Absolute fealty to the comics is a big mistake. The comic-reading audience could see the film a dozen times over without the studio recouping a tenth of their production costs. So within limits, I understand if the filmmakers choose to change the story to gain a larger audience. I remember when the first film came out, and all the True Believers screamed about the costume changes, as if those were a crime against nature.
Yet it's certainly possible to veer so far that it's not the same story any more, and they really should change the name. The Bourne Identity and Starship Troopers are two examples where the resulting films were absolutely insulting to the point of the books.
But I don't expect that out of X3, which I haven't seen yet. What I fear is the "two many super characters" problem, or what I call the Burton/Schumacher Fallacy: "Well, if one super character is good, then two must be better, and 357 must be even better." The X universe (which I read only very rarely) has a very rich set of characters; and the trailers make it look like the filmmakers tried to cram about a third of them into this film. There was a little of that in X2. In my experience, that can turn them into cardboard cutouts with neat special effects.
Let's see, Peter Parker was bitten by a radio-active spider in the comic book, and a genetically altered spider in the movie.
Peter Parker was a scientific genius in the comic book and invented both his web-shooters and his webbing formula. In the movie the webbing just shot conveniently from his wrists, where he apparently developed functioning arachnid spinnarets.
I didn't mind either of those changes, I thought the movies were great. Although I wish the movies had done more to present Peter Parker as the nerd-genius he was in the comic book, instead of simply nerd as he was in the movies.
I stopped reading The X-Men in the issue when the Phoenix rose from the ocean. I didn't read another X-Men comic for over a decade, and when I did look at one in my brother's comic book store, my reaction was "Who are these imposters! Where is Angel, Ice-man and the Beast? What is Wolverine doing here, he was a bad guy in a Spiderman comic last time I saw him! "
So for me the first movies already twisted the X-Men mythos all around by having Wolverine and Storm as "original" X-Men while Bobby ("Ice Man") was still a kid and The Beast ("Hank McCoy") a talking head on the TV screen.
I don't think there's much more the X-Men can do to alter the "real" history of the X-Men that they hadn't already done in the first movies.
I'm pretty sure the Wolverine did first appear as a bad guy fighting Spider Man, long before he was an X-Men member, but well after the original X-Men had already been formed.
Here's a trivia question for you... Who were the original "mutants" in the Marvel universe? I'll give you a hint. One of them was the Human Torch's girlfriend a long, long time ago.
OK, so Wolvie appeared somewhere else first, but I still think I recall a fight between Spiderman and Wolverine 20 years ago at least, and I think Wolverine even won it, but I can't recall exactly.
My point is that Wolverine was one of those Marvel also-ran hero/anti-heros when I was reading comic books, somehow he became an icon long after I quit reading them. Regardless, seeing him as an X-Man was quite a shock to me. THE X-Men were Professor X, Ice Man, Angel, Cyclops, The Beast and Jean Gray. Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Gambit, et. al. were all late-comers.
They have tussled though 20 years ago sounds right for the timeline of Wolverine V Spider-Man graphic novel where Wolvie got spider-man into a fight to kill some one he couldn't kill.
The thing about the X-Men comics I read--and I'm a bit younger than Sean, not a lot but just enough--was I started reading a couple of years after the advent of X-Men #95, where the series took a radical change. And one of the things about the series was, the lineup of the X-Men started to change semi-regularly, with a sort of rotating cast who came and went with time--which makes sense if you think about it, it was supposed to be a school for young mutants, not just a superhero team. Someone would leave for a while, be replaced, then might come back awhile, or stay on and permanently join the school as teachers, etc. And in these movies they've rather stuck to that; the "team" that fights the final battle in this one is quite different from the team that was in the final battle in the last one. But it's fine.
They actually DO manage to avoid the "If 1 super being is good, 2 is better, and 50 is 50 times better!" problem that the Batman movies suffered from. This is more along the lines of the rotating ensemble caste I mention above, and it works. I mean, in this film, The Blue Beast is clearly identified as a FORMER X-Man who left the team to do other things, but he comes back and rejoins the team temporarily for this big battle. Very in tune with the comics as I remember. "Oh hey good to see you, we missed you!"
By the way, yeah, Wolverine started as an enemy of The Hulk, and I believe he was working for the Canadian government at the time.
Yeah, but we never actually saw Scott die, nor did Jean directly confirm his death. And of course, Jean's the Phoenix, she's died and come back to life not once but at least twice in those comics (which was part of why I got tired of reading them actually, one too many resurrections).
I read a review complaining about X3 because of (among others) the scene where Juggernaut knocks himself out on the wall behind Leech. The authors point was that Juggernaut was not a mutant but got his powers from some sort of alien crystal. For those of us who know the X-Men from the occasional Sat morning cartoons only (and some not even that) we would have been throwing popcorn at the projector for bringing up magical alien crystals.
Another complaint was that Shadowcat, Iceman, and Colussus were not fully developed as characters. But if there is an X4 (too much money not to), it seems a satisfactory introduction for them to be the new team.
Apparently (I haven't seen the movie yet), Juggernaut actually says "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" Which is an Internet meme from this fan film. Very "Snakes on a Plane."
Did anyone stay for the post-credits scene? It sounds like Jeffrey Boser did, but did anyone else? Because that certainly shows that one of the characters absolutely did survive.
I did not stay for the end, dammit. But I've read all about it. It's clear this movie could be the end (COULD be), but they've also left open the possibility that everyone will return... and I mean everyone!
The X-Men movie did take liberties with Juggernaut... making him a mutant... but that didn't bother me.
And although it seems like there are a lot of heroes, I was actually happy to see that some just ended up being part of the movie, but not real characters.
In the end, I kinda wish the movie was either longer, or maybe they could have pulled some of the story lines apart.
And of course, Jean's the Phoenix, she's died and come back to life not once but at least twice in those comics (which was part of why I got tired of reading them actually, one too many resurrections).
But-but-but... But at Marvel, dead is dead!
I know that, because as a mostly DC reader, I used to have to put up with Marvel fans beating me over the head with that phrase: "At Marvel, dead is dead!"
Well, unless you're Jean Grey.
Or Norman Osborne.
Or...
Well, OK, but at least the rule holds for Captain Marvel and Jean Grey and Bucky and Gwen Stacey, since their deaths were such momentous events!
Oh, wait, we already know they brought back Jean Grey...
Oh, and last I looked, they had new Captain Marvel books on the stands.
And I haven't kept up with Captain America, but I hear rumors that Bucky's back.
All right, all right, so they brought back Captain Marvel and Jean Grey and Bucky; but at Marvel, when it comes to Gwen Stacey — poor, powerless Gwen Stacey, who has appeared to "come back" as a clone and also as her accelerated-age near-identical-twin daughter sired by Spider-Man's worst enemy — dead is dead!
And I guess they'll probably never bring back Uncle Ben...
(And no, I'm not saying DC's any better. I'm just pointing out how things have changed at Marvel. In the 70s, I think "dead is dead" was a pretty accurate statement there. But somewhere along the way, they lost that distinctive difference.)
I didn't know about the "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch" internet meme. I thought it was a direct Dave Chappelle reference. And, I thought it was embarassing.
DC "jumped the shark" for me when they started trying to explain their inconsistencies by creating alternate universes. This started as just "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" but eventually became an infinite set of universes that allowed virtually anything to happen.
For a while Marvel avoided this disastrous path, but then they too fell down the alternate universe black hole.
DC "jumped the shark" for me when they started trying to explain their inconsistencies by creating alternate universes. This started as just "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" but eventually became an infinite set of universes that allowed virtually anything to happen.
Sean,
You do know that back in the 80's they fixed all that with "Crisis on Infinite Earths," right? Pretty much wiped the 'multiverse' slate clean. Then there's the recent "Infinite Crisis" which is the direct sequel to the first "Crisis." The last issue came out a few months ago. It's supposed to be really, really good. It's changed the entire DC universe!
First, every DC title has jumped a year ahead. Second, if I recall correctly, the JLA is no longer around. Third, Superman has lost all his powers. Fourth... well, I'm sure there's more but I've not yet read "Infinite Crisis." I started reading "Superman One Year Later" and did a 'WTF!?' when Soop' was plain 'ol Kent.
Then, and this is hella cool, DC is filling in that missing year with a weekly comic called "52."
There's some great stuff going on over at DC!
As for Marvel... well, I'm trying to play it safe with them. I've been burned in the past. However, the new "Civil War" story arc is looking pretty good. The U.S. government finally said, "You wear a cape, tights and a mask? You gotta register and work for us. No more of this vigilante stuff." And it hits the fan stuff. Let's just say Captain America is wanted and Iron Man is hunting him.
Now, for "X3." I'm geeked to see it. However, I think Bryan Singer messed up the franchise from the first movie. When Hugh Jackman is saying he's looking forward to a "Wolverine" movie I have to respond, "We already have three of them." Can you picture Fox making an X-Men movie without Wolverine? I didn't think so. That's a huge problem.
I'm also very annoyed that they made Rogue one of the most useless characters around. In "X4" I want to see her grab onto Ms. Marvel and become the character I fell in love with.
Maybe I'll have to write that one to see it get done...
I was somewhat disapppointed with the movie. It was entertaining enough, but it lacked...something. It was definitely a step down from the first two, neither of which I would consider great movies (but I didn't expect them to be). I think what bothered me the most about it was that it felt like the writers were trying to obtain some sense of closure while at the same time leaving open the possibility of future movies. However, if it's the final movie (barring some spin-offs or something) than it was entirely unfulfilling. And if they make more, then this movie was utterly irrelevant, since they made it obvious that they intend to bring many of the "dead" or "de-powered" characters back, providing the actors are willing to return, which I suppose is the big question. It seems to me, for example, that we've seen the last of Mystique, since it seemed pretty obvious that Rebecca Romijn is done with the character (although I think Mystique would be one of the easiest characters to replace with a different actor, seeing as she's covered in blue paint and doesn't talk much).
But I agree with Kevin D. I don't see what the point of a Wolverine spin-off would be since the three movies have been all about Wolverine. He's been THE main character, the character with whom the audience empathizes.
I really considered not posting this, for fear of highjacking the thread; but it's a thread about a comic book movie, so what the heck?
DC "jumped the shark" for me when they started trying to explain their inconsistencies by creating alternate universes. This started as just "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" but eventually became an infinite set of universes that allowed virtually anything to happen.
That's a complete misrepresentation of the whole parallel Earths motif. It may be that somewhere along the line, some writer used it as a way to "explain inconsistencies"; but that really had nothing to do with the concept. But to understand the concept, we need to delve into comic book history.
In the beginning was Action Comics, starring Superman. And it was good.
And inspired by Superman, a plethora of comics and characters and publishers sprouted up. And it was good.
OK, I'll dump the faux Biblical style, because it wasn't all good. Some was good, some bad, but the industry boomed. Sales across genres -- superheroes, yes, but lots of others -- dwarfed what we call a successful book today. Even though aimed more at kids than today's books, even though lower production quality than today's books, even though not continuity obsessed like today's books, they outsold today's books by a large margin. And though commonly viewed as kids books, they had some popularity with the troops in WWII.
So the industry was pretty healthy, and supers were the mainstay of the industry; but that all changed with the arrival of Dr. Frederick Wertham, a hack psychologist who blamed comic books for all social ills. He was an example of the worst sort of psychobabble thinking; but he also knew how to play the media, and he wasn't the only psyhcobabblist who was looking for an evil influence to blame for things (because blaming the perpertrators for their own actions is so gauche, ya hnow). And superhero books in particular were a target. Hysteria bloomed, Senate investigations were held, and the comic book industry was gutted. Aside from Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, superheroes all but vanished in the mid 50s.
But in the 60s, DC and other publishers started testing the waters for superhero books. At DC, this effort was spearheaded by editor Julius Schwartz, a holdover from the boom days whose ideas are a major influence on DC yet today. With their target market still being mostly kids, he knew that nostalgia for the old characters wasn't necessarily an advantage in the market; and in fact, it might be a drawback, because new kids wouldn't know the old characters and wouldn't understand where they came from. Also, seeing television and the space race and other scientific marvels on the scene, he wanted a more science-fictional slant for their books. (It also didn't hurt that Mr. Schwartz was the founder of the original SF fanzine, and was also an SF literary agent.) So he decided to revive the names of the classic characters, but with new secret identities, new backgrounds, and new powers, generally with a more SF approach. The old Green Lantern had a magic ring; the new Green Lantern had a ring created by aliens. The old Hawkman was a reincarnated Egyptian Prince; the new Hawkman was an alien police officer. The old Atom was a short but powerful brawler; the new Atom was a physicist who invented a shrinking ray, then got caught in it.
But Mr. Schwartz himself had nostalgia for the old characters, and he knew there were fans of the older characters. So he threw them a bone: he let the new Flash meet the old Flash. But how could that be, when their worlds were so different? Mr. Schwartz fell back on a long-established science fiction trope: parallel worlds. All the classic heroes were found on the misnamed Earth 2, while the new heroes were found on Earth 1.
And the fans went wild, and demanded more. So like any good capitalist, DC gave it it them. Team-ups between Earth 1 and Earth 2 heroes became an annual event, and sometimes more frequent.
Then DC started buying up the rights to old comic characters from other companies; and to keep things simple, each of those new lines was relegated to its own Earth. It wasn't a way to cover up inconsistencies; it was simply a way to let these characters have their own worlds and stories as they were originally published (since DC was happy to rerun all of that old material the market would take), while still having a chance at crossover events to boost sales and generate cross-title interest.
There were a few Earths introduced strictly for story purposes, not to bring new character lines into the fold. For instance, at one point, Mr. Schwartz decided it would be fun to have the Flash meet the DC team who wrote the Flash. After all, Barry Allen (Flash of Earth 1) knew about Jay Garrick (Flash of Earth 2) because the Earth 2 adventures appeared as comic books in Earth 1, so apparently ideas could cross universes and be picked up by the perceptive minds of comic book creators. So he devised Earth Prime, i.e., our Earth, where all of the other Earths are just comic book stories, and he sent the Flash there (i.e., here). A number of Earth Prime stories developed from there. There was also Earth 3, a mirror Earth where all the Earth 1 heroes were villains.
So far as I know, the only Earth created to explain an inconsistency was the Earth of Kamandi, Last Boy on Earth, and OMAC, One Man Army Corps. These two books, created by Jack Kirby, had a mutually consistent future history that was unfortunately inconsistent with the future history already established for the Legion of Superheroes. Despite many fan attempts to reconcile the two, the future histories never jibed; so it became easier to treat them as separate Earths.
And if this all seems convoluted to you, then you understand why DC came up with Crisis on Infinite Earths, a story that eliminated all of the parallel Earths; more than that, it eliminated any possinility of them (but that rule has since been relaxed).
But honestly, I never understood that reasoning. I read my first Earth 1/Earth 2 crossover stories before I was 5, and I never found the multiple Earths all that hard to follow. And while my ego may say otherwise, I'm not that brilliant. This stuff just wasn't that hard to follow. The only folks who found it hard to follow were the obsessive Continuity Cops who had to try to fit each and every story into a precise timeline and picture, and who loved to gloat any time they found an inconsistency. Continuity can make a good story more enjoyable; but a slavish devotion to continuity can stop the creative team from telling some really good stories. Given the choice of a good story or meticulous continuity, I'll choose a good story.
OK, so I hear you channeling Emerson and saying "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" which is one of my favorite quotations by the way. So I get your point. But I disagree with you.
My problem with comics was not that I outgrew them, because my wife would be sure to tell you I've never grown up at all, but I just lost interest in them because of the overwhelming lack of consistency, the tendency for the story lines to become self-fulfilling and the complete disregard the publishers had for their audience.
You say "given a choice between a good story or meticulous continuity, I'll choose a good story." Well, I'm saying that from my perspective in the early to mid 70s, there was a pervasive lack of both.
Marvel held out much longer than DC. When DC was down to one or two decent comics and really only one compelling hero (Batman, of course, or maybe two, I did like Green Arrow's comeback in the 70s) Marvel was actually doing some really good stuff. The Warlock series was probably the best comic book series I was reading at that time. But in the 70s there was also the continuing excellence of Spiderman, Dr. Strange and even occasionally, the Avengers, or the odd Fantastic Four series.
It was right about the time that the Warlock series ended that I stopped reading comics. Warlock was over, Jean Gray was dead, Spiderman had become a constant psychological chore to read, (he had gone from his classic banter with the villains to torturous self-doubt thought balloons in every fight) The Fantastic Four were squabbling like children, and all of them suddenly began to be drawn in a nearly sof-core pornographic style that I took to calling "Dolly Parton in Zero-G"...
I just lost interest. All the alternate earth story lines (some of which I admit had been introduced in the Warlock series that I really liked) were just too much.
It isn't that I couldn't keep track of what was going on, it was just that I found I just didn't care to try. It seemed that I could read one comic book (say, "The Amazing Spiderman") and Spidey would be slinging along through Manhattan like old times, while at the same time on the newsstand, in an Avenger's issue, Spiderman might be on a planet in another galaxy. And there was no hint in the one comic that such monumental events were happening in another. It felt like there were about three Spidermen running around, one doing his normal old stuff, one who was working with some team somewhere on some world-saving problem, and one doing guest shots in Dr. Strange where he might be helping the Doc defeat the Dread Dormammu.
You say "given a choice between a good story or meticulous continuity, I'll choose a good story." Well, I'm saying that from my perspective in the early to mid 70s, there was a pervasive lack of both.
Well, that's a whole separate critique; and while I think it's a matter of subjective taste, I think it's a more defensible critique as well. If you thought the stories sucked, it would be foolish for you to keep reading. Life is too short and there are too many good things to be found in it, so you should never waste time on things that you think suck.
Of course, my tastes may vary, and do vary in this case. I thought the stories of the 70s and pre-Crisis 80s included some real masterpieces that make up for the low points.
But I wouldn't ever try to argue that my tastes are "right" and yours "wrong". I just felt that your description of parallel Earths at DC was way off the mark. I haven't read enough Marvel to have an opinion on parallel worlds there, other than I know that a lot of their parallel world efforts have been villified by their fans. I know the whole Reborn saga had a lot of enemies; and the Ultimates line is loathed by a lot of old fans as well.
That's kind of where I got with comics, particularly the superhero genre. For me, it got played out. No one thing in particular did it, I simply got tired of the endless serial, endless soap opera of what amounts to a pretty silly concept: people dressing up in costumes and fighting crime and/or saving the Earth. And not just one or two of them, but hundreds of them, doing it all the time.
I started reading alternative comics after that. What I like about most Japanese Manga, for example--most of those I've read--is that they're written as novels, and they tend to have a distinct story line with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and the story may take place over 1, 5, 10, 20, even 100 issues, but the bottom line is the better ones quite distinctly END. A "The End" is written and maybe they do a sequel but maybe not.
Plus they don't do much with superheroes, which in my view is a good thing.
This may in part explain why I have enjoyed some of the recent superhero movies. Because I enjoy the concept. But it's like Scott McCloud said, a superhero story is like chocolate pie with whipped cream: I like chocolate pie with whipped cream but I just can't imagine eating it at every meal.
A Spider-Man or Batman movie every few years, now that's enjoyable. An endless serial? You can't hold my interest and at some point I feel suckered because it's obvious the story's just never going to end because there *is* no story really, just an unending Soap Opera in tights.
I also still dig stuff like Cerebus. Ah but Cerebus ended, as planned, on issue 300. Or so I understand, I haven't caught up on it but I will.
Good comments Dean. You have pretty much exactly captured how I feel about the "Sword of Truth" and the "Dragon Reborn" fantasy series. I really liked the first two or three books in each series, but by book 7 I had begun to realize that I was not reading a story anymore, I was contributing to an author's lifestyle, and that author had no intention of "finishing" the story because it was no longer about the story, it was about how long the gravy train could go on.
...people dressing up in costumes and fighting crime and/or saving the Earth. And not just one or two of them, but hundreds of them, doing it all the time.
You may want to check out the bi-monthly miniseries by DC called, "Justice." In an odd sort of way it addresses it. The major villians come together and try to create a real utopian Earth because, for some reason, they all shared a vision of the Earth getting destroyed and the superheroes could do nothing about it. Lex Luthor (I think it was him) takes issue with superheroes for not elevating mankind. Sure, they thwart crimes and stuff but do nothing to, say, solve world poverty and hunger or even provide shelter and services for the poor and downtrodden. Sure, if an astroid is about to impact the Earth, call up a superhero. If you want a better day-to-day life then, well, who do you call?
The series isn't that cut and dry, the villians aren't altruistic in their actions, but it was a fantastic point Lex made.
As for Japanese manga, you raise an excellent point. Comsumers there are used to getting a confined story, beginning-middle-end, and that's it. Here, however, the powers-that-be are so concerned about maximizing profits that they rarely allow such a thing to be told because of possible limited viewership.
However, the whole "superhero" thing is uniquely American in my experience. It isn't exactly fair to compare them to their foriegn equivalant because they don't exactly mesh.
All said, though, DC, Marvel indeed the entertainment media as a whlole could learn a lot from the Japanese way of doing things. Limited series manga, fantastic anime series straight to video (DVD)... it's great stuff and fosters great storytelling. Sure, we have direct-to-video houses here in the U.S. but nothing like they do in Japan. We expect B-film quality tripe most of the time. I'd love to see an American animation house produce an adult (see: mature) serial.
It's a good point about superheroes being kind of expressive of American character.
Still, what I would say about the endless serialization of American comics (most of them) is this: I think it may actually be costing them money. They're looking at it in the short term. Long term, they lose most of their audience this way, since the vast majority of people who enjoy comics are, I suspect, like Sean and me. We don't outgrow comics, but we completely tire of it once we realize they aren't really doing anything but churning out pap that never ends.
If they were really creative they could write stories that go on for 10 or 15 or 30 issues, or whatever, and then distinctly end, and then they would have to come up with a new vehicle. Well, that's exactly how Hollywood makes most of its movies. And it's how a lot of the most successful book authors work. Stephen King wrote The Shining, and he didn't keep writing The Shining, issuing a new Shining book every year for the next 30 years until he died. He wrote that one book. It did very well. You can still buy it in stores. And he went on to write other completely different things.
I think the comic book industry would have a lot more readers, especially a lot more adult readers, if they would stop being afraid to write "the end" on a character or story, and just stop trying to make everything part of a canonical "universe."
I understand what you're saying. In fact I went through a period where I didn't read any comic just a few years ago. I got tired of crossovers (I like comic "A." I don't want to read comic "B" and "C" to see how the story that started in "A" ends.) and plain poor writing.
However, I gotta give it up to the excellent animated series Justice League: Unlimited for getting me really back into it. That and one of my favorite comic books, Witchblade, rebooted the setting and the writing is excellent so far.
I am currently read way too many titles, most of which are DC, because the writing is just great! Maybe it's because I came in when Infinite Crisis was just getting started but there is some great stuff going on at DC! Top Cow is also making some great stuff with Hunter Killer and V.I.C.E..
And Marvel has inpressed me with Civil War (and that's about it).
There are some great stories being told all across the board. Now is an excellent time to grab a few issues of your favorite titles and see what's going on!
I was totally thinking, "I wonder when DC is gonna pay me for my efforts?" while writing all that!
However, I've been carrying the Top Cow flag much longer than DC. I'll take Witchblade over any DC title for the long haul.
Maybe I'm so enamored with DC right now because I've been reading all the classic DC stuff trying to get the "essentials" down: Batman: The Long Holloween, Batman: The Dark Kight Returns, Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, Batman: Year One, Kingdom Come and Batman: Hush. Odd that most of the best DC stories are all about Batman. God knows I've been looking for Superman equivilants.
Trying to slog my way through Crisis on Infinite Earths. And I don't want to read Infinite Crisis yet because it builds on the pervious. Which means I shouldn't really read any of the "One Year Later" titles (which are all of them). And I shouldn't read 52 until I get Infinite Crisis in the bag!
Maybe I'm so enamored with DC right now because I've been reading all the classic DC stuff trying to get the "essentials" down: Batman: The Long Holloween, Batman: The Dark Kight Returns, Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, Batman: Year One, Kingdom Come and Batman: Hush. Odd that most of the best DC stories are all about Batman. God knows I've been looking for Superman equivilants.
Heh. Depends on how you define "best", and also how you define "Batman stories" and "Superman stories".
Batman: The Long Halloween. Yep. Pretty darn good.
Batman: The Dark Kight Returns. Absolute classic; but like many classics, it's a product of its time. The same book today would not be so groundbreaking. Also, it gave license to a horde of lesser talents to try to imitate it, while mostly missing the point. That's not its fault, but it still comes to mind every time I read it.
Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Ugh. Frank Miller spending page after page telling us how evil conservatives are. Wish I'd never spent the money.
Batman: Year One. Very good in parts, needlessly crude in others. Reenvisioning Selina as a prostitute was simply unnecessary. Over all, though, a great read.
Kingdom Come: I thought you couldn't find Superman equivalents. Yeah, there are plenty of other major characters; but this is first and foremost Superman's book. And do yourself a favor: find and read Elliot S! Maggin's novelization. It's one of the three best superhero novels ever written. Not coincidentally, the other two were also written by Elliot S! Maggin, but they're long out of print.
Batman: Hush. Good, and well-written, but not in a class with the others you list.
Here are my further recommendations for must-read DC books. Notice that for me, must-read does not mean, "You have to read this to understand what's going on in the DC Universe." It means, "Boy, that's one fantastic story!"
The Kents: A great western/Civil War story that takes you through U.S. history, with the Kent family (as in Clark) providing a unifying thread.
Superman for All Seasons: A coming of age story from the team that brought you Batman: The Long Halloween, including the writer of Batman: Hush, Jeph Loeb.
Superman: Birthright: Mark Waid, author of Kingdom Come and in my opinion best mainstream superhero writer in the business today (though Jeph Loeb comes close), retells Superman's early career.
Superman: Panic in the Sky: Of all the multi-issue/multi-team Superman crossover stories, this is the one I feel both hangs together best and stands on its own as a story.
Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?: Alan Moore closes up the story of the Silver Age Superman with loving care. Dean, if you want a story with an ending, this is the book -- and it's an ending that's absolutely true to the essence and the history of the character that came before.
Batman: The Killing Joke: Alan Moore writes what may be the most intense bit of character development in any superhero comic. By the end, you'll hate the Joker more than ever; and yet in the back of your mind, you'll wonder if you could be just like him.
Icon: A Hero's Welcome: No, it's not the DC Universe. It's from the old Milestone line they published in the early 90s. Read it anyway. I miss Milestone.
The Kingdom: Mark Waid's sequel to Kingdom Come, in which he tells the obsessives in the audience, "Chill out! It's just a comic book!"
Starman: The whole thing, start to finish. And yes, Dean, it has a finish, one foreshadowed and planned from the very first page of the first book. James Robinson is literate and eccentric, and it shows in every volume in this series.
Static Shock: Trial by Fire: Though not as good as Icon, this is the only other Milestone collection available. I miss Milestone.
Superman/Batman Vol. 1: Public Enemies: Jeph Loeb tells the tale of Superman and Batman, hunted by the most of the US at the command of President Luthor. That sounds loopy, but Loeb is talented enough to pull it off.
Superman/Batman Vol. 2: Absolute Power: Loeb tells the story of Superman and Batman kidnapped as children and raised by time-traveling villains (minor but classic Silver Age villains) who use the duo to rule the Earth.
Watchmen: No, not the DC Universe. Read it anyway. Two decades later, I think it's unequaled when it comes to superhero epic as a unique art form.
Animal Man: The whole series, not just this book. Grant Morrison brings the surreal to comics like no one else. His animal rights agenda isn't exactly nuanced, but he's too talented to miss.
Doom Patrol: All the volumes, starting here. More Grant Morrison; only when you read this, you realize that he was pretty restrained when he wrote Animal Man. This is a "superhero" book that brings in surrealim, dadaism, memetics, and the nature of reality. This is a book that can't be described, no matter how hard I try; but imagine a superhero book written by a deranged philosopher. Or as one of his friends (might've been Mark Waid) wrote, "Grant Morrison clearly pours peyote buttons on his breakfast cereal." This stuff will expand your mind.
Fables: Not DC Univers, but read the whole series, starting here. Bill Willingham tells a modern fantasy story, based on old fantasy stories. See, all the old fables and fairy tales and legends are true stories from various interconnected fantasy worlds; and a mysterious conqueror starts taking over those worlds. So a few defenders flee to the last place he'll ever look: a strange place called New York.
The Sandman: Again, read the whole series. May be the finest fantasy work of the 90s, in any medium.
Swamp Thing: Read all the Alan Moore books. They definitely have a beginning and an end. Yes, DC kept the series going with other authors; but Moore ended the series.
That's all I have time for right now. But that should get you started.
Thanks for the list! I'm going to Comic Con International: San Diego in July and I'll pick some of those up.
I've already read the Superman/Batman books you've mentioned and I'm caught up to issue #25. A very, very good series. I'm sorry to see Jehp Loeb leave it. I'm looking forward to issue #26. Jeph's son was supposed to write that issue as a stand alone but he died before he could complete it. So, Jeph, and, from what I hear, 25 other writers got together and a making it something of a tribute to the kid. Sad and uplifting at the same time.
I didn't really consider Kingdom Come a Superman story but looking back I can see your point.
As for Batman: The Dark Kight Strikes Again, I see your point there as well. I also didn't like how Miller would punk Superman whenever he got a chance - like he was some kind of puppet for the American government. I like that he began the antagonism between Batman and Superman but, in the end, they're supposed to be on the same side. Jeph Loeb does this best in the Superman/Batman series.
The idea that Batman can take out Superman whenever he wants, as Miller seems to think, always struck me as odd. The fight between Batman and Superman in Batman: Hush seemed the most fair to both characters. Batman could mess up Superman if he needed to but the odds are ultimately on Superman's side. Not surprising, this too was written by Loeb.
I'm looking forward to issue #26. Jeph's son was supposed to write that issue as a stand alone but he died before he could complete it. So, Jeph, and, from what I hear, 25 other writers got together and a making it something of a tribute to the kid. Sad and uplifting at the same time.
I only read the collections, so I'll have a longer wait. Thanks for the heads up!
I didn't really consider Kingdom Come a Superman story but looking back I can see your point.
Partly it's my bias: Superman is my favorite. If it were Batman, I might have seen it as a Batman story.
Batman could mess up Superman if he needed to but the odds are ultimately on Superman's side. Not surprising, this too was written by Loeb.
Yep. While I may follow favorite characters, it's really writers that make for classic stories, not characters. Looking back over my recommendations, Moore, Waid, Morrison, Miller, and Loeb keep popping up, across different titles and characters. Look for their names on quality projects. And the others I mentioned by book but maybe not by name -- Willingham, Robinson, and Gaiman -- are equally reliable. If you want high quality stories, you have to follow writers, not characters.
Yet it's certainly possible to veer so far that it's not the same story any more, and they really should change the name. The Bourne Identity and Starship Troopers are two examples where the resulting films were absolutely insulting to the point of the books.
But I don't expect that out of X3, which I haven't seen yet. What I fear is the "two many super characters" problem, or what I call the Burton/Schumacher Fallacy: "Well, if one super character is good, then two must be better, and 357 must be even better." The X universe (which I read only very rarely) has a very rich set of characters; and the trailers make it look like the filmmakers tried to cram about a third of them into this film. There was a little of that in X2. In my experience, that can turn them into cardboard cutouts with neat special effects.
Peter Parker was a scientific genius in the comic book and invented both his web-shooters and his webbing formula. In the movie the webbing just shot conveniently from his wrists, where he apparently developed functioning arachnid spinnarets.
I didn't mind either of those changes, I thought the movies were great. Although I wish the movies had done more to present Peter Parker as the nerd-genius he was in the comic book, instead of simply nerd as he was in the movies.
I stopped reading The X-Men in the issue when the Phoenix rose from the ocean. I didn't read another X-Men comic for over a decade, and when I did look at one in my brother's comic book store, my reaction was "Who are these imposters! Where is Angel, Ice-man and the Beast? What is Wolverine doing here, he was a bad guy in a Spiderman comic last time I saw him! "
So for me the first movies already twisted the X-Men mythos all around by having Wolverine and Storm as "original" X-Men while Bobby ("Ice Man") was still a kid and The Beast ("Hank McCoy") a talking head on the TV screen.
I don't think there's much more the X-Men can do to alter the "real" history of the X-Men that they hadn't already done in the first movies.
I'm pretty sure the Wolverine did first appear as a bad guy fighting Spider Man, long before he was an X-Men member, but well after the original X-Men had already been formed.
Here's a trivia question for you... Who were the original "mutants" in the Marvel universe? I'll give you a hint. One of them was the Human Torch's girlfriend a long, long time ago.
Which is why my comic book geekitude was ok with what happened in the film.
And I look forward to seeing an actual adaption of Starship troopers in film one of these days
Wolverine first appeared as a Bad guy in the Incredible Hulk.. though really he wasn't a -bad guy- so much as he was an antagonist to the hulk.
He later made it big in Alpha Flight before coming in during (i think) Giant Sized X-Men #1
My point is that Wolverine was one of those Marvel also-ran hero/anti-heros when I was reading comic books, somehow he became an icon long after I quit reading them. Regardless, seeing him as an X-Man was quite a shock to me. THE X-Men were Professor X, Ice Man, Angel, Cyclops, The Beast and Jean Gray. Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Gambit, et. al. were all late-comers.
:-p seriously messed up yo
They actually DO manage to avoid the "If 1 super being is good, 2 is better, and 50 is 50 times better!" problem that the Batman movies suffered from. This is more along the lines of the rotating ensemble caste I mention above, and it works. I mean, in this film, The Blue Beast is clearly identified as a FORMER X-Man who left the team to do other things, but he comes back and rejoins the team temporarily for this big battle. Very in tune with the comics as I remember. "Oh hey good to see you, we missed you!"
By the way, yeah, Wolverine started as an enemy of The Hulk, and I believe he was working for the Canadian government at the time.
He's easily the most compelling comic book character created during the 1970s.
Another complaint was that Shadowcat, Iceman, and Colussus were not fully developed as characters. But if there is an X4 (too much money not to), it seems a satisfactory introduction for them to be the new team.
The X-Men movie did take liberties with Juggernaut... making him a mutant... but that didn't bother me.
And although it seems like there are a lot of heroes, I was actually happy to see that some just ended up being part of the movie, but not real characters.
In the end, I kinda wish the movie was either longer, or maybe they could have pulled some of the story lines apart.
But-but-but... But at Marvel, dead is dead!
I know that, because as a mostly DC reader, I used to have to put up with Marvel fans beating me over the head with that phrase: "At Marvel, dead is dead!"
Well, unless you're Jean Grey.
Or Norman Osborne.
Or...
Well, OK, but at least the rule holds for Captain Marvel and Jean Grey and Bucky and Gwen Stacey, since their deaths were such momentous events!
Oh, wait, we already know they brought back Jean Grey...
Oh, and last I looked, they had new Captain Marvel books on the stands.
And I haven't kept up with Captain America, but I hear rumors that Bucky's back.
All right, all right, so they brought back Captain Marvel and Jean Grey and Bucky; but at Marvel, when it comes to Gwen Stacey — poor, powerless Gwen Stacey, who has appeared to "come back" as a clone and also as her accelerated-age near-identical-twin daughter sired by Spider-Man's worst enemy — dead is dead!
And I guess they'll probably never bring back Uncle Ben...
(And no, I'm not saying DC's any better. I'm just pointing out how things have changed at Marvel. In the 70s, I think "dead is dead" was a pretty accurate statement there. But somewhere along the way, they lost that distinctive difference.)
For a while Marvel avoided this disastrous path, but then they too fell down the alternate universe black hole.
It all started with Jack Kirby....
Sean,
You do know that back in the 80's they fixed all that with "Crisis on Infinite Earths," right? Pretty much wiped the 'multiverse' slate clean. Then there's the recent "Infinite Crisis" which is the direct sequel to the first "Crisis." The last issue came out a few months ago. It's supposed to be really, really good. It's changed the entire DC universe!
First, every DC title has jumped a year ahead. Second, if I recall correctly, the JLA is no longer around. Third, Superman has lost all his powers. Fourth... well, I'm sure there's more but I've not yet read "Infinite Crisis." I started reading "Superman One Year Later" and did a 'WTF!?' when Soop' was plain 'ol Kent.
Then, and this is hella cool, DC is filling in that missing year with a weekly comic called "52."
There's some great stuff going on over at DC!
As for Marvel... well, I'm trying to play it safe with them. I've been burned in the past. However, the new "Civil War" story arc is looking pretty good. The U.S. government finally said, "You wear a cape, tights and a mask? You gotta register and work for us. No more of this vigilante stuff." And it hits the fan stuff. Let's just say Captain America is wanted and Iron Man is hunting him.
Now, for "X3." I'm geeked to see it. However, I think Bryan Singer messed up the franchise from the first movie. When Hugh Jackman is saying he's looking forward to a "Wolverine" movie I have to respond, "We already have three of them." Can you picture Fox making an X-Men movie without Wolverine? I didn't think so. That's a huge problem.
I'm also very annoyed that they made Rogue one of the most useless characters around. In "X4" I want to see her grab onto Ms. Marvel and become the character I fell in love with.
Maybe I'll have to write that one to see it get done...
But I agree with Kevin D. I don't see what the point of a Wolverine spin-off would be since the three movies have been all about Wolverine. He's been THE main character, the character with whom the audience empathizes.
That's a complete misrepresentation of the whole parallel Earths motif. It may be that somewhere along the line, some writer used it as a way to "explain inconsistencies"; but that really had nothing to do with the concept. But to understand the concept, we need to delve into comic book history.
In the beginning was Action Comics, starring Superman. And it was good.
And inspired by Superman, a plethora of comics and characters and publishers sprouted up. And it was good.
OK, I'll dump the faux Biblical style, because it wasn't all good. Some was good, some bad, but the industry boomed. Sales across genres -- superheroes, yes, but lots of others -- dwarfed what we call a successful book today. Even though aimed more at kids than today's books, even though lower production quality than today's books, even though not continuity obsessed like today's books, they outsold today's books by a large margin. And though commonly viewed as kids books, they had some popularity with the troops in WWII.
So the industry was pretty healthy, and supers were the mainstay of the industry; but that all changed with the arrival of Dr. Frederick Wertham, a hack psychologist who blamed comic books for all social ills. He was an example of the worst sort of psychobabble thinking; but he also knew how to play the media, and he wasn't the only psyhcobabblist who was looking for an evil influence to blame for things (because blaming the perpertrators for their own actions is so gauche, ya hnow). And superhero books in particular were a target. Hysteria bloomed, Senate investigations were held, and the comic book industry was gutted. Aside from Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, superheroes all but vanished in the mid 50s.
But in the 60s, DC and other publishers started testing the waters for superhero books. At DC, this effort was spearheaded by editor Julius Schwartz, a holdover from the boom days whose ideas are a major influence on DC yet today. With their target market still being mostly kids, he knew that nostalgia for the old characters wasn't necessarily an advantage in the market; and in fact, it might be a drawback, because new kids wouldn't know the old characters and wouldn't understand where they came from. Also, seeing television and the space race and other scientific marvels on the scene, he wanted a more science-fictional slant for their books. (It also didn't hurt that Mr. Schwartz was the founder of the original SF fanzine, and was also an SF literary agent.) So he decided to revive the names of the classic characters, but with new secret identities, new backgrounds, and new powers, generally with a more SF approach. The old Green Lantern had a magic ring; the new Green Lantern had a ring created by aliens. The old Hawkman was a reincarnated Egyptian Prince; the new Hawkman was an alien police officer. The old Atom was a short but powerful brawler; the new Atom was a physicist who invented a shrinking ray, then got caught in it.
But Mr. Schwartz himself had nostalgia for the old characters, and he knew there were fans of the older characters. So he threw them a bone: he let the new Flash meet the old Flash. But how could that be, when their worlds were so different? Mr. Schwartz fell back on a long-established science fiction trope: parallel worlds. All the classic heroes were found on the misnamed Earth 2, while the new heroes were found on Earth 1.
And the fans went wild, and demanded more. So like any good capitalist, DC gave it it them. Team-ups between Earth 1 and Earth 2 heroes became an annual event, and sometimes more frequent.
Then DC started buying up the rights to old comic characters from other companies; and to keep things simple, each of those new lines was relegated to its own Earth. It wasn't a way to cover up inconsistencies; it was simply a way to let these characters have their own worlds and stories as they were originally published (since DC was happy to rerun all of that old material the market would take), while still having a chance at crossover events to boost sales and generate cross-title interest.
There were a few Earths introduced strictly for story purposes, not to bring new character lines into the fold. For instance, at one point, Mr. Schwartz decided it would be fun to have the Flash meet the DC team who wrote the Flash. After all, Barry Allen (Flash of Earth 1) knew about Jay Garrick (Flash of Earth 2) because the Earth 2 adventures appeared as comic books in Earth 1, so apparently ideas could cross universes and be picked up by the perceptive minds of comic book creators. So he devised Earth Prime, i.e., our Earth, where all of the other Earths are just comic book stories, and he sent the Flash there (i.e., here). A number of Earth Prime stories developed from there. There was also Earth 3, a mirror Earth where all the Earth 1 heroes were villains.
So far as I know, the only Earth created to explain an inconsistency was the Earth of Kamandi, Last Boy on Earth, and OMAC, One Man Army Corps. These two books, created by Jack Kirby, had a mutually consistent future history that was unfortunately inconsistent with the future history already established for the Legion of Superheroes. Despite many fan attempts to reconcile the two, the future histories never jibed; so it became easier to treat them as separate Earths.
And if this all seems convoluted to you, then you understand why DC came up with Crisis on Infinite Earths, a story that eliminated all of the parallel Earths; more than that, it eliminated any possinility of them (but that rule has since been relaxed).
But honestly, I never understood that reasoning. I read my first Earth 1/Earth 2 crossover stories before I was 5, and I never found the multiple Earths all that hard to follow. And while my ego may say otherwise, I'm not that brilliant. This stuff just wasn't that hard to follow. The only folks who found it hard to follow were the obsessive Continuity Cops who had to try to fit each and every story into a precise timeline and picture, and who loved to gloat any time they found an inconsistency. Continuity can make a good story more enjoyable; but a slavish devotion to continuity can stop the creative team from telling some really good stories. Given the choice of a good story or meticulous continuity, I'll choose a good story.
I am in awe...
OK, so I hear you channeling Emerson and saying "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" which is one of my favorite quotations by the way. So I get your point. But I disagree with you.
My problem with comics was not that I outgrew them, because my wife would be sure to tell you I've never grown up at all, but I just lost interest in them because of the overwhelming lack of consistency, the tendency for the story lines to become self-fulfilling and the complete disregard the publishers had for their audience.
You say "given a choice between a good story or meticulous continuity, I'll choose a good story." Well, I'm saying that from my perspective in the early to mid 70s, there was a pervasive lack of both.
Marvel held out much longer than DC. When DC was down to one or two decent comics and really only one compelling hero (Batman, of course, or maybe two, I did like Green Arrow's comeback in the 70s) Marvel was actually doing some really good stuff. The Warlock series was probably the best comic book series I was reading at that time. But in the 70s there was also the continuing excellence of Spiderman, Dr. Strange and even occasionally, the Avengers, or the odd Fantastic Four series.
It was right about the time that the Warlock series ended that I stopped reading comics. Warlock was over, Jean Gray was dead, Spiderman had become a constant psychological chore to read, (he had gone from his classic banter with the villains to torturous self-doubt thought balloons in every fight) The Fantastic Four were squabbling like children, and all of them suddenly began to be drawn in a nearly sof-core pornographic style that I took to calling "Dolly Parton in Zero-G"...
I just lost interest. All the alternate earth story lines (some of which I admit had been introduced in the Warlock series that I really liked) were just too much.
It isn't that I couldn't keep track of what was going on, it was just that I found I just didn't care to try. It seemed that I could read one comic book (say, "The Amazing Spiderman") and Spidey would be slinging along through Manhattan like old times, while at the same time on the newsstand, in an Avenger's issue, Spiderman might be on a planet in another galaxy. And there was no hint in the one comic that such monumental events were happening in another. It felt like there were about three Spidermen running around, one doing his normal old stuff, one who was working with some team somewhere on some world-saving problem, and one doing guest shots in Dr. Strange where he might be helping the Doc defeat the Dread Dormammu.
I just moved on, that's all.
Well, that's a whole separate critique; and while I think it's a matter of subjective taste, I think it's a more defensible critique as well. If you thought the stories sucked, it would be foolish for you to keep reading. Life is too short and there are too many good things to be found in it, so you should never waste time on things that you think suck.
Of course, my tastes may vary, and do vary in this case. I thought the stories of the 70s and pre-Crisis 80s included some real masterpieces that make up for the low points.
But I wouldn't ever try to argue that my tastes are "right" and yours "wrong". I just felt that your description of parallel Earths at DC was way off the mark. I haven't read enough Marvel to have an opinion on parallel worlds there, other than I know that a lot of their parallel world efforts have been villified by their fans. I know the whole Reborn saga had a lot of enemies; and the Ultimates line is loathed by a lot of old fans as well.
I started reading alternative comics after that. What I like about most Japanese Manga, for example--most of those I've read--is that they're written as novels, and they tend to have a distinct story line with a beginning, a middle, and an end, and the story may take place over 1, 5, 10, 20, even 100 issues, but the bottom line is the better ones quite distinctly END. A "The End" is written and maybe they do a sequel but maybe not.
Plus they don't do much with superheroes, which in my view is a good thing.
This may in part explain why I have enjoyed some of the recent superhero movies. Because I enjoy the concept. But it's like Scott McCloud said, a superhero story is like chocolate pie with whipped cream: I like chocolate pie with whipped cream but I just can't imagine eating it at every meal.
A Spider-Man or Batman movie every few years, now that's enjoyable. An endless serial? You can't hold my interest and at some point I feel suckered because it's obvious the story's just never going to end because there *is* no story really, just an unending Soap Opera in tights.
I also still dig stuff like Cerebus. Ah but Cerebus ended, as planned, on issue 300. Or so I understand, I haven't caught up on it but I will.
You may want to check out the bi-monthly miniseries by DC called, "Justice." In an odd sort of way it addresses it. The major villians come together and try to create a real utopian Earth because, for some reason, they all shared a vision of the Earth getting destroyed and the superheroes could do nothing about it. Lex Luthor (I think it was him) takes issue with superheroes for not elevating mankind. Sure, they thwart crimes and stuff but do nothing to, say, solve world poverty and hunger or even provide shelter and services for the poor and downtrodden. Sure, if an astroid is about to impact the Earth, call up a superhero. If you want a better day-to-day life then, well, who do you call?
The series isn't that cut and dry, the villians aren't altruistic in their actions, but it was a fantastic point Lex made.
As for Japanese manga, you raise an excellent point. Comsumers there are used to getting a confined story, beginning-middle-end, and that's it. Here, however, the powers-that-be are so concerned about maximizing profits that they rarely allow such a thing to be told because of possible limited viewership.
However, the whole "superhero" thing is uniquely American in my experience. It isn't exactly fair to compare them to their foriegn equivalant because they don't exactly mesh.
All said, though, DC, Marvel indeed the entertainment media as a whlole could learn a lot from the Japanese way of doing things. Limited series manga, fantastic anime series straight to video (DVD)... it's great stuff and fosters great storytelling. Sure, we have direct-to-video houses here in the U.S. but nothing like they do in Japan. We expect B-film quality tripe most of the time. I'd love to see an American animation house produce an adult (see: mature) serial.
Where's the American "Neon Genesis Evangelion!?"
Still, what I would say about the endless serialization of American comics (most of them) is this: I think it may actually be costing them money. They're looking at it in the short term. Long term, they lose most of their audience this way, since the vast majority of people who enjoy comics are, I suspect, like Sean and me. We don't outgrow comics, but we completely tire of it once we realize they aren't really doing anything but churning out pap that never ends.
If they were really creative they could write stories that go on for 10 or 15 or 30 issues, or whatever, and then distinctly end, and then they would have to come up with a new vehicle. Well, that's exactly how Hollywood makes most of its movies. And it's how a lot of the most successful book authors work. Stephen King wrote The Shining, and he didn't keep writing The Shining, issuing a new Shining book every year for the next 30 years until he died. He wrote that one book. It did very well. You can still buy it in stores. And he went on to write other completely different things.
I think the comic book industry would have a lot more readers, especially a lot more adult readers, if they would stop being afraid to write "the end" on a character or story, and just stop trying to make everything part of a canonical "universe."
However, I gotta give it up to the excellent animated series Justice League: Unlimited for getting me really back into it. That and one of my favorite comic books, Witchblade, rebooted the setting and the writing is excellent so far.
I am currently read way too many titles, most of which are DC, because the writing is just great! Maybe it's because I came in when Infinite Crisis was just getting started but there is some great stuff going on at DC! Top Cow is also making some great stuff with Hunter Killer and V.I.C.E..
And Marvel has inpressed me with Civil War (and that's about it).
There are some great stories being told all across the board. Now is an excellent time to grab a few issues of your favorite titles and see what's going on!
So, what exactly do you do at DC Comics?
;-)
I was totally thinking, "I wonder when DC is gonna pay me for my efforts?" while writing all that!
However, I've been carrying the Top Cow flag much longer than DC. I'll take Witchblade over any DC title for the long haul.
Maybe I'm so enamored with DC right now because I've been reading all the classic DC stuff trying to get the "essentials" down: Batman: The Long Holloween, Batman: The Dark Kight Returns, Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, Batman: Year One, Kingdom Come and Batman: Hush. Odd that most of the best DC stories are all about Batman. God knows I've been looking for Superman equivilants.
Trying to slog my way through Crisis on Infinite Earths. And I don't want to read Infinite Crisis yet because it builds on the pervious. Which means I shouldn't really read any of the "One Year Later" titles (which are all of them). And I shouldn't read 52 until I get Infinite Crisis in the bag!
ARGHHHH!!!!
Heh. Depends on how you define "best", and also how you define "Batman stories" and "Superman stories".
Batman: The Long Halloween. Yep. Pretty darn good.
Batman: The Dark Kight Returns. Absolute classic; but like many classics, it's a product of its time. The same book today would not be so groundbreaking. Also, it gave license to a horde of lesser talents to try to imitate it, while mostly missing the point. That's not its fault, but it still comes to mind every time I read it.
Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Ugh. Frank Miller spending page after page telling us how evil conservatives are. Wish I'd never spent the money.
Batman: Year One. Very good in parts, needlessly crude in others. Reenvisioning Selina as a prostitute was simply unnecessary. Over all, though, a great read.
Kingdom Come: I thought you couldn't find Superman equivalents. Yeah, there are plenty of other major characters; but this is first and foremost Superman's book. And do yourself a favor: find and read Elliot S! Maggin's novelization. It's one of the three best superhero novels ever written. Not coincidentally, the other two were also written by Elliot S! Maggin, but they're long out of print.
Batman: Hush. Good, and well-written, but not in a class with the others you list.
Here are my further recommendations for must-read DC books. Notice that for me, must-read does not mean, "You have to read this to understand what's going on in the DC Universe." It means, "Boy, that's one fantastic story!"
The Kents: A great western/Civil War story that takes you through U.S. history, with the Kent family (as in Clark) providing a unifying thread.
Superman for All Seasons: A coming of age story from the team that brought you Batman: The Long Halloween, including the writer of Batman: Hush, Jeph Loeb.
Superman: Birthright: Mark Waid, author of Kingdom Come and in my opinion best mainstream superhero writer in the business today (though Jeph Loeb comes close), retells Superman's early career.
Superman: Panic in the Sky: Of all the multi-issue/multi-team Superman crossover stories, this is the one I feel both hangs together best and stands on its own as a story.
Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?: Alan Moore closes up the story of the Silver Age Superman with loving care. Dean, if you want a story with an ending, this is the book -- and it's an ending that's absolutely true to the essence and the history of the character that came before.
Batman: The Killing Joke: Alan Moore writes what may be the most intense bit of character development in any superhero comic. By the end, you'll hate the Joker more than ever; and yet in the back of your mind, you'll wonder if you could be just like him.
Icon: A Hero's Welcome: No, it's not the DC Universe. It's from the old Milestone line they published in the early 90s. Read it anyway. I miss Milestone.
The Kingdom: Mark Waid's sequel to Kingdom Come, in which he tells the obsessives in the audience, "Chill out! It's just a comic book!"
Starman: The whole thing, start to finish. And yes, Dean, it has a finish, one foreshadowed and planned from the very first page of the first book. James Robinson is literate and eccentric, and it shows in every volume in this series.
Static Shock: Trial by Fire: Though not as good as Icon, this is the only other Milestone collection available. I miss Milestone.
Superman/Batman Vol. 1: Public Enemies: Jeph Loeb tells the tale of Superman and Batman, hunted by the most of the US at the command of President Luthor. That sounds loopy, but Loeb is talented enough to pull it off.
Superman/Batman Vol. 2: Supergirl: Loeb brings the classic Supergirl back to the DCU.
Superman/Batman Vol. 2: Absolute Power: Loeb tells the story of Superman and Batman kidnapped as children and raised by time-traveling villains (minor but classic Silver Age villains) who use the duo to rule the Earth.
Watchmen: No, not the DC Universe. Read it anyway. Two decades later, I think it's unequaled when it comes to superhero epic as a unique art form.
Animal Man: The whole series, not just this book. Grant Morrison brings the surreal to comics like no one else. His animal rights agenda isn't exactly nuanced, but he's too talented to miss.
Doom Patrol: All the volumes, starting here. More Grant Morrison; only when you read this, you realize that he was pretty restrained when he wrote Animal Man. This is a "superhero" book that brings in surrealim, dadaism, memetics, and the nature of reality. This is a book that can't be described, no matter how hard I try; but imagine a superhero book written by a deranged philosopher. Or as one of his friends (might've been Mark Waid) wrote, "Grant Morrison clearly pours peyote buttons on his breakfast cereal." This stuff will expand your mind.
Fables: Not DC Univers, but read the whole series, starting here. Bill Willingham tells a modern fantasy story, based on old fantasy stories. See, all the old fables and fairy tales and legends are true stories from various interconnected fantasy worlds; and a mysterious conqueror starts taking over those worlds. So a few defenders flee to the last place he'll ever look: a strange place called New York.
The Sandman: Again, read the whole series. May be the finest fantasy work of the 90s, in any medium.
Swamp Thing: Read all the Alan Moore books. They definitely have a beginning and an end. Yes, DC kept the series going with other authors; but Moore ended the series.
That's all I have time for right now. But that should get you started.
Thanks for the list! I'm going to Comic Con International: San Diego in July and I'll pick some of those up.
I've already read the Superman/Batman books you've mentioned and I'm caught up to issue #25. A very, very good series. I'm sorry to see Jehp Loeb leave it. I'm looking forward to issue #26. Jeph's son was supposed to write that issue as a stand alone but he died before he could complete it. So, Jeph, and, from what I hear, 25 other writers got together and a making it something of a tribute to the kid. Sad and uplifting at the same time.
I didn't really consider Kingdom Come a Superman story but looking back I can see your point.
As for Batman: The Dark Kight Strikes Again, I see your point there as well. I also didn't like how Miller would punk Superman whenever he got a chance - like he was some kind of puppet for the American government. I like that he began the antagonism between Batman and Superman but, in the end, they're supposed to be on the same side. Jeph Loeb does this best in the Superman/Batman series.
The idea that Batman can take out Superman whenever he wants, as Miller seems to think, always struck me as odd. The fight between Batman and Superman in Batman: Hush seemed the most fair to both characters. Batman could mess up Superman if he needed to but the odds are ultimately on Superman's side. Not surprising, this too was written by Loeb.
I only read the collections, so I'll have a longer wait. Thanks for the heads up!
Partly it's my bias: Superman is my favorite. If it were Batman, I might have seen it as a Batman story.
Yep. While I may follow favorite characters, it's really writers that make for classic stories, not characters. Looking back over my recommendations, Moore, Waid, Morrison, Miller, and Loeb keep popping up, across different titles and characters. Look for their names on quality projects. And the others I mentioned by book but maybe not by name -- Willingham, Robinson, and Gaiman -- are equally reliable. If you want high quality stories, you have to follow writers, not characters.