What if Marvel took over DC in 1984

[johnmiic]

^^^^Okay, you are right, but the crux of my argument centered on Wolfman Perez on Titans as DC's ONE single best seller against the Marvel machine...For the sake of this conversation, it does matter that they were not blockbuster hits...

Are you back-pedalling or something? Yes, TT it was a lone best-seller against Marvel, for a time, but does it really mean it was because they did it the "Marvel way"? I also got you to admit I was right about something, LOL! I savor the admission because I know you don't do it often. TT was doing something similar to Firestorm, written by Jerry Conway, in the Spider-Man vein: a lonely super hero, (not a team), with teen angst. Conway put a twist on it-one that fit better with the DC Universe and was a rejection of the Marvel way. You think DC cared it wasn't a block-buster? They kept publishing it because if it comes down to sales, as you keep saying, it was still making money. Firestorm had originally been published when the DC implosion occurred. Conway got a second chance and ran with it.

All the initiatives you cite were swept aside in favor of having Wolfman and Perez do their reboot and then setting up Byrne and Miller... Bringing their Marvel game onto superman and batman.

You sweep them aside in this debate but DC did not cancel them because Wolfman & Perez were coming in with this epic Crisis storyline to change the DC Universe, (if that is what your meaning is-because what you're typing reads that way). Yes, Omega Men, was eventually cancelled due to poor sales but it lasted 38 issues. It started Pre-Crisis, (1983) and ended post Crisis, (1986), and I wouldn't call a 3 year run a failure.

I think your perception of "reboot" is colored by today's industry. We are disagreeing on what Crisis was, why it was done and what was it supposed to accomplish. Crisis was not a "reboot", I think, in the true sense of the word. Crisis was seen as a way to streamline the DC universe and to clear away the cobwebs of continuity. It was intended to do away with barriers that prevented good stories from being told and integrate as many characters as possible into continuity. Any obstacle which would prevent the writers from doing a good job, the complicated explanations, was to be removed. Previously writers had to keep track of which Earth they were on and they simply couldn't deal with the road-blocks. I don't see that as a reboot. Reboots are done today because writers run out of ideas, have little talent but big reputations and #1 issues sell better. DC decided, rather than just fix it, wouldn't it be a great way to tell an epic story? Think of it more like a Corporate Merger between numerous incompatible continuities.

Wolfman and Perez were the best team to do it, probably, but I don't think they were steering the DC ship. They provided an out, cut the red tape and continued on. Then they went back to TT and faded away. They didn't seem to have input on the numerous titles in the post-Crisis DC Universe. I don't see it as a reboot. The clock was set back a bit and Byrne took advantage of this on Superman but he often retold the FF's origin when he worked on that book too. That's not reboot; that's Byrne trying to re-tell the origin every issue, LOL! Superman remained the same tho some updates occured. Kryptonian's costumes were modernized. They didn't look like Buster Crabbe as Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers circa the 1930's. When Kryptonians spoke in a hologram they had an alien language that had to be translated. The rocket that carried Supes to Earth was a compact starship now. That's the sort of sophistication people appreciated in modern comics.

I don't see any of your arguments having any bearing on DC's post crisis sales...Even your example of Dark Knight Returns backs this up... Poaching Miller from Marvel with the promises of Ronin.

I don't see your arguments having real bearing on DC's post-Crisis sales either in regards to Dark Knight Returns. DKR is not a reboot nor does it connect to Crisis. Its sales do not owe anything to Crisis. It's a separate story that Miller would have told anyway. I think Year One has been considered an untold tale by the public at large. It appeared in the regular title; #405 to #407-not as a separate book. The numbering didn't re-set for it to be published. No one even refers to it as a reboot. It don't think it directly connect to Crisis either.

I think it unlikely Byrne & Miller were part of a "reboot" plan by Wolfman & Perez or DC. I don't think Crisis was set up to woo them over or set the stage for them. DC got lucky. Miller bolted from Marvel when Marvel couldn't clear a spot for Ronnin in the Epic line. DC couldn't have counted on this. They made him an offer. It was fortuitous that he accepted.

Byrne defected to DC because of Jim Shooter. Byrne was doing phenomenally well on FF and Shooter thumbed him in the eye repeatedly. Byrne went to The Incredible HULK, probably stewing over Shooter being an a-holl when Dick Giordiano asked Byrne if he would like to take a shot at Superman. Perhaps Giordiano even knew Byrne was disgruntled over his mistreatment by Shooter. That made it easier to get Byrne but still Byrne was such a Marvel man at the time they couldn't have depended on him crossing over. Then DC thumbed Byrne in the eye and he left DC too. I would guess his leaving Superman had an extremely negative effect on the post-Crisis Superman sales.

I love the old guard as much as anyone, but DC stalwarts like Swan, Infantino, et al weren't quite cutting it and DC's influx of talent on the top tier came from Marvel firstly on the front line, then the Brits and indies.

My argument is not a defense of the old guard. Before Byrne left Superman & Action the shiny newness of his tenure wore off real fast. He adopted the 1 story per issue format he so criticized Shooter for imposing at Marvel and I think it hurt his run on Superman. Fans expected more. Other titles which were not being scrutinized kept chugging along despite not out-selling Marvel. I recall the Flash had Carmine Infantino and was doing well pre-Crisis as well with the murder of Prof. Zoom and Flash on trial storyline. It didn't beat Marvel's sales but it was popular and there was a lot of buzz about the book.

I presenting a pretty cohesive argument and through line of examples based on the initial topic,

I think you provide a good list; a series of events in the right order. I don't think they connect so neatly or completely. I don't think they prove there was a Grand Plan for post-Crisis DC. DC cleaned up a big mess and told everyone get back to work-make good comics.

I'm not quite sure your really reading what I'm saying beyond a phrase here or there that you might disagree with...

Beyond theorizing Titans was a best seller vs. Marvel's domination of the Market, Wolfman & Perez doing it the Marvel way, and Crisis being a reboot which was designed as a springboard for Miller and Byrne to reboot Bats and Supes to Marvels detriment - which I partially disagree with-what else man? Lets cut to the chase.

Do you disagree with any of my supporting points regarding the talent jumping from Marvel to DC (and back again in some cases)

Marvel->Wolfman/Perez->DC->TT->Crisis->Byrne/Superman->Miller/Batman->Perez/wonder woman

That is pretty much the top tier of DC's monthly sales charts for the eighties compared to Marvel.

The comic blockbusters of the eighties were blips on the radar. They were spread out a bit more. I think you are compressing some events a little bit into a tighter time frame the way you refer to them and claiming they dominated the whole decade. That isn't really the case. Byrne only lasted less than 2 years on Superman & Action. I would hardly call that "dominating" the`80's. Did Ordway's tenure as artist keep sales up to Byrne levels? I doubt it. Miller did not stay on a Batman title like he stayed on Daredevil and wasn't signed to do a monthly DC title like Byrne was on Superman. Byrne and Miller did not jump aboard DC at the same time and restart all the titles simultaneously. Ronin was `83, Dark Knight `86, Year One `87. When there wasn't a Miller Batman "event" occuring were the Bat titles dominating the market? I bet not. You had the Killing Joke-a one shot, the death of Robin, Batman getting is back broken, Superman dying and coming back-all cheap gimmicks which indeed set the stage for even worse cheap gimmicks to come. You also had Watchmen which was a 12 issue maxi-series. When it was over-1 year-it was over.

Sure the talent jumped back and forth. By the Mid-`80's Marvel has a great loss of talent: writers and artists. Then there was the McFarlane exodus and the Image fiasco in the `90's. DC was still publishing much it's regular stuff pre and post crisis. Sales must have been good enough if they kept printing them. DC tried adapting V-The Visitors and failed at that. They said what can we do next? Well Marvel f'd-up Star Trek. Great! Lets get Star Trek. The book was a good seller for many years. Did it overthrow Marvel? No but it sure must've embarrassed them greatly when they couldn't make it work. Swamp Thing's comeback wore down under Pasko and Yeates. DC said what else can we do? Let's hire this guy Moore. He's unknown but lets try him out. Swamp Thing soared through the`80's after that. You could probably make a better case that the tone of Swamp Thing set the stage for things to come. DC's Vertigo line, it's unconventional and Horror titles were what picked up steam in the late`80's.

[ctc]

>Yes, TT it was a lone best-seller against Marvel, for a time, but does it really mean it was because they did it the "Marvel way"?

Hmmmm.... I think it does; but I don't neccessarily think the decision was made to ape the Marvel formula. I think the folks doing the book realized there were new trends in superhero comics.... vanguard of which being the X-Men and Avengers.... and copied those. Although given the rampant cross-polination of talent between the two companies it COULD have been a willful decision.... or it could have been the result of parrallel development, since everyone spent at least some time in similar environments.

>Crisis was not a "reboot", I think, in the true sense of the word.

Issue of somantics: actually Crisis WAS a reboot in the truest sense of the word, but:

>Crisis was seen as a way to streamline the DC universe, to clear away the cobwebs of continuity, the complicated explanations.

....the thing that makes it different from the modern version of a reboot is that Crisis was ACTUALLY MEANT to REALLY CHANGE things. The new ones change stuff.... for a while; and that seems perfectly okay with the folks perpetrating them. Crisis was intended as a permanent fix; 25 years notwithstanding OR anticipated I suspect. But I don't think they realized that the same problems that resulted in the discombobulated universes of yesteryear were still in effect. Comics were seen in a different light, and it was assumed that stories would (and COULD) have a lasting progression. (Meaning nobody thought about how to deal with characters not aging, or real world shifts in society and technology rendering stuff from the comics invalid.)

One of the reasons I use the "DC Heroes" RPG as a refrence guide to the setting is 'cos the producers of the game mentioned.... many times.... how strict the staff at DC was about getting the facts right post-Crisis. At the time, DC was VERY serious about the reboot sticking. It wasn't a frivolous undertaking, or something that was seen as changeable should the need arise. I can only imagine the terror felt by the first writer that proposed something that broke with the new reality. (At the time. Nowadays it seems less of an issue. "Hey! I'm gonna give Green Arrow two heads now. Okay?")

WEIRD ASIDE: What WAS the first breaking of the post Crisis continuity? Anyone know?

>It was intended to do away with barriers that prevented good stories from being told and integrate as many characters as possible.

....tying into the first point: I think the problem for DC was that the definition of a "good story" had changed, and thanks to the Marvel template continuity was more of an issue for the readers. DC stuff was WAY older than Marvel's, and a lot of their characters were created at a time when comtinuity was more a quaint option than a requirement. As such, DC played looser with the idea; if Julie wants a gorilla, then by Rao Julie GETS a gorilla! Nobody flinched when we found out Batman has an evil brother, and nobody was concerned when he went away. (The Earth-B idea came about later, when long term fans needed an explanation for storties like that.) The fans didn't care, it was accepted as how you do business back then.

WEIRD ASIDE: THE SEQUEL: I think the first time continuity really got planted in the minds of the fans was the "all new, all different" X-Men. ESSENTIALLY a reboot of the book, but done in-story; creating a thread between the older books and the new. (A reversal of the technique used for "Flash of Two Worlds?")

>Superman remained the same tho some updates occured.

I think Crisis also had the advantage of being the first time a company did this for real and in continuity. (Although DC came close.... but did it sideways.... two decades earlier in "The Flash.") People were more excited to see the changes than dreading them 'cos there was some novelty to the process. The editors played it pretty tight too; ensuring that the core ideas and readily recognized traits of the characters didn't get juggled so much. Nowadays they'll do HUGE changes, but I think again it's 'cos the novelty of such events has worn off and they're looking for that lost novelty.

>Dark Knight Returns is not a reboot nor does it connect to Crisis.

I'd agree. It exists in that weird, nebulous world of the possible future. I think that's a big part of what made it palatable for the fans: it's not quite IN continuity, but it's not NECCESSARILY out of continuity, so you could enjoy it on it's own but not feel it was one of them ripoff "imaginary tales" of yesteryear.

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

That will be interesting to figure out where the first Post Crisis continuity break happened, I remember Morrison doing a little with it in Animal Man

[Figuremod73]

Its just a opinion but i think most of the post-crisis titles started losing its steam around the 94-95 period. Looking back now i think crisis in the long run made the whole DC universe suffer.

[ctc]

>i think most of the post-crisis titles started losing its steam around the 94-95 period

I know there were cracks forming fairly early on.... I think things were getting stretched by the late 80's. But I'd like to find the decisive, first example of the process breaking down. I seem to recall there was a discovery of another reality a year or two after. I don't remember the details, but I think that would count; considering how Crisis was supposed to clean all that up.

>Looking back now i think crisis in the long run made the whole DC universe suffer

Well.... I dunno if that's NECESSARILY true; but it sure seems to be. I think the deeper problem was:

-It was one of the things that taught the publishers that "events" sell. I don't think Crisis can take the blame for how askew that line of thinking went, since Crisis ACTUALLY changed things (as opposed to stuff like "Secret Wars," or "Inferno," or "Legends," or any "event" of the last 15 years....) But Crisis sold, and in the mind of an exec I can see it getting mishmashed in with later works.

-You can't sustain that sort of change in a perpetual book. By having a definite start, and playing it so's "what happens, happens" you create the feel of time moving; but because the book HAS to come out every month, and there's so much marketing tied to the characters you really can't ACTUALLY change anything. Not for long; anyhoo. So what Crisis started was doomed to fail; not because of incompetence on anybody's part.... or greed.... but because of the relaities of publishing.

Don C.

[Figuremod73]

alot of my opinions about Crisis are based as a reader growing up to. In the pre-crisis years of 79-84 I was much younger (around 8 to 12) and super heroes in general were much newer to me. I think my first exposures were probably the filmation batman cartoon and superfriends. During this time if i saw something with batman or superman on it i would quickly snatch it up. In the later years i was very much into the superpowers. both the kirby minis and the cartoons. The interruption by Crisis effected everything from the toylines to EVERY SINGLE TITLE. For years now its effected my opinion about everything thats come after. Sure, ive liked many title over the years on and off. But DC never has really gained that since of excitment that i felt during those years. Maybe it was the timing? I certainly have nothing against Wolfman and Perez. Crisis was even a good story. I just have always blamed Crisis partly to whats happened to the comic biz

[Figuremod73]

as for early examples of them breaking their own post crisis rules i have no idea. that would be a interesting (yet daunting) project. If anyones on John Byrnes forum here, you can always just ask HIM. He might know.

[thunderbolt]

He actually did a bit of Pre-Crisis stuff with the Time Trapper and Superboy. THe Phantom Zone stuff Byrne did toward the end of his SUperman run looked old school Silver Age, too.

[samurainoir]

Johnmiic, causality isn't the issue here for individual creators... End result of DC's flagging sales was to poach marvel talent on their biggest books and characters and to apply the kind of content they were creating at Marvel to the DCU. To say Miller's Batman in whatever incarnation has no bearing on the past twenty five years of the direction of the Bat titles simply isn't true. Ditto Byrne's Superman.

We are comparing sales to Marvel's 70% in the first part of the eighties... Within a few years DC managed to recapture about a 30% share in the latter eighties.

Omega Men cannot by any larger standard be considered any kind of hit by comparison within this context after limping along in sales for three years before cancellation.

Go listen to the word balloon pod cat interview with Wolfman... His claim is that he and Perez did bring a Marvel sensibility to the DCU on Titans.

[johnmiic]

End result of DC's flagging sales was to poach marvel talent on their biggest books and characters...

Agree on poaching. Yes.

To say Miller's Batman in whatever incarnation has no bearing on the past twenty five years of the direction of the Bat titles simply isn't true. Ditto Byrne's Superman.

Not what I said. DKR influenced many, even the style of the 1989 Batman film. DKR is not a reboot nor connected to Crisis. Crisis did not set the stage for Miller to do DKR. His story is independent of Crisis. Byrne would have made changes to Superman anyway. He loved the 1978 film and was perplexed why DC didn't embrace it and modernize the character.

Omega Men cannot by any larger standard be considered any kind of hit by comparison within this context after limping along in sales for three years before cancellation.

Again, you're trying to weed out hits. OM not a hit for all of 3 years but it didn't limp for all of its 3 year run either. It was big when it started and lost steam. Certainly it didn't outlast Micronauts at Marvel but for a new title w/unknown characters 3 years is not a bad run.