TWILIGHT: DC's Missed Opportunity?
Robert L. Faires
full of striking, sometimes disturbing images (I find that mutated,
insectoid Dollman to be particularly haunting) and much to ponder in the
way we look at superheroes and storytelling and marketing, too. I guess
it's that last area that I haven't seen discussed yet, and I had an idea
about it I thought might be worth sharing.
I find it curious that DC did not do more to develop this proposal given
their experience with THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Here was a series that took
their two biggest guns, Batman and Superman, and put them in a story set
in the future in which they were not always - how shall I say? - portrayed
in the most flattering light. (I guess that's what you say when one
character repeatedly pounds people into Malt-o-Meal and another is said to
have burned off a friend's arm.) Despite the controversial nature of the
characterizations, or perhaps because of them, the series was a hit. It
certainly raised DC's profile, in terms of the kinds of complex, intense,
"adult" stories it would do, even with its flagship heroes.
So here comes TWILIGHT not long after, offering DC the opportunity to echo
the experience of TDKR. It gives them another tale set in the future,
older heroes grappling with age and complicated, "realistic" issues, with
loads of character shadings that, if nothing else, would get the public
looking at these heroes in different ways than they have before, but
might, as Moore points out again and again in his eloquent intro, spark a
new boom in interest in these characters' monthlyd books and give DC new
merchandising opportunities for miles.
What I wonder is why the positive aspects of the proposal didn't outweigh
the negative. Granted, the sexual tilt of the tale makes it much more
controversial than DARK KNIGHT, but isn't that something DC could have
softened to their satisfaction during the development of the series? It
might seem impossible given the revelation on which the climax turns - the
murder of a certain alter ego by another hero disguised as a prostitute -
but I can't imagine a writer as talented as Moore not being able to rework
the story into a form with just as much impact but a little less... oh, I
don't know... subversive, maybe. This is the guy who wrote "Whatever
Happened to the Man of Tomorrow," a tale which wove one of the most
complex, beautifully shaded tales of Superman and his cast of characters
ever without crossing into that "For Mature Readers Only" zone.
So was it a question of artistic prerogative, that Moore would not have
wanted to make the kinds of changes I'm suggesting, and that killed the
proposal? Or am I wrong in assuming that DC understood the potential of
TWILIGHT as the second punch of a one-two knockout led off by DARK KNIGHT?
Or does the answer lie in some murky area in between, in something I'm not
taking into account? Any ideas?
Robert Faires
Austin, Texas
Tom Owens
|> I find it curious that DC did not do more to develop this proposal given
|> their experience with THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Here was a series that took
|> their two biggest guns, Batman and Superman, and put them in a story set
|> in the future in which they were not always - how shall I say? - portrayed
|> in the most flattering light. (I guess that's what you say when one
|> character repeatedly pounds people into Malt-o-Meal and another is said to
|> have burned off a friend's arm.) Despite the controversial nature of the
|> characterizations, or perhaps because of them, the series was a hit. It
|> certainly raised DC's profile, in terms of the kinds of complex, intense,
|> "adult" stories it would do, even with its flagship heroes.
I think readers consider the heroes "characters" and the companies consider
them "properties." A book could sell extremely well and yet reduce the
long-term value of the property.
A good example is the Morrison TPB set in Arkham Asylum. One rumor said that
this book was delayed because DC's parent company did not want anything on
the market which might have a negative effect on the first Batman movie. In
addition, there was some concern that the Joker's cross-dressing fetish would
reflect badly on Jack Nicholson. (I hasten to add that I have no idea if these
rumors are true; this is just being used as an example). Reducing the pre-teen
audience of the movie would have been devestating to WB, regardless of how well
the book sold. In addition, if parents can't be certain if the Batman comic
will contain what they consider offensive materials, they are likely to push
their children away from Batman Adventures as much as trade paperbacks.
It's all very well for us not to care what happens to the characters as
properties; we don't have to submit annual reports. Does anyone know how
DC tries to balance these concerns? It seems they've become much more aggressive
lately.
--
Tom Owens
MIT Library Systems Office
ow...@mit.edu
617-253-1618 voice 617-253-8894 fax
Robert L. Faires
(Tom Owens) wrote:
> I think readers consider the heroes "characters" and the companies consider
> them "properties." A book could sell extremely well and yet reduce the
> long-term value of the property.
>
> properties; we don't have to submit annual reports.
Your point is well taken, but I'm having trouble seeing the consistency in
either DC's or Time/Warner's actions. The ulra-violence in THE DARK KNIGHT
RETURNS doesn't reflect badly on the Batman property but the psychological
noodling in ARKHAM ASYLUM does? Showing a character to be a cross-dresser
in the comics might reflect badly on an actor who plays the same character
- who is, let us not forget, a psychopathic murderer - in the movie? It
looks like the old "violence is acceptable/sex is heinous" routine in
some regards, but I still find the logic too twisted to follow. In any
event, it still seems the TWILIGHT storyline could have been revised to
allow for concerns for the long-term value of the property. And it seems
to me that part of Moore's argument in the preface to the proposal is that
by defining the endpoint of the "myth" for these heroic characters, DC
would really be *enhancing* their long-term value, deepening our
emotional/social/spiritual/mythological/fill-in-your-own-Joseph
Campbellesque- buzzword connection with them. Anyway, I'm not trying to
get you to defend DC's actions, and I actually like the points you raise,
especially in your closing question.
> Does anyone know how DC tries to balance these concerns? It seems they've
> become much more aggressive lately.
Robert Faires
Austin, Texas
-Peter McDermott
I'm not able to follow the group as often as I once did. Workin'
hard, don't ya' know. Could someone please e-mail the storyline behind
this TWILIGHT proposal of Moore's? I'd appreciate it. Thanks much!
Peter T. McDermott
P.S. Or post it to this group. I'll try to watch for it. Darn work!
Why can't they just direct deposit my checks while I read comics
and play with my action figures? Sheesh, what a world!
Tom Owens
|> either DC's or Time/Warner's actions. The ulra-violence in THE DARK KNIGHT
|> RETURNS doesn't reflect badly on the Batman property but the psychological
|> noodling in ARKHAM ASYLUM does? Showing a character to be a cross-dresser
|> in the comics might reflect badly on an actor who plays the same character
|> - who is, let us not forget, a psychopathic murderer - in the movie? It
|> looks like the old "violence is acceptable/sex is heinous" routine in
|> some regards, but I still find the logic too twisted to follow. In any
Assuming the story (that AA was delayed because someone feared it might hint
that Nicholson was a cross-dresser) is true, I think it is reasonable to suppose
that Nicholson is not a mass-murderer but could possibly be a cross-dresser.
I think what we see here is multiple-levles of property protection. DC has to
protect "Batman" Warners has to protect "Batman: The Movie" and agents have to
protect "Jack Nicholson." Somewhere in the spiral, someone will almost always
become unreasonable. This may also explain DC's lack of consistency. Corporate
inconsistency is, of course, not the sort of unheard-of phenomenon that requires
deep explanation.
thanks,
Lawrence King
|> I'm not able to follow the group as often as I once did. Workin'
|> hard, don't ya' know. Could someone please e-mail the storyline behind
|> this TWILIGHT proposal of Moore's? I'd appreciate it. Thanks much!
|>
|> P.S. Or post it to this group. I'll try to watch for it. Darn work!
|> Why can't they just direct deposit my checks while I read comics
|> and play with my action figures? Sheesh, what a world!
You can find it at http://www.digimark.net/wraith/ on the web. Posting
it here would be messy, since it's so long.
By the way, many people (including myself) suspect it's a forgery or
at least an embellishment. It seems conclusive that Moore wanted to write
some story called "Twilight" in the late 1980's, and many people on this
group have presented persuasive evidence that this is his proposal,
but the arguments against that are pretty compelling, too.
,-*~'`^`~*-,._.,-*~'`^`~*-,._.,-*~'`^`~*-,._.,-*~'`^`~*-,._.,-*~'`^'~*-,.
lk...@math.washington.edu ((
)) rael imperial aerosol kid
(( steps into daylight, spraygun hid
department of mathematics )) and the lamb lies down on broadway
university of washington ((
-,._.,-*'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._,-*~'`^`'~*-,_.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._,-*~'`^`
Don Brinker
: Peter McDermott (pe...@pegasus.bl-els.att.com) writes:
: |> I'm not able to follow the group as often as I once did. Workin'
: |> hard, don't ya' know. Could someone please e-mail the storyline behind
: |> this TWILIGHT proposal of Moore's? I'd appreciate it. Thanks much!
: |>
: |> P.S. Or post it to this group. I'll try to watch for it. Darn work!
: |> Why can't they just direct deposit my checks while I read comics
: |> and play with my action figures? Sheesh, what a world!
: You can find it at http://www.digimark.net/wraith/ on the web. Posting
: it here would be messy, since it's so long.
Alternatively, for us Webless Folk, you can find it via anonymous FTP at
digimark.net. Look for wraith/Comics/twilight.txt
- Don
Joev Dubach
lk...@math.washington.edu (Lawrence King) writes:
> By the way, many people (including myself) suspect it's a forgery or
> at least an embellishment. It seems conclusive that Moore wanted to
> write some story called "Twilight" in the late 1980's, and many
> people on this group have presented persuasive evidence that this is
> his proposal, but the arguments against that are pretty compelling,
> too.
I haven't heard one even mildly compelling argument that it isn't his
proposal. Just some feeble "That isn't as good as something Moore
would write" and "There are some spelling errors" arguments. There
have been several comics pros who have been quoted as saying it's
authentic, and none who've said it isn't.
Joev <URL:"http://www.math.harvard.edu/~joev/">
"Go ahead and doubt me, Abhijit. But I am real big and strong and have
a knowledge of martial arts and modern warfare tactics. Ireland
consisted of fairly small tribes back then. Taking over a small area
wouldn't be that much of a chore."
-- Michael Chary
Exentrik
ons...@auschron.com (Robert L. Faires) writes:
>Your point is well taken, but I'm having trouble seeing the consistency
in
>either DC's or Time/Warner's actions. The ulra-violence in THE DARK
KNIGHT
>RETURNS doesn't reflect badly on the Batman property but the
psychological
>noodling in ARKHAM ASYLUM does?
Although I don't think you can discount the
"sex-is-bad-but-violence-is-OK" aspect, another reason Warners might have
watched ARKHAM more carefully is its timing. When TDKR was released, the
culture at large wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to Batman. In
fact, it can and has been argued that TDKR is to some extent responsible
for bring Batman to the screen--without it we might still be left with the
TV show (which I love dearly, by the way).
At the time of ARKHAM ASYLUM's release, Batman was a much more obviously
marketable property. Everybody at Warners knew or at least suspected the
potential profitability the property had (and, as someone has since
pointed out, it goes without saying that they regarded Batman as a
property and not a character). Without the high profile of the movie,
it's quite possible Morrison would have encountered fewer roadblocks.