not on the
>verge of folding or anything so dramatic. They were losing more market to
>Marvel than the higher-ups were comfortable with. Is there evidence to the
>contrary?
>
>Asided from that, it doesn't really logically follow. DC has lost money and
>readers to Marvel and especially the indies and the pseudo-indies all through
>the early 90's and is still kicking, and sales and number of readers have been
>much lower through the mid-90's than they were at any point through the 80's.
> So saying that DC *had* to do it because if they didn't they would've had to
>fold doesn't seem to hold water.
The obvious problem in this argument is that much of the evidence is
ex post facto. While we can debate how confusing the continuity
currently is until we're blue in our respective faces, it stands to
reason that DC's PTB at the time may have felt that their decision
*would*, in fact, streamline continuity and make DC comics more
accessible to new readers because of the fresh start.
While I certainly agree that continuity problems are generally worse
now than they were, from what I've been able to determine, the
problems we're seeing are the results of editorial mandates passed on
so long after the Crisis was over that they were really only serving
to confuse continuity.
And IMO, the Crisis actually succeeded admirably in streamlining the
DC Multiverse. The problem was that their success lasted so briefly
as to be basically nonexistent.
>>DC looked at Marvel, saw how the Marvel Universe worked,
>
>Now this I have no doubts about at all. :-/
>
>> saw how hopeless confused the multiple versions of the major characters had
>> gotten.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Are you serious? The Multiple EArths were *NEVER* as
>hopelessly confusing as the present state of DC continuity! One word:
>Hawkman. 'Nuff said.
See above about the ex post facto comparisons. Remember that
Hawkman's continuity didn't change until *years* after the Crisis, and
then solely (as I understand it) on the acclaim received for the
original Hawkworld mini-series.
>> It was impossible to tell a Superman story and know what did and
>> didn't happen.
>
>Stop it, man, you're killing me! Anyone with elementary reading skills could
>read a pre-Crisis story and know that everything *did* happen, it was just a
>matter of which Earth it happened on, a fact that was never, in any
>Multiple-Earth story I *ever* saw, not made *perfectly* clear.
>
>As oppossed to now when we really *don't* know from month to month what did
>and didn't happen, and a month from now it could be different anyway!!
And again, what you're commenting on is something that can only be
observed from over a decade of DC foul-ups. As I understood the
original post to which you've responded, the topic was an explanation
of why DC decided to go ahead with a Crisis in the first place, not
whether its end result actually matched the goals of the Crisis.
>I don't think they had to. Of course, what's done is done. Obviously it
>still rankles, but it is what it is. What bothers me even more is what has
>come to pass since Crisis. Crisis wouldn't've been that bad if they'd started
>every title over from scratch at the same exact time and said "Make whatever
>changes you want *right now!*. After this it's all set in stone again!" and
>enforced that policy. The problem now is that hardly any creators seem to
>take continuity seriously, and if they don't why will the readers? I think it
>makes comic books way more confusing and seem way more immature than
>pre-Crisis continuity. I don't care that Batman is now a really mean, really
>unfriendly guy dressed all in black who fights Uzi-wielding drug dealers.
>That doesn't make comics more real or respectable or whatever; however, the
>fact that continuity doesn't matter from one month to the next *does* make the
>whole industry seem like a kiddie-fare, throwaway medium where a writer can
>just stamp his foot and say "No fair! I don't want Hawkman to be in the JLA
>so he never was!!" and get his way.
From my perspective, what the Crisis did the most was disgruntle a lot
of old-time readers who were complacent with the way things were.
Depending on the book, and depending on how the continuity changes
have been handled for a character, I either agree or disagree with the
Rabid Old Traditionalists. I don't see this as an all-or-nothing,
I-want-my-Multiverse-back kind of situation. I think some horrific
things were done to a lot of the DC Universe, but I also think some
horrific things were done to DC characters *pre*-Crisis, too.
>> It was and is a business, and if it didn't do
>> something, Warner Communications wouldn't have waited too long to sell it
>> off
>> along with Atari.
>
>So what if they did? It doesn't necessarily follow that DC would've been
>doomed if Warner had done that.
Nor does it follow that DC would have been just fine. I'd say this
one's a moot point, because we really have no way of knowing.
>> And that something worked, like gangbusters.
>
>Which is why comics have enjoyed such a booming renaisance, have gained public
>credibility, and why every DC title now sells twice what it was selling in
>'84? Oh wait, none of those things is true!
To DC, the Crisis and its aftermath certainly *seemed* to work like
gangbusters at the time. Again, let's not confuse our extra time to
look back on things with how the picture would have been painted at
the time of the Crisis itself.
>The only reason comics sold as well as they did through the early 90's is
>because of collector-driven speculation, which I think most of us would agree
>has, in the long run, hurt way more than it helped.
Of course it's hurt. It's split the fan base among those who
read--and possibly even enjoy--what's being written to day, and those
who pop up on Usenet and rant about how bad things are. :-)
Seriously, though, I do think you're selling short some of the ideas
about what the Crisis was supposed to do (again, that's what I
understood the point of the post to be), based on the facts that have
occurred afterward. I don't think there's much dispute that the
comics have generally gone downhill since the Crisis; the major
discrepancy among fans, IMO, is where a comic book hasn't followed the
general trend of going creatively downhill.
--
Alan N. Williams | star...@gtii.com | guar...@yahoo.com
"Methinks sometimes I have no more wit than a Christian or an ordinary
man has; but I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm
to my wit." -- Sir Andrew Aguecheek, TWELFTH NIGHT I.iii.
Bruce Baugh
>And IMO, the Crisis actually succeeded admirably in streamlining the
>DC Multiverse. The problem was that their success lasted so briefly
>as to be basically nonexistent.
And that's a planning problem. They should have said something like
"We're going to rewerite our continuity from the ground up. We'll
start publishing Crisis in one year. Have your plans for revision on our
desks by then. While Crisis runs, we'll get started on the new
incarnations, so that they'll be ready to go the month Crisis finishes."
There should have been a lot of consulting going on long before Crisis
saw print to get this stuff worked out then. That things became a
confused muddle almost immediately is the almost inevitable consequence
of the approach DC took.
>I-want-my-Multiverse-back kind of situation. I think some horrific
>things were done to a lot of the DC Universe, but I also think some
>horrific things were done to DC characters *pre*-Crisis, too.
Of the post-Crisis changes I like, about the only one that I think
really required a reboot was Perez's Wonder Woman. Gorgeous, gorgeous
work.
A lot of the rest seems to me the sort of thing that could have been
handled simply by no longer ever referring to something in the past. If
it has no effect on the present, it effectively doesn't exist.
--
Bruce Baugh, bruce...@mindspring.com
Et in Tela Ego: http://brucebaugh.home.mindspring.com
New science fiction by S.M. Stirling, rolegaming, writers' tools
SDelMonte
In article <3537749d....@news.gtii.com>, guar...@nospam.yahoo.com (Alan
Williams) writes:
>>> And that something worked, like gangbusters.
>>
>>Which is why comics have enjoyed such a booming renaisance, have gained
>public
>>credibility, and why every DC title now sells twice what it was selling in
>>'84? Oh wait, none of those things is true!
>
>To DC, the Crisis and its aftermath certainly *seemed* to work like
>gangbusters at the time. Again, let's not confuse our extra time to
>look back on things with how the picture would have been painted at
>the time of the Crisis itself.
I meant the Crisis worked FINANCIALLY. Never mind the quality or lack thereof.
DC was competitive with Marvel for the first time in over a decade, and has
stayed so for a while. And while Marvel's dominance began again by the 90s,
DC's bottom line improved. This does not mean anything about its acutal
product. But as much as we hate to admit it, DC is part of a big Big Business
company.
Tom Galloway
In article <35351...@news.rmci.net>, Triaxm'l <art...@utah-inter.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I like the new Green Lantern. I actually like what they did to the
>character Hal Jordan. It really fit with what little I knew of him. The
>stories worked and didn't "retcon" anything out of existance. They made
>logical changes to a character becuase of what happened to him.
Sorry, but I can't take your opinion on this that seriously. What happened
with Hal did *not* fit with the character as established and developed
for over 30 years, and the changes were completely illogical and out
of left field. As you say, you knew little about him.
>Nobody is forcing you to read anything published these days. It's just sad
>that you have to have a lot of anger about something you don't *have* to
>read, and complain that your Legion doesn't exist.
There's a finer balance here than for most things. The Legion books
have pretty much always had a very strong, cohesive, fandom. Said
support has been attributed to the many comebacks the concept has had
over the decades. Doing things to lose that dedicated fandom (and I'm
not saying that I necessarily think this is happening) would be unwise.
tyg t...@netcom.com
EDuncan368
>As oppossed to now when we really *don't* know from month to month what did
>and didn't happen, and a month from now it could be different anyway!!
Tell me about it! I could live with the change of Superman to an energy
being, but when they introduced Superman Red, that was too much!
Evelyn Duncan
Evelyn Duncan
Greetings Professor Falken. Shall we play a game?
EDunc...@aol.com
eve...@sprynet.com
EDuncan368
>That doesn't make comics more real or respectable or whatever; however, the
>fact that continuity doesn't matter from one month to the next *does* make
>the
>whole industry seem like a kiddie-fare, throwaway medium where a writer can
>just stamp his foot and say "No fair! I don't want Hawkman to be in the JLA
>so he never was!!" and get his way.
Sounds exactly what John Byrne said about Magneto: as far as Byrne's
concerned, Magnus is a totally evil villain without one redeeming
characteristic.
He wants to throw the whole history that has been constructed over the past
20 years showing that Magnus is a tormented soul.
Jon Clark
>Maybe you should do one of two things;
>A> Enjoy the stories for what they are, or . . . .
>B> Quit reading stories that you don't enjoy.
>Nobody is forcing you to read anything published these days. >It's just sad
that you have to have a lot of anger about something >you don't *have read,
No, they don't have to read it- but the "anger" (if you want to use that term)
is aimed at the fact that there is nothing to read that they want to read-
namely a book starring the original Legion.
Personally, I like the current Legion and can take Kyle Rayner as GL, but given
a choice I'd drop these books in a heartbeat for modern stories of the Levitz
or Shooter-era Legion and Hal Jordan as Green Lantern.
I'm sure there are fans of the Giffen-era Justice league- that would rather
read that than the currently popular Grant Morrison JLA- and that is their
right.
Just because DC doesn't want to publish a book- doesn't mean people who like
the idea have to sit around quietly. We have the right to bitch as much as we
like here on Usenet about it. It may not change DC's position one bit- but at
least we know we aren't alone.
Chris M.
In article <01bd6964$4a386d60$28c5...@dhicks.always-online.com>,
"Dale Hicks" <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> wrote:
>
> Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote in article
<6h57pq$b7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> [on an Elseworlds version of the decision to launch Crisis]
See? You can't even discuss DC Comics without the Multiple Earths popping up!
> > Suit #2: What?! What the hell do we have more than one Earth for? Get
> > rid
> > of those other Earths right now! Tell the kids we're just like Marvel now
> > only better because our characters are on TV, and we'll get our sales
> > back!
>
> Wasn't Spidey and his Amazing Friends still airing? Or was this in the
> gap between that show and the new Spiderman and X-men shows?
Let's see...as I recall Spidey and his Amazing Friends was off the air by the
time Crisis rolled around, and the new Spidey and X-Men shows didn't start
until several years later, although I think there was a Hulk show rolling
around at that point.
Although if you're talking about pure visibility and perception of the
non-comic-buying-public (which is what I was thinking), DC had it all over
Marvel at that time. Pretty much everyone knew (and knows) who Superman,
Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Robin, Captain Marvel (although they'll call
him "Shazam"), and probably Flash were. The only Marvel characters with
comparable name recognition would be Spider-Man, Hulk, and Captain America.
> Also, wasn't there a gap between SuperFriends and BTAS? Was Crisis in it?
Oh yeah. Crisis came after both Super Friends and Super Powers. BTAS didn't
come along until after the first Batman movie. Actually, now that I think
about it, didn't BTAS start in like '92, about three years after the first
Batman movie?
Chris M.
In article <199804170246...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
edunc...@aol.com (EDuncan368) wrote:
>
> In article <6h57pq$b7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
> writes:
>
> >That doesn't make comics more real or respectable or whatever; however, the
> >fact that continuity doesn't matter from one month to the next *does* make
> >the
> >whole industry seem like a kiddie-fare, throwaway medium where a writer can
> >just stamp his foot and say "No fair! I don't want Hawkman to be in the
> >JLA
> >so he never was!!" and get his way.
>
> concerned, Magnus is a totally evil villain without one redeeming
> characteristic.
> He wants to throw the whole history that has been constructed over the past
> 20 years showing that Magnus is a tormented soul.
Exactly. The attitude has really swept over both DC and Marvel. If Byrne
wanted to do a series of stories in which he develops Magneto's character to
the point where Mags says "Screw this! I am old and bitter and I am totally
giving up on being nice! I will kick the world's ass *right now!*" I wouldn't
have a problem with that. I may not like it (and I wouldn't) but that at
least would be actual writing. But it seems like a lot of writers (and one
would assume, their editors) seem to feel that it's legit and, apparently,
better to just retcon out anything about a character you want to change. Just
change the character's established history and do whatever you want. Very
strange.
Chris M.
In article <3537749d....@news.gtii.com>,
guar...@nospam.yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The obvious problem in this argument is that much of the evidence is
> ex post facto. While we can debate how confusing the continuity
> currently is until we're blue in our respective faces, it stands to
> reason that DC's PTB at the time may have felt that their decision
> *would*, in fact, streamline continuity and make DC comics more
> accessible to new readers because of the fresh start.
I will agree that they obviously felt this would be the case.
> While I certainly agree that continuity problems are generally worse
> now than they were, from what I've been able to determine, the
> problems we're seeing are the results of editorial mandates passed on
> so long after the Crisis was over that they were really only serving
> to confuse continuity.
I'll agree with that also.
> And IMO, the Crisis actually succeeded admirably in streamlining the
> DC Multiverse. The problem was that their success lasted so briefly
> as to be basically nonexistent.
This is probably the only point that I would disagree on, and it's a minor
nit. I don't think it was ever successful, even for one month. I think it
created far more problems than it fixed and the only way it could've worked as
intended is if DC said as soon as Crisis was over, "Okay, from here on out no
more changes. Everything is set in stone as of *now*," and backed it up.
> See above about the ex post facto comparisons. Remember that
> Hawkman's continuity didn't change until *years* after the Crisis, and
> then solely (as I understand it) on the acclaim received for the
> original Hawkworld mini-series.
Actually I brought up Hawkman in response to Simon saying that DC pre-Crisis
was more confusing than DC *right now,* which I find genuinely laughable. So
regardless of how many years after Crisis Hawkman was messed up, the fact
remains that he is a perfect example of my assertion which is that DC
continuity is way more confusing now than pre-Crisis. As a side point I feel
that Crisis opened the flood gates for the continuity tinkering that has only
gotten worse with momentum over the years.
> As I understood the
> original post to which you've responded, the topic was an explanation
> of why DC decided to go ahead with a Crisis in the first place, not
> whether its end result actually matched the goals of the Crisis.
True, but Simon seemed to be saying that DC had to do and offered up as
evidence how DC continuity pre-Crisis was more confusing than now. Remember,
counselor, if the defendant brings up the issue of character as a defense I'm
allowed to challenge, so if Simon brings up the issue of which continuity is
more confusing as a defense of DC's decision, I'm allowed to challenge.
> From my perspective, what the Crisis did the most was disgruntle a lot
> of old-time readers who were complacent with the way things were.
Way to bust out the "Blame the Victim" card. Yeah, it was our fault for being
complacent. How foolish of us to have been spending all our money all those
years on DC's comics. You're right, we never should've done that.
> Depending on the book, and depending on how the continuity changes
> have been handled for a character, I either agree or disagree with the
> Rabid Old Traditionalists. I don't see this as an all-or-nothing,
> I-want-my-Multiverse-back kind of situation. I think some horrific
> things were done to a lot of the DC Universe, but I also think some
> horrific things were done to DC characters *pre*-Crisis, too.
I agree that not all pre-Crisis continuity was perfect either, of course, but
I'm not sure that I can actually think of a single post-Crisis continuity
change that I like. Which ones do you like?
> Nor does it follow that DC would have been just fine. I'd say this
> one's a moot point, because we really have no way of knowing.
Sure, there's no way to tell, which is my point. So there's no grounds to say
DC *had* to do it. But you're right, it is a moot point and one that I'm
perfectly willing to drop.
> To DC, the Crisis and its aftermath certainly *seemed* to work like
> gangbusters at the time. Again, let's not confuse our extra time to
> look back on things with how the picture would have been painted at
> the time of the Crisis itself.
Okay, Crisis happens in, what, '86? The speculator boom first gets rolling
after the first Batman movie in the '89/'90 neighborhood. My questions then
are: Did DC's market share increase immediately after Crisis, and if so by
how much? Did Crisis in fact work like gangbusters even for a little while,
or did things pretty much go on like they had until the post-Batman movie
comic hysteria?
> Of course it's hurt. It's split the fan base among those who
> read--and possibly even enjoy--what's being written to day, and those
> who pop up on Usenet and rant about how bad things are. :-)
:-) Har har.
> Seriously, though, I do think you're selling short some of the ideas
> about what the Crisis was supposed to do (again, that's what I
> understood the point of the post to be), based on the facts that have
> occurred afterward. I don't think there's much dispute that the
> comics have generally gone downhill since the Crisis; the major
> discrepancy among fans, IMO, is where a comic book hasn't followed the
> general trend of going creatively downhill.
I suppose I am selling Crisis' good intentions short, but that's because I
still don't see why it was necessary. Personally, if I were in DC's shoes,
instead of trying to be more like Marvel I would've asked myself, "Okay, what
do we do better than Marvel? What sets us apart? Now what does Marvel do
better than us that we can do too?" I don't think the answer would've been
Crisis.
In any case I do think the present state of DC continuity is a problem. If it
weren't then why would it keep coming up over and over again? If the
post-[Zero Hour/Emerald Twilight/whatever] characters are so good on their
own, why do the pre-[fill-in-the-blank] characters keep popping back up?
I don't think there's a magic wand that can be waved to make everything that
happened after Crisis void, but I still think the situation could be improved.
A strong editorial mandate that no more past continuity can be contradicted
without express approval (such approval being incredibly hard to come by)
would be a good start.
Chris M.
In article <199804162245...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sdel...@aol.com (SDelMonte) wrote:
>
> In article <3537749d....@news.gtii.com>, guar...@nospam.yahoo.com
> Williams) writes:
>
> >To DC, the Crisis and its aftermath certainly *seemed* to work like
> >gangbusters at the time. Again, let's not confuse our extra time to
> >look back on things with how the picture would have been painted at
> >the time of the Crisis itself.
>
> thereof.
I understood that, but what I am saying is:
* Is there real evidence that Crisis immediately boosted DC's market share, or
did sales not really surge until the Batman movie-related hysteria?
* How much of the current state of DC's market can be attributed to Crisis?
How much of the speculator craze was the result of DC's numerous new #1's,
revamped characters, and so forth?
* You can only separate quality and sales so much. What I'm saying is that
current sales are no surprise as that quality has slid downhill considerably.
I think a major component of quality, when you're talking
shared-universe-super-hero comics, is continuity, which I think is obviously
much worse now than pre-Zero Hour, pre-Legends, pre-Crisis.
> DC was competitive with Marvel for the first time in over a decade, and has
> stayed so for a while. And while Marvel's dominance began again by the 90s,
> DC's bottom line improved.
My questions to this would be:
* What does "competitive" mean in this context? Are you talking absolute
sales or are you talking market share?
* Using whatever definition you are using for competitive, how many years,
since 1980, has DC been competitive, and how many have they not been
competitive?
* When did DC's bottom line improve and by how much? How long did that last?
> This does not mean anything about its acutal
> product. But as much as we hate to admit it, DC is part of a big Big
> Business company.
I don't have any problem with that at all. In fact, I'm challenging DC's past
and present editorial decisions *as* business decisions. I'll put it this
way, if DC were soley a company that made comic books, forget about all the
licensing for a moment, would you invest in them? Aside from the '90 to '93
speculation craze I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't right now. Nothing
they're doing is going to spur the kind of growth they need to make any
investment profitable. All they're doing is stringing together a series of
"events," crossovers, and special editions to get by.
Bruce Baugh
>> From my perspective, what the Crisis did the most was disgruntle a lot
>> of old-time readers who were complacent with the way things were.
>
>Way to bust out the "Blame the Victim" card. Yeah, it was our fault for being
>complacent. How foolish of us to have been spending all our money all those
>years on DC's comics. You're right, we never should've done that.
And think what we were being complacent about: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS
and "Batman: Year One"; Alan Moore on SWAMP THING; Levitz in fine form
on LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES; and so on. I personally wasn't wild about
Wolfman/Perez TEEN TITANS, but I have friends who were. Lotta good stuff
coming out in the years immediately before Crisis.
guar...@yahoo.com
[snips]
> > As I understood the
> > original post to which you've responded, the topic was an explanation
> > of why DC decided to go ahead with a Crisis in the first place, not
> > whether its end result actually matched the goals of the Crisis.
>
> True, but Simon seemed to be saying that DC had to do and offered up as
> evidence how DC continuity pre-Crisis was more confusing than now.
Remember,
> counselor, if the defendant brings up the issue of character as a defense
I'm
> allowed to challenge, so if Simon brings up the issue of which continuity
is
> more confusing as a defense of DC's decision, I'm allowed to challenge.
Simon said that pre-Crisis continuity was confusing, and that part of the
idea of Crisis was to address that confusion. I can't find any statement
from him that compared continuity before and after the Crisis. Care to quote
it for me?
Remember, counselor, you have to have some evidence.
> > From my perspective, what the Crisis did the most was disgruntle a lot
> > of old-time readers who were complacent with the way things were.
>
> Way to bust out the "Blame the Victim" card. Yeah, it was our fault for
being
> complacent. How foolish of us to have been spending all our money all
those
> years on DC's comics. You're right, we never should've done that.
Ah, the classic Maka "smack." Never mind that it has no bearing on what I
wrote. I said the Crisis disgruntled old-time--a better term would be
"long-time," I admit--readers who were "complacent." Let's break out the
dictionary, shall we? Best dictionary definition I can find for
"complacence" is either "calm or secure satisfaction with oneself or one's
lot" or "unconcerned." My intention was the former. Neither has particular
connotations of blame, so I'd love to hear where you got that part from.
Since apparently you need a restatement, here it is: The main thing the
Crisis did was upset long-time readers who were happy with the way things
were. Note that there's no value judgment implicit in that statement,
although you're free to reinterpret my writing and disclaim authorial intent
all you want. (You'll just be wrong.)
Besides, why would I insult myself? I happen to have been one of those
long-time readers, and by the time Man of Steel came out, I was so ticked off
that DC was totally discarding continuity that I wrote to Dick Giordano. I
got a reply that said that the company was going through a transition that
was intended to attract new readers. I don't have the letter with me, but if
you're really curious about what he wrote, let me know.
In other words, I formed my perspective based on both internal and external
evidence.
> > Depending on the book, and depending on how the continuity changes
> > have been handled for a character, I either agree or disagree with the
> > Rabid Old Traditionalists. I don't see this as an all-or-nothing,
> > I-want-my-Multiverse-back kind of situation. I think some horrific
> > things were done to a lot of the DC Universe, but I also think some
> > horrific things were done to DC characters *pre*-Crisis, too.
>
> I agree that not all pre-Crisis continuity was perfect either, of course,
but
> I'm not sure that I can actually think of a single post-Crisis continuity
> change that I like. Which ones do you like?
The first thing that comes to mind is Perez's take on Wonder Woman, before
Loebs and then Byrne got their hands on it. Then there's the Golden Age
Sandman, and the the Black Canary I/II continuity. There are undoubtedly
others, but I think those illustrate my point.
[more snips]
> > To DC, the Crisis and its aftermath certainly *seemed* to work like
> > gangbusters at the time. Again, let's not confuse our extra time to
> > look back on things with how the picture would have been painted at
> > the time of the Crisis itself.
>
> Okay, Crisis happens in, what, '86? The speculator boom first gets rolling
> after the first Batman movie in the '89/'90 neighborhood. My questions
then
> are: Did DC's market share increase immediately after Crisis, and if so by
> how much? Did Crisis in fact work like gangbusters even for a little
while,
> or did things pretty much go on like they had until the post-Batman movie
> comic hysteria?
Interesting questions. I hope someone's got some answers.
> > Of course it's hurt. It's split the fan base among those who
> > read--and possibly even enjoy--what's being written to day, and those
> > who pop up on Usenet and rant about how bad things are. :-)
>
> :-) Har har.
No comment.
> > Seriously, though, I do think you're selling short some of the ideas
> > about what the Crisis was supposed to do (again, that's what I
> > understood the point of the post to be), based on the facts that have
> > occurred afterward. I don't think there's much dispute that the
> > comics have generally gone downhill since the Crisis; the major
> > discrepancy among fans, IMO, is where a comic book hasn't followed the
> > general trend of going creatively downhill.
>
> I suppose I am selling Crisis' good intentions short, but that's because I
> still don't see why it was necessary. Personally, if I were in DC's shoes,
> instead of trying to be more like Marvel I would've asked myself, "Okay,
what
> do we do better than Marvel? What sets us apart? Now what does Marvel do
> better than us that we can do too?" I don't think the answer would've been
> Crisis.
Wasn't the independent market doing pretty well in the 1980s? I mostly
follow DC, and when I was younger I had a bit of tunnel-vision about other
comics companies, but it seems to me that DC wasn't just out to emulate
Marvel, but also to stave off what were perceived as up-and-coming wolves in
the fold. What TPTB might have seen, if my understanding of the 1980s comics
industry is accurate, is that readers were flocking droves to a bunch of new
comics lines, with simpler characters and either less complicated inter-book
continuity, or more often, virutally no inter-book continuity at all. That
may be the model that DC was trying to follow.
I've always wondered, too, if what motivated the Crisis wasn't *really*
problems with Superman's and Batman's continuity, and all the stuff that had
piled up over nearly fifty years for each character. Even with Earth-2
versions to separate out some of the continuity build-up, so many parallels
existed between the two characters that some people may have had trouble
keeping up with it all, and good writers may have felt somewhat daunted by
the mess. I'm trying to remember any pre-Crisis Superman and/or Batman
stories that stick out in my mind (and are in continuity), and nothing's
really coming to mind. The World's Finest were basically just kinda there,
although the BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS series started up and was picking up
some steam. So maybe somebody at DC got the idea that the only way to trim
the characters back down to their essences was to effect a rebirth. Thing
is, like we all know by now, it generally didn't work, and caused *more*
hassles than it was worth.
> In any case I do think the present state of DC continuity is a problem. If
it
> weren't then why would it keep coming up over and over again? If the
> post-[Zero Hour/Emerald Twilight/whatever] characters are so good on their
> own, why do the pre-[fill-in-the-blank] characters keep popping back up?
You might ask the same question of the JSA; if the Silver Age characters were
so good, why did DC ever bring the JSA back? There will *always* be fans of
the earlier versions of characters, and in comics like LEGIONNAIRES #61,
those characters will appear somehow. (And yes, I know you didn't like it,
Chris, but despite your vitriol I really don't think their presence was meant
as a personal insult directed at you, just to show you characters that
wouldn't be around but that you, in particular, wanted around.)
> I don't think there's a magic wand that can be waved to make everything
that
> happened after Crisis void, but I still think the situation could be
improved.
> A strong editorial mandate that no more past continuity can be
contradicted
> without express approval (such approval being incredibly hard to come by)
> would be a good start.
Oh, definitely. But given the current contradictions in past continuity,
shouldn't there also be a mandate about which continuity is the one to use in
the first place?
Jason Fliegel
In article <6h7n7v$r8b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>
>Let's see...as I recall Spidey and his Amazing Friends was off the air by the
>time Crisis rolled around, and the new Spidey and X-Men shows didn't start
>until several years later, although I think there was a Hulk show rolling
>around at that point.
Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends was on the air from 1984 until 1986.
Prior to that, there had been a few years of The Amzaing Spider-Man & The
Incredible Hulk/The Incredible Hulk & The Amazing Spider-Man Hour.
Source: http://www.pazsaz.com/spider3.html
>Oh yeah. Crisis came after both Super Friends and Super Powers.
Super Friends had a variety of incarnations, but the last one didn't go
off the air until after the 1985-1986 season.
Sources: http://www.pazsaz.com/superfr6.html;
http://us.imdb.com/Title?%22Super+Friends+Team%3A+Galactic+Guardians%22+(1985)
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Old Toby
SDelMonte wrote:
>
> In article <6h2vro$enh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> writes:
>
> > DC threw Crisis on Infinite Earths at us because, allegedly, some
> >group of suits (or fans, or focus group baboons) somewhere thought it was too
> >confusing or whatever. But of course since then we've seen a barrage of
> >alternate reality / alternate timeline stories (not to mention the whole
> >"Elseworlds" franchise). Clearly alternate earths was never the problem.
>
> But...
>
> was dying. DC was desperate, losing readers and money to all the independents
> saw how hopeless confused the multiple versions of the major characters had
> didn't happen. Thus, the decision was made to streamline things.
So they decided to have a big event which the characters might
remember, might not remember, and might remember as something
different from what we saw happen. After this big event some
things that happened before it hadn't happened, some had happened,
and some happened differently. Furthermore, the entire history of
the universe was rewritten from scratch. That makes everything so
much more simple...
While I won't dispute your assesment of DC's health at the time
(more out of ignorence than agreement), I would dispute the idea
that the Crisis was done to make things simpler. I have always
thought that "things were getting to complex" was just an excuse
for the Crisis: the real reason was that DC had become too burdened
by a past filled with cheezy, gimmic villains and trite storylines.
Comics were undergoing a paradigm shift in the 1980's, and, as is
often the case in paradigm shifts, they came to regard what had come
before as intrinsically bad, and wanted to sweep it under the rug.
Much as Modern architects regarded Victorian architecture as being
filled with extranious orniment and inept imitation of past
styles; much as Postmodern architects regarded Modern architecture as
being soulless and lacking in context; Comics fans in the '80s
came to look at the Silver Age as embodying all that was wrong
with comic books, and wished to sweep away the remnents of the
age when comics were "just kid stuff".
But Comic books are not like architecture. The stories of the
Silver Age were not merely the follies of a prior generation,
but also the legends of the new generation's youth, the stories
that first drew them to comics. Thus DC was unable to make a
clean break, but ended with a muddled mixture of past and
present.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
> Again, I won't debate your assessment of the results of Crisis - I miss the
> parallel worlds and potential of Earth-2 to be as intriguing as Earth-1. But
> DC had to do something. It was and is a business, and if it didn't do
> something, Warner Communications wouldn't have waited too long to sell it off
> along with Atari. And that something worked, like gangbusters.
Jonathan L. Miller
In article <6h81fm$r80m...@news.mindspring.com>,
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
> And think what we were being complacent about: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS
> and "Batman: Year One"; Alan Moore on SWAMP THING; Levitz in fine form
> on LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES; and so on. I personally wasn't wild about
> Wolfman/Perez TEEN TITANS, but I have friends who were. Lotta good stuff
> coming out in the years immediately before Crisis.
>
Although I agree with your point (mostly), I just need to point out that
Batman: Year one came out *after* Crisis, not before.
jonathan.
Bruce Baugh
>Although I agree with your point (mostly), I just need to point out that
>Batman: Year one came out *after* Crisis, not before.
It did? Are you sure? If so, then I make mental emendation to suit.
Dale Hicks
Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article <ErKJ5...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends was on the air from 1984 until 1986.
> Super Friends had a variety of incarnations, but the last one didn't go
> off the air until after the 1985-1986 season.
Thanks, Jason. For new readers, this was in response to Chris' claims
that Crisis was in a period where DC had characters on TV, and Marvel
did not. I speculated that it was in a down time for both companies.
Crisis was (c) 1984 with a cover date of Apr. 85, so it was in a period
where both companies had TV shows. However, if SM&HAF debuted in 1984,
then Chris might have been right, as the pitch had to be early 1984
at least.
What a mountain I made :)
ObLSH: As a kid, I had a comic. I think it was a tabloid. I think it
was a Superman tabloid. In it, Superman had a prophecy that he would be
saved by someone with the initials LL. He considered the possibilities,
Lana, Lois, Lori, Lightning Lad. I forget who saved him, but it was a
definite appearance of L-Lad. Can someone please narrow this vague
concept down? And for bonus points, tell me what comic was reprinted
(if it was indeed a reprint)
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who could look through the Legion outpost's list, but would like to
have someone save him some reading (odds are someone here is
familiar with the book))
Dale Hicks
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@mindspring.com> wrote in article <6h8j15$b40m...@news.mindspring.com>...
> In article <jlmillerNOSPAM-ya023...@news.oz.net>, jlmille...@oz.net
(Jonathan L. Miller) wrote:
>
> >Although I agree with your point (mostly), I just need to point out that
> >Batman: Year one came out *after* Crisis, not before.
>
> It did? Are you sure? If so, then I make mental emendation to suit.
Yes. Crisis started in early 85. Superman and WW got their origins
revamped, and Batman, not going to be outdone by those newbies, got
Miller to spruce him up in 88 (at least, that's the (c) on the TPB).
It was just part of the attempts, along with Secret Origins, to tell
us what we were supposed to know after the Crisis.
Can anyone explain what was so wrong about having Superman, Batman
and Wonder Woman found the JLA? Okay, Byrne and Perez want to tell
a story. I think they told some pretty good ones. But it wouldn't
have hurt to have them happen 10 years ago, and therefore be able
to found the League. Maybe I didn't read enough, I dunno.
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
Dale Hicks
guar...@yahoo.com wrote in article <6h88do$lji$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> There will *always* be fans of
> the earlier versions of characters, and in comics like LEGIONNAIRES #61,
> those characters will appear somehow. (And yes, I know you didn't like it,
> Chris, but despite your vitriol I really don't think their presence was meant
> as a personal insult directed at you, just to show you characters that
> wouldn't be around but that you, in particular, wanted around.)
No, and I don't think that Rellby over in RACDCU meant anything toward
any of the fat readers of that newsgroup specifically when he launched
his "lard-ass" posts. And, like the L* writers, maybe he meant no
real offense with it. Yet many still took great exception to the posts.
People don't have to be enemies to be hurt by something, something that
the injuring party may not be aware of. C'mon, we've all been in
relationships.
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who might have hurt a few readers with that last line. It happens)
Dale Hicks
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote in article <6h7vfg$8en$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <3537749d....@news.gtii.com>,
> guar...@nospam.yahoo.com wrote:
> > See above about the ex post facto comparisons. Remember that
> > Hawkman's continuity didn't change until *years* after the Crisis, and
> > then solely (as I understand it) on the acclaim received for the
> > original Hawkworld mini-series.
>
> Actually I brought up Hawkman in response to Simon saying that DC pre-Crisis
> was more confusing than DC *right now,* which I find genuinely laughable. So
> regardless of how many years after Crisis Hawkman was messed up, the fact
> remains that he is a perfect example of my assertion which is that DC
> continuity is way more confusing now than pre-Crisis. As a side point I feel
> that Crisis opened the flood gates for the continuity tinkering that has only
> gotten worse with momentum over the years.
This is the odd point upon which people have used as a reason for Crisis:
the streamlining effect. While it did merge all of the Supermen into
one, it had an accompanying deletorious effect. Maybe no on considered it
at the time, but it caused the exact problems, only worse, that it was
supposed to heal.
Everyone said that Pre-Crisis had more baggage, you couldn't tell what had
happened and what didn't. True. Myself, I think I fall on Pat's side of
the argument, that continuity shouldn't stop you from telling fun stories.
I liked the Super-sons that Haney presented us with in World's Finest. I
also liked the Superman explaination for his disguise (super-hypnotism).
Even though these had little chance of being canon, they were still fun
reads.
However, Crisis purged all of these odd issues away. Good? Consider the
cost: you were now stuck in a universe in media res. Where before, one
could say a story didn't happen because of its apparent illogic, now you
had stories that may have happened before, depending on the whim of the
writer. Even worse, there may have been stories that happened that weren't
in any book. Now in addition to deleted scenes, you have to deal with
inserted ones.
This "joined in progress" approach worked for a while, but the problem with
having no solid framework eventually lead to what we now know. To me, the
only real problem I have is having an idea that something happened to a
character, but having to qualify that as "unless he was changed by a retcon."
Since this aspect has little to do with the Legion, since they started
from scratch, I'll cross over to DCU.
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who knows there will be little dissent there, but just wants to throw
out a specific point: Crisis allowed the universe to be wrecked by
insertions)
Triaxm'l
Jon Clark wrote in message
<snip>
>No, they don't have to read it- but the "anger" (if you want to use that
term)
>is aimed at the fact that there is nothing to read that they want to read-
>namely a book starring the original Legion.
>
>Personally, I like the current Legion and can take Kyle Rayner as GL, but
given
>a choice I'd drop these books in a heartbeat for modern stories of the
Levitz
>or Shooter-era Legion and Hal Jordan as Green Lantern.
>
>I'm sure there are fans of the Giffen-era Justice league- that would rather
>read that than the currently popular Grant Morrison JLA- and that is their
>right.
>
>Just because DC doesn't want to publish a book- doesn't mean people who
like
>the idea have to sit around quietly. We have the right to bitch as much as
we
>like here on Usenet about it. It may not change DC's position one bit-
but at
>least we know we aren't alone.
My problem is the anger and vehemence that comes across from these people as
they post. They aren't swaying me to their position, or helping with the
current comics that are out there.
I'd even say they are judging comics (unfairly) that they used to just read
and enjoy.
I don't mind somebody saying "Oh, this is different this time around!", but
people getting upset about some of the difference *in a comic that I'm
enjoying* does start to get me upset. Instead of just enjoying it. Or at
least trying to enjoy it.
We are supposed to do this for enjoyment, right?
Triaxm'l
Tom Galloway wrote in message ...
>In article <35351...@news.rmci.net>, Triaxm'l <art...@utah-inter.net>
wrote:
>>Sorry, I like the new Green Lantern. I actually like what they did to the
>>character Hal Jordan. It really fit with what little I knew of him. The
>>stories worked and didn't "retcon" anything out of existance. They made
>>logical changes to a character becuase of what happened to him.
>
>Sorry, but I can't take your opinion on this that seriously. What happened
>with Hal did *not* fit with the character as established and developed
>for over 30 years, and the changes were completely illogical and out
>of left field. As you say, you knew little about him.
I know little compared to fans who collect GL exclusively or primarily. I've
read quite a bit though. Nothing I saw was that imperfect of a way Hal or
any human would have done, in a moment of greif.
He screwed up, and then got himself caught in a series of events because of
*his* actions.
>>Nobody is forcing you to read anything published these days. It's just sad
>>that you have to have a lot of anger about something you don't *have* to
>>read, and complain that your Legion doesn't exist.
>
>There's a finer balance here than for most things. The Legion books
>have pretty much always had a very strong, cohesive, fandom. Said
>support has been attributed to the many comebacks the concept has had
>over the decades. Doing things to lose that dedicated fandom (and I'm
>not saying that I necessarily think this is happening) would be unwise.
>
No, it's more of the attitude towards the creative writers, and the books in
general. Maybe I'm strange, but I didn't mind Rhodey taking over for Tony in
Iron Man,.
David Goldfarb
Dale Hicks <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> wrote:
)ObLSH: As a kid, I had a comic. I think it was a tabloid. I think it
)was a Superman tabloid. In it, Superman had a prophecy that he would be
)saved by someone with the initials LL. He considered the possibilities,
)Lana, Lois, Lori, Lightning Lad. I forget who saved him, but it was a
)definite appearance of L-Lad. Can someone please narrow this vague
)concept down? And for bonus points, tell me what comic was reprinted
)(if it was indeed a reprint)
I had that same tabloid. It was indeed a Superman tabloid.
There was a big Superman celebration for his birthday or the anniversary
of his arrival on Earth or some such. Lightning Lad did appear, part of
a delegation from the Legion. The machine that made the prophecy was a
gift; and then Bizarro showed up with a Bizarro gift -- a chunk of Green K.
Superman was left lying helplessly as various circumstances came close
to saving him but failed.
In the end a kid chasing a baseball came upon him, and closed
the lead box containg the Kryptonite. (Why Superman couldn't have just
crawled over to the box and shut it himself was never made clear. Or
why he couldn't just have crawled away out of range...) Superman asked
the kid his name, figuring it would have the initials "L.L."
"Steven Snapinn," was the reply. D'oh!
Then Superman noticed the kid's baseball uniform. He was a
Little Leaguer!
I don't know whether the story was a reprint or if so what comic
it came from.
David Goldfarb <*>| "Oh, death from on high. Neat."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
aste...@slip.net | -- Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Gamera"
Alan Williams
I know the story was reprinted, because back when my older brother was
in his A-R "get everything the Legion even had a cameo in" mode many
years ago, he had the actual issue it appeared in. Unfortunately, I
don't remember the issue number, or whether it was in SUPERMAN or
ACTION COMICS.
And, alas, my brother apparently sold off most of his collection,
maybe all of it aside from his copy of ADVENTURE COMICS #247.
On 18 Apr 1998 08:05:09 GMT, gold...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David
Goldfarb) wrote:
--
Mr Reaus
Jon Clark wrote:
>
> >Maybe you should do one of two things;
> >A> Enjoy the stories for what they are, or . . . .
> >B> Quit reading stories that you don't enjoy.
> No, they don't have to read it- but the "anger" (if you want to use that term)
> is aimed at the fact that there is nothing to read that they want to read-
> namely a book starring the original Legion.
>
> Personally, I like the current Legion and can take Kyle Rayner as GL, but given
> a choice I'd drop these books in a heartbeat for modern stories of the Levitz
> or Shooter-era Legion and Hal Jordan as Green Lantern.
Legion, no one has ever heard me say that I don't like the current
incarnation. I love the work that the Tom's, Stern and Moy have put out
and are putting out! It's just that I grew up reading about Princess
Projectra, Timberwolf, Sun Boy, etc... and I miss them. Just because
some of you didn't read anything Legion related prior to the reboot,
doesn't mean that we Old Timers don't have the right to miss much
beloved characters.
Anyone who can't realize that has my pity! Because they missed some
missed some great adventures.
If you analyze the 2 versions, (postboot and "most" of preboot) the two
Legions aren't really that different. Sure they've changed a couple of
characters around.(ie. Sneckie), took license with a couple of
adventures and tinkered with the origin, but the basic premise is
exactly the same. A bunch of superpowered youngsters... set far in the
future... an optimistic (for the most part) outlook on what the human
race can and will accomplish.
I think if you get down to it, that is at the root of many of the
complaints that the old timers have, (at least for me) since the two
versions are so similar, I have trouble accepting change simply for
change's sake! Give me one good reason for Projectra to be retconned
into Jecka the snake? Other than so that the writers could put their own
stamp onto the book, there is none. If you want a snake, create a new
character and make him or her a snake. Gates I like, he is new, he is
fresh, he has a great power, he is non-humanoid and he didn't screw up
any existing character. What would your reaction have been if instead
of "Gates", he was named "Tirok" (Tyroc). There would be resentment
towards him wouldn't there? Mine would be different, and I'm sure many
Gate's fans would too. Plus the notion that a black character had been
retconned into oblivion.
Take Inferno for instance. I love the character, and I wouldn't complain
one bit if she were in the Legion over Sun Boy. Why? Because Dirk is
still there! He just isn't in the Legion. If Inferno were named Dirkia
Morgna (you get my point!) and were a woman, I wouldn't feel the same
way. Sun Boy had 30 or more years of history, and deserves not to be
retconned into a female, or a giant sentient meal worm for that matter.
So get off of our backs about missing the original Legion. We grew up
with them, we knew them, we knew how they would react in certain
situations and we miss them.
And anyone who can't except that just doesn't get it!
--
Tim
aka Bl...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/MrReaus/index4.html <<- my Legion Page
----------====================
There is nothing left for you here, Monster....
... except to shrivel up.. surrender your energies...
and were it not for the Legion Code I would stay by you yet longer...
...and take your life!
Blok - LSH#284
Non Elmos Mentos
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> writes:
> I agree that not all pre-Crisis continuity was perfect either, of course, but
> I'm not sure that I can actually think of a single post-Crisis continuity
> change that I like. Which ones do you like?
It's a bit of a stretch, but Captain Atom. Sure, he didn't have a
pre-Crisis at DC, but his post-Crisis version kicked butt.
In the Legion, about the only post-Crisis change I like is Laurel Gand.
Admittedly, I'd be *using* the character instead of sticking her in a
nunnery, but then I think the Legion's roster of powerful members is
an asset, not a writing problem. I'm wacky that way.
--
Elmo's Rule of rac* posting: "Any sufficiently vague invocation of Niven's
`Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex' is to be considered an occurence of
Godwin's Law."
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Ranma Al'Thor
Chris M. (cm...@io.com) wrote:
: I agree that not all pre-Crisis continuity was perfect either, of course, but
: I'm not sure that I can actually think of a single post-Crisis continuity
: change that I like. Which ones do you like?
Most of the Superman changes, except for what's happened to Supergirl.
Blue Beetle in the Justice League.
The various other Charlton characters showing up in various books I've
enjoyed.
Post-Crisis Shazam appearances (I love Ordway's book)
The Wonder Woman Revamp
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Usagi, with your dex and bad rolling, getting out of BED is a
dramatic skill resolution."--Naru, Sailor Moon Z #9.
Brahma: the Creator.
Vishnu: the Preserver.
Mentos: the Freshmaker.
SDelMonte
I log off for the last two days of Passover and I find I've started a
flamebatlle. My apologies to those who disagree.
But I wish to return to the question of whether Crisis and what followed helped
DC's business. I remember the month in Summer 1987 when JLI was the most
popular comic in America for about two months, and when DC's market share
passed Marvel's share for the firs time in ages. OK, JLI didn't need Crisis to
make it work. But this was a team that had a lot of strength in its
personality clashes and connections. And one of those involved a Charlton
character who would have never been available without Crisis. Or so I see it.
I can't disagree completely with the criticism aimed at DC. Of late, I wonder
if DC messing up the life stories of all its heroes is a good idea after all,
especially when I can pick up Captain America and know what he did for the past
sixty years with clarity. But I thought then and I think now that the Crisis
was not a bad thing in and of itself.
The bigger question, of course, is whether DC could have revitalized LSH in the
face of the Crisis and its company-wide changes without all of what it tried in
the past 13 years.
Bruce Baugh
>The bigger question, of course, is whether DC could have revitalized LSH in the
>face of the Crisis and its company-wide changes without all of what it tried in
>the past 13 years.
Hard to say. There are a number of possibilities, though.
1. If new versions of the characters seem desirable, pop open Earth-0
and set them there. Build this up much the way Crisis should have been
built up, with deliberate company-wide planning for at least a year to
have new versions ready to debut in one fell swoop. Tell a crossover
story that reveals the new world and makes cross-dimension travel a lot
harder, so's to cut down on crossovers. Then relegate Earth-1 and
Earth-2 to a handful of titles aimed at nostalgic sods like me.
2. Things like Miller Batman and Grell Green Arrow don't require
continuity adjustments, merely editorial decree: the following elements
will never be mentioned under this regime.
Don Brinker's Healthier Evil Twin
On 16 Apr 1998 22:45:37 GMT, sdel...@aol.com (SDelMonte) wrote:
>I meant the Crisis worked FINANCIALLY. Never mind the quality or lack thereof.
> DC was competitive with Marvel for the first time in over a decade, and has
>stayed so for a while. And while Marvel's dominance began again by the 90s,
>DC's bottom line improved. This does not mean anything about its acutal
>product. But as much as we hate to admit it, DC is part of a big Big Business
>company.
>
Actually, it's arguable that Crisis wasn't particularly relevant to a
lot of DC's increases. Creatively, the mid 80's were when DC started
to really take chances (Moore's Swamp Thing, Dark Knight Returns,
Watchmen, Levitz' Legion, etc.) That level of quality was bound to
pay off in increased sales. And very little of it was dependent on a
single universe.
- Don
Dan McEwen
>
>Jon Clark wrote in message
><snip>
>>No, they don't have to read it- but the "anger" (if you want to use that
>term)
>>is aimed at the fact that there is nothing to read that they want to read-
>>namely a book starring the original Legion.
>>
>>Personally, I like the current Legion and can take Kyle Rayner as GL, but
>given
>>a choice I'd drop these books in a heartbeat for modern stories of the
>Levitz
>>or Shooter-era Legion and Hal Jordan as Green Lantern.
>>
>>I'm sure there are fans of the Giffen-era Justice league- that would rather
>>read that than the currently popular Grant Morrison JLA- and that is their
>>right.
>>
>>Just because DC doesn't want to publish a book- doesn't mean people who
>like
>>the idea have to sit around quietly. We have the right to bitch as much as
>we
>>like here on Usenet about it. It may not change DC's position one bit-
>but at
>>least we know we aren't alone.
>
>
>My problem is the anger and vehemence that comes across from these people as
>they post. They aren't swaying me to their position, or helping with the
>current comics that are out there.
>
>I'd even say they are judging comics (unfairly) that they used to just read
>and enjoy.
>
>I don't mind somebody saying "Oh, this is different this time around!", but
>people getting upset about some of the difference *in a comic that I'm
>enjoying* does start to get me upset. Instead of just enjoying it. Or at
>least trying to enjoy it.
>
>We are supposed to do this for enjoyment, right?
>
Unfortunately, not every has the same tastes. That being so, not
everyone is enjoying it. Or are you suggesting that people should
forget what they want out of a comic and enjoy it even though they
don't like it? Yes, many of us compare it to preboot. Why shouldn't
we? If some of us *enjoyed* preboot and don't enjoy postboot (or not
as much) why not say it?
Rob Bieber
Chris M. wrote:
> Look! It's the original, pre-boot, pre TMK Legion! So why ain't I happy
> about it?
> .
> .
> .Away we go...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
Interesting thoughts, and I for one couldn't agree more. Which is why I don't
buy the legion anymore....period.
The question I've been asking myself in regards to this matter is WHY? Why would
they do this? Why would they bring back the old legion for a quick look-see?
The powers that be HAD to know that bringing any form of the "good" legion into
the fold would stir up a hornet's nest, so to speak. They are well aware, I'm
sure, of the feelings of so many fans...and to risk stirring up the feelings of
those that perhaps finally layed their feelings to rest after 4 years.....why?
A few possibilities come to me...and I'm sure many more will come to others:
1) to do just that- stir up a hornets nest. Is this simply a case of the old adage
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Had
interest in the legion within the fanbase and media quieted so much that this was
simply a way to stimulate talk again?
2) Were they just being nice and allowing the old die-hard fans one final glimpse
from the past?
3) Are they considering bringing the old legion back and are using this as a "test
ground" to see what kind of response they would get? Think about this for a
minute...
They are probably on the cusp now of being in (relatively) the same situation in
regards to established history as they were when they re-booted. That is, that
one of the primary reasons for re-booting was that the large and extensive history
prevented new readers from reading. 4 or 5 years into it (with 2 books a month so
10 years worth of pre-boot time) they are probably entering a similar situation.
Clearly, the time to grab the new readers is quickly wanning...have they
succeeded? Is the readership higher than it was (not counting the TMK period...we
all now what happened to sales then)? In other words...are they in a better
position with the re-boot than they were pre-boot?
From a business perspective, and I'm sorry but business matters rule on these
issues a lot...I wonder if the powers that be are feeding us bait to see how we
react to it?
Just a few thoughts I had.
SDelMonte
In article <6hbsbd$oi0h...@news.mindspring.com>, bruce...@mindspring.com
(Bruce Baugh) writes:
>1. If new versions of the characters seem desirable, pop open Earth-0
>and set them there. Build this up much the way Crisis should have been
>built up, with deliberate company-wide planning for at least a year to
>have new versions ready to debut in one fell swoop. Tell a crossover
>story that reveals the new world and makes cross-dimension travel a lot
>harder, so's to cut down on crossovers. Then relegate Earth-1 and
>Earth-2 to a handful of titles aimed at nostalgic sods like me.
I would daresay that this what DC did unofficially. The post-Crisis Earth is
not any of the pre-existing worlds, with a totally different Superman and
Wonder Woman, a vast number of altered heroes, and perhaps two heroes whose
lives were what we saw before 1985 (Hal and Barry). I think that many readers
were angry about not just the end of multiple worlds but also of the characters
they grew up with.
>
>2. Things like Miller Batman and Grell Green Arrow don't require
>continuity adjustments, merely editorial decree: the following elements
>will never be mentioned under this regime.
I always saw the Miller Batman as being posslbe because all bets were off.
Thus Miller could rewrite huge chunks of the origin story, change almost every
detail of Jim Gordon's life, and leave some readers (well, leave me if no one
else) totally uncertain as to what stories from even the early 80s were part of
Batman's life. Furthermore, Miller's changes were not to my liking, and opened
to the door to an unending series of major alterations (such as Jason Tood
becoming an urchin and a creep). As much as LSH was forced to change by
Editorial Decree, I recognized all the characters. I can't say that for the
Batman corner of the DCU.
SDelMonte
In article <35395635...@news.clark.net>, dbrinker@don't.spam.me.pobox.com
(Don Brinker's Healthier Evil Twin) writes:
>
>Actually, it's arguable that Crisis wasn't particularly relevant to a
>lot of DC's increases. Creatively, the mid 80's were when DC started
>to really take chances (Moore's Swamp Thing, Dark Knight Returns,
>Watchmen, Levitz' Legion, etc.) That level of quality was bound to
>pay off in increased sales. And very little of it was dependent on a
>single universe.
But Crisis was, in many ways, the biggest risk. DC could have very well
crashed down totally if Crisis was a flop. If the other (if admitted superior)
projects failed, they would have simply been failures, but Crisis was the
basket for all the eggs.
Beyond which, quality and sales are diametrically opposed much of the time
these days. That any of the major projects of the mid-80s were financial
successes at all speaks to the uniqueness of a time when not only were the
comics good but when the readers were smart enough to buy them.
SDelMonte
In article <35399BD1...@earthling.net>, Rob Bieber
<phantas...@earthling.net> writes:
>From a business perspective, and I'm sorry but business matters rule on these
>issues a lot...I wonder if the powers that be are feeding us bait to see how
>we
>react to it?
>
>
Nah. It's nostalgia, pure and simple. As I've said, we're drowning in
nostalgia of late.
William H. Stoddard
In article <6h57pq$b7u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>
> Asided from that, it doesn't really logically follow. DC has lost money and
> readers to Marvel and especially the indies and the pseudo-indies all through
> the early 90's and is still kicking, and sales and number of readers have been
> much lower through the mid-90's than they were at any point through the 80's.
> So saying that DC *had* to do it because if they didn't they would've had to
> fold doesn't seem to hold water.
>
Actually, the sales statistics I've seen indicated that the single biggest
shift in sales took place when Image was founded--and it was Marvel, not
DC, that lost market share to Image in a big way. Which isn't to say that
hasn't been a smaller long-term trend in the direction you describe, I
suppose....
Bill Stoddard
--
William H. Stoddard whs...@primenet.net
You'll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
Or engaged in doing complicated long division sums.
(T. S. Eliot, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats")
Brad Fox
On 17 Apr 1998 06:28:53 GMT, jonc...@aol.com (Jon Clark) wrote:
>I'm sure there are fans of the Giffen-era Justice league- that would rather
>read that than the currently popular Grant Morrison JLA- and that is their
>right.
Ohh man... don't you go trashing Giffen Era JL... or Giffen Era
Heckler... or Giffen Era Legi... well okay you can trash that... or
the nine panel grid... or the philosophy of "when in doubt, INK"... or
next thing you know, you'll be waking up next to a... uh... a..
hmm...
big pile of Ambush Bug annuals?
-Brad
Then again, I liked "Mosaic", so what do I know?
Brad Fox
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:59:27 -0600, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>In article <01bd6964$4a386d60$28c5...@dhicks.always-online.com>,
> "Dale Hicks" <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> wrote:
>Oh yeah. Crisis came after both Super Friends and Super Powers. BTAS didn't
>come along until after the first Batman movie. Actually, now that I think
>about it, didn't BTAS start in like '92, about three years after the first
>Batman movie?
I'll try and verify this, but I'm pretty sure that Mask of the
Phantasm was released after the second season of BTAS, and B:MOTP had
a theatrical release of '93 (it's sitting on the shelf above me), that
would make TAS '91.
One of the better US animations to come out in a loooong time.
-Brad
Jonathan L. Miller
[3 possibilities deleted]
You forgot the most probable, simple explanation...no machievelian "we want
to screw with your minds" motive...it's simple:
4. Sales. Put the nostalgic characters back in the book, even for a moment,
and there's a good chance the old fans will pick it up. See Green Lantern
100-106 for another example.
jonathan.
Richard Whitten
>
>>From a business perspective, and I'm sorry but business matters rule on
these
>>issues a lot...I wonder if the powers that be are feeding us bait to see
how
>>we
>>react to it?
>>
>>
>
>Nah. It's nostalgia, pure and simple. As I've said, we're drowning in
>nostalgia of late.
>
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be...
--
Rich Whitten
rhwh...@minotafb.ndak.net
Michael Klordny Grabois
Sigh. When will people remember that there's the Legion Reprint Checklist
at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/1300/lshrepr.htm
A bit of searching will reveal that this was from "Superman" 156, reprinted
in "Limited Collector's Edition" C-52 (Best of DC).
On 18 Apr 1998 08:05:09 GMT, gold...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb)
wrote:
>Dale Hicks <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> wrote:
>)ObLSH: As a kid, I had a comic. I think it was a tabloid. I think it
>)was a Superman tabloid. In it, Superman had a prophecy that he would be
>)saved by someone with the initials LL. He considered the possibilities,
>)Lana, Lois, Lori, Lightning Lad. I forget who saved him, but it was a
>)definite appearance of L-Lad. Can someone please narrow this vague
>)concept down? And for bonus points, tell me what comic was reprinted
>)(if it was indeed a reprint)
>
> I had that same tabloid. It was indeed a Superman tabloid.
>There was a big Superman celebration for his birthday or the anniversary
>of his arrival on Earth or some such. Lightning Lad did appear, part of
>a delegation from the Legion. The machine that made the prophecy was a
>gift; and then Bizarro showed up with a Bizarro gift -- a chunk of Green K.
>Superman was left lying helplessly as various circumstances came close
>to saving him but failed.
--
Michael R. Grabois | http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/7200
Houston, TX | $pac...@wt.net (change $ to "s")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do me a favor, Lightning Lad... shut up and dance!" (S/LSH 232)
Sidne G. Ward
or...@ix.netcom.com (Michael "Klordny" Grabois) writes:
>Sigh. When will people remember that there's the Legion Reprint Checklist
>at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/1300/lshrepr.htm
>A bit of searching will reveal that this was from "Superman" 156, reprinted
>in "Limited Collector's Edition" C-52 (Best of DC).
What information on the Legion Reprint Checklist would lead someone to
believe these were the issues discussed?
I know that you and I (and many other r.a.c.d.l.ers) know that a DC
tabloid with reprint stories is likely titled "Limited Collectors
Edition", but not everyone would know that. And there's nothing on the
reprint checklist with a synopsis of the story to confirm that Superman
#156 and Limited Collectors Edition C-52 contain the discussed story.
The Legion checklists are wonderful resources, but they really can't be
used to determine where a story appeared except by those who already have
extensive knowledge of the issues.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com
Join fellow LSH fans and other r.a.c.ers in Las Vegas from June 11-14!
For details see: http://www.primenet.com/sward/saturngirl/lsh/lsg2.htm
Jacob T. Levy
SDelMonte wrote:
>OK, JLI didn't need Crisis to
> make it work. But this was a team that had a lot of strength in its
> personality clashes and connections. And one of those involved a Charlton
> character who would have never been available without Crisis. Or so I see it.
More than that. As Ali T. Kokmen is fond of pointing out, the JL
featured characters from Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-4, the
Fourth World, and the Crisis-created Dr. Light. That incarnation of
the League certainly did require the Crisis, and-- along with certain
work by Waid and Ostrander-- remains one of the best uses of the
unity of the post-Crisis universe.
Jacob T. Levy
The Phantom Stranger:
http://www.princeton.edu/~jtlevy/stranger.html
Dale Hicks
Thanks for the defense, Sidne. I've got a couple more points as well.
First of all, this was in a ObLSH, which can easily be ignored. I was
trying to squelch a thread that had wandered into other-media territory.
And apparently trying to make more mountains.
Second, and Mike might not have seen this as it was clipped from Don's
reply. I included this disclaimer: "Cappy Brain (who could look through
the Legion outpost's list, but would like to have someone save him
some reading (odds are someone here is familiar with the book))
We see that Don was.
Sidne G. Ward <sw...@primenet.com> wrote in article <6hga4l$k...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
> or...@ix.netcom.com (Michael "Klordny" Grabois) writes:
>
> >Sigh. When will people remember that there's the Legion Reprint Checklist
> >at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/1300/lshrepr.htm
>
> >A bit of searching will reveal that this was from "Superman" 156, reprinted
> >in "Limited Collector's Edition" C-52 (Best of DC).
>
> What information on the Legion Reprint Checklist would lead someone to
> believe these were the issues discussed?
>
> I know that you and I (and many other r.a.c.d.l.ers) know that a DC
> tabloid with reprint stories is likely titled "Limited Collectors
> Edition", but not everyone would know that. And there's nothing on the
> reprint checklist with a synopsis of the story to confirm that Superman
> #156 and Limited Collectors Edition C-52 contain the discussed story.
And thirdly, it seems that this might not be the correct answer. After
the pointer, I checked the Legion Outpost II summary (which Mike knows
can be found at http://members.aol.com/outpost2/outpost2.htm :), and
in it, it talks about Superman getting sick from Kryptonite that was
stuck in Jimmy's camera. Not at all the story that Don and I remember.
<sigh> I guess I'll sit back and start reading the summaries.
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who's not picking a fight, but just so annoyed at being presumed
to be an annoyance :)
Dale Hicks
Triaxm'l <art...@utah-inter.net> wrote in article <35376...@news.rmci.net>...
> My problem is the anger and vehemence that comes across from these people as
> they post. They aren't swaying me to their position, or helping with the
> current comics that are out there.
Well, since me & Chris seemed to be "these people" I'll respond for
myself. His post, the bit I truly agreed with, was the fact that
there's nothing really preventing the guys from telling stories with
characters we liked before the dark ages. Period. It really sucks,
as we percieved them as breaking something that didn't need fixing.
> I'd even say they are judging comics (unfairly) that they used to just read
> and enjoy.
Very true. But for the most part, there was a long stretch where the
enjoyment was in very short supply. And as long as gLORIth's around,
then I can't support the book 100%, as I hate her. I don't read comics
to be annoyed.
> I don't mind somebody saying "Oh, this is different this time around!", but
> people getting upset about some of the difference *in a comic that I'm
> enjoying* does start to get me upset. Instead of just enjoying it. Or at
> least trying to enjoy it.
I don't mind the differences, so I'll skip this.
> We are supposed to do this for enjoyment, right?
Yeah, I guess, although it seems to be more of a job now. Maybe I should
drop it, since I haven't loved it since the Emerald Vi storyline. I just
keep hoping the guys will pull the act together, and put out something I
really enjoy (Chu sting was excellent).
Two good bits are the promises that the book's going to try for single-
issue stories and that the new artist will soon be replaced. I just
don't think I should give up soon (but I will if the dark circle bit
lasts many more issues, I guess).
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
Chris M.
In article <35376...@news.rmci.net>,
"Triaxm'l" <art...@utah-inter.net> wrote:
>
> My problem is the anger and vehemence that comes across from these people as
> they post.
Why is being angry and vehement about something you care about a problem?
> They aren't swaying me to their position,
I can't speak for others, but I don't post intending to sway anyone to my
position anymore than you posted your message thinking that I or other ROTs
would repent as a result thereof. I post to express myself. The only thing I
try to do is present logically valid arguments, otherwise I'm pretty much
venting. If anyone thinks twice as a result of something I've posted, that's
great.
> or helping with the
> current comics that are out there.
I have to have this explained to me. "helping with the current comics..."
what are you talking about? The only way I can help the current comic books
is if DC hires me tomorrow to take over as editor of the Legion books and
gives me carte blanche.
> I'd even say they are judging comics (unfairly) that they used to just read
> and enjoy.
Is this the "take it and like it argument" rearing its ugly head? I don't
think so. And why "unfair"? What's unfair about how I judge comics, and
what's fair about how you judge them? Or are you dropping the "negative
judgement is unfair judgment" card?
I also take strong exception to the "just read and enjoy" line. I didn't wake
up one day and discover I had developed the ability to critically think.
> I don't mind somebody saying "Oh, this is different this time around!", but
> people getting upset about some of the difference *in a comic that I'm
> enjoying* does start to get me upset. Instead of just enjoying it. Or at
> least trying to enjoy it.
Ahhhhhh! Now we're getting to the heart of it, aren't we? You don't mind if
I say "this is different this time around," but you do mind if I say "this is
*bad* this time around." But what it if it is bad? What if I present you
with rock-solid, logical reasons why, in fact, an issue is critically bad?
What then?
I think what you're really about is the "comic that I'm ejoying" line. How
dare anyone disagree with you, is that it? It's wrong for me to get upset
with how a comic I used to love is still pretty lame, but it's okay for you to
get upset that I'm upset with the comic? Does that make any sense at all?
> We are supposed to do this for enjoyment, right?
Not if the book is so bad it is impossible for the reader to enjoy. You seem
to be confused about a couple things. My job is not to enjoy whatever DC
decides to print and call the Legion. DC's job, on the other hand, *is* to
produce the best Legion books possible, something I and others feel they are
failing to do. See, they don't pay me, I pay them. Big difference.
--Chris M.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Dale Hicks
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote in article <6hoiol$ri8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I also take strong exception to the "just read and enjoy" line. I didn't wake
> up one day and discover I had developed the ability to critically think.
You can say that again!
But I'd add the word "just" in there. As in, "I didn't just wake up ..." :)
--
Cappy Brain dhi...@always-online.com
(who has determined he's a lot less Rabid than Chris)
Alan Williams
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:27:18 -0600, Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>But what it if it is bad? What if I present you
>with rock-solid, logical reasons why, in fact, an issue is critically bad?
>What then?
The thing about the "an issue is critically bad" argument is that
there's often someone out there who enjoyed the issue despite what
someone else sees as critical flaws. I, for example, quite enjoyed
LSH #105 despite what I felt were some critical points. And as we've
seen in other media, there's often a disagreement among critics about
a particular work, no matter how analytical each one of those critics
may be.
I too am occasionally dismayed at the vehemence some people display
when they don't like an issue, but it's no less valid a reaction than
someone who heaps high praise on the book.
Dale Hicks
Dale Hicks <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> wrote in article
<01bd6e4f$3aa36360$3fc5...@dhicks.always-online.com>...
> > or...@ix.netcom.com (Michael "Klordny" Grabois) writes:
> >
> > >Sigh. When will people remember that there's the Legion Reprint Checklist
> > >at http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/1300/lshrepr.htm
> >
> > >A bit of searching will reveal that this was from "Superman" 156, reprinted
> > >in "Limited Collector's Edition" C-52 (Best of DC).
>
> And thirdly, it seems that this might not be the correct answer. After
> the pointer, I checked the Legion Outpost II summary (which Mike knows
> can be found at http://members.aol.com/outpost2/outpost2.htm :), and
> in it, it talks about Superman getting sick from Kryptonite that was
> stuck in Jimmy's camera. Not at all the story that Don and I remember.
Okay, I've checked the Outpost, and according to it, the story in question
is the third story of Superman 157. I have no way of verifying the info,
but apparently an error has crept into either the plot summaries or the
reprint checklist.
--
Roman Numeral One dhi...@always-online.com
Sidne G. Ward
"Dale Hicks" <dhi...@always-online.comXXX> writes:
I've pulled my issues (instead of just looking at checklists) and the
story where Superman is threatened by Kryptonite given to him by Bizarro
and is saved by a Little Leaguer and includes a Lightning Lad cameo was
originally printed in Superman 157. Limited Collectors' Edition C-38
contains the reprint of this story.
Sorry for the earlier confusion.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com
Join fellow LSH fans and other r.a.c.ers in Las Vegas from June 11-14!
For details see: http://www.primenet.com/~sward/saturngirl/lsh/lsg2.htm
Michael Klordny Grabois
On 25 Apr 1998 20:55:20 -0700, sw...@primenet.com (Sidne G. Ward) wrote:
>
>I've pulled my issues (instead of just looking at checklists) and the
>story where Superman is threatened by Kryptonite given to him by Bizarro
>and is saved by a Little Leaguer and includes a Lightning Lad cameo was
>originally printed in Superman 157. Limited Collectors' Edition C-38
>contains the reprint of this story.
>
>Sorry for the earlier confusion.
OK, I'll cop the blame for this one... I didn't know that there was a
Legion cameo in LCE C-38. I assumed (yes, I know what that means) that the
Superman story appeared in the only tabloid that I knew of, other than the
two LSH ones. The checklist will be updated ASAPly.
Now, rumor has it that there's some sort of LSH presence in LCE C-31 (a
Superman issue) and C-34 (a Christmas one). Can anyone confirm?