Dan DiDio on 2006

Bad Karma

Newsarama recently had an interview with Dan, looking back on the DCU this year. I though it was a good interview, with a lot of valid points brought up with some honest answers.

A few bits I found interesting..

DD: It's funny - when you talk about change…if a person complains about, say, Cassandra Cain…or the people who complained about Barbara Gordon - and there were about ten times more…or the people who still complain about Betty Kane in the '50s…

NRAMA: People still complain about Betty Kane in the '50s?
DD: Yes, they do. The reality is that there is an evolution of our characters that is always taking place, but as I like to say, our characters are granite, they're titanium. They're solid. They're not porcelain things that can break because of one individual's touch. These are things that have withstood the test of time. That's what makes our characters wonderful.

So the reality is that we can play with them. We can take risks, we can take chances. That's what we should be doing. Right now, we're working with a fanbase that has a long-time investment in our product. I can tell by a fan arguing with me about what change they like and what change they didn't like, I can tell when they started reading comics. It's obvious to me in 99% of the cases that the interpretation of the character they're arguing most for is the version that they first read. So a lot of times, people are looking at the character and saying, "This is not the character that I fell in love with." And then there's a later interpretation, which results in another person saying, "This isn't the version of the character that I fell in love with." It's the infamous Hal Jordan versus Kyle Rayner argument. Most Kyle Rayner fans started reading at a time when Kyle was hot or was introduced - that was what brought them in. They don't want Hal Jordan - why would they? Why would they want Kyle off the stage? But, on the other hand, Hal fans have been out there for a long time as well.

So you have a constant evolution of the characters, but unlike before, we don't have as rapid of a turnover of readership anymore. As a result, we can't go into the tricks that were prevalent in the '50s and the '60s where they were able to, by and large, repeat the same stories without only minor modifications every three to five years.

And of course, in all of this is the "no-win" aspect of changing characters…

NRAMA: That the wanting is better than the having, to paraphrase Spock?

DD: Right - if you don't change, fans, generally start crying out for change. Then, if you change something, the fans - sometimes the same ones will start crying out that they didn't want the change. You're never going to be able to please everybody

NRAMA: So is it a valid issue for fans to gripe about?

DD: Gripe, sure. We're in an interesting period of time with comics. I would love for somebody to do the research and look at the top ten books each month and tell me which of those books were on time…pull out 52, and tell me which ones are on time.

NRAMA: If I had to guess, probably, in any given month, you're talking about an average of 70-80% - 7 to 8 books a month are the books that were originally solicited to reach stores that month make it, with the other 2-3 being books that are late, but make the top ten anyway.
DD: So now - DC, Marvel, and the industry are being blamed for shipping late books, yet those books are in the top ten percent of all books sold in the months that they come out. The problem is this - we have very strong creators with very strong creative visions, and these are the people that the fans want to see on their comics. The fans have basically stated - by sales - that they are willing to wait for those books, because when they do come out, they sell.

That's not to say that every book should come out late, because it's going to sell better, of course, but there are certain books that the fans are willing to wait for. The trick is to be able to find the balance and figure out which ones they will wait for, and which ones they won't wait for. That's where the difficulty lies. But the problem also has to take into account that the fans are waiting, and the creators are doing their work for books that will not just be on the stands that month, but will be on the bookstore shelves, and will stay there for an extended period of time, perhaps years or decades. They want to make sure it's the best material possible, because it's going to be out there for longer than just the one month that a comic would normally be. Because of that, the time, the effort, the energy that's being spent is probably more than normal, and that slows down production.

So the question is realistic - do we continue to put out product at a slower pace, knowing that the fans will be there for it when it comes out, and know that it will be able to be collected at a later date and have longevity due to its quality? Do we interrupt our runs with fill-ins, and lose that sense of momentum for that particular story? Or should we change the teams to make things work on a monthly basis.

My problem with all of this is that there are so many incredibly talented people turning out regular, monthly books, and I don't want to slight these people by any means. Our job is to put out periodicals and to make sure they come out on the stands. I am not doing my job if the book does not come out on a monthly basis. I know that. Every once in a while, I have to make tough choices of whether to wait or whether to put a book out. It's not an arbitrary decision, and my only hope is that the decisions I make are not detrimental to the product line.

I see late books as the same double-edged sword as crossovers - people complain about crossovers and events, but the sales don't lie - fans buy the crossover and the events.

Monday will feature DiDio on looking forward to 2007.

Conditional_Axe

Karma, you know this thread is going to end badly.

I thought this was a decent interview, and he brings up some good general points, but man I hate seeing comics professionals dodge specific questions, and it happens all the time now.

Bad Karma

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Karma, you know this thread is going to end badly.

No it's not, it's going to be a nice and civil discussion thread. If Newsarma can do it, so can we. As long as everyone behaves.

Marathon

Seems like a good interview. I can't say that I agree with his statement that late books are ok because they are in the top sales when they come out anyway. It's not being late that pushes up the sales, that same book would have sold just as well had it come out on time.

Skullo

Probably a little better.

Conditional_Axe

When he talks about late books, he's doing so from a purely business standpoint. The balancing act he's referring to is a real front-office concern, and it's a lot more prevalent now that we follow creators to the extent that we do.

I don't think that he likes shipping books late, but that in a financial sense, it's acceptable.

Bad Karma

It makes sense though. There are people out there (one or two here as well) who almost have a militant attitude towards a late book. They go off on their rants and raves blah blah, yet I bet, come Wednesday, they'll be first in line to buy that book. So why complain? Unfortunately, it won't make the writers writer faster, or the artists draw fast enough. Well, at least not all the time.

Munch

Eh, pretty much the same old song and dance from Didio. He dodges questions, twists facts to suit his needs, and in the end comes off as looking at comics from a primarily financial point of view, and caring little for the characters. Which is okay, the comics industry is, after all, an industry, but as a fan I don't care for his attitude.

Conditional_Axe

Define caring about the characters, so I don't automatically assume that you mean, "keeping the characters that I like exactly the same forever."

Munch

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

Conditional_Axe

Munch wrote:

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

which is another way of saying that you don't want them to change.

From a creative standpoint, I think that what DC has been doing is extremely important. Didio may not be a writer, but in broad terms, it certainly seems to me like he 'gets it'.

I also think that character and financial success go hand in hand.

Bad Karma

Munch wrote:

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

Just to play devils advocate here, the comic industry is still an industry. Especially after the 90's crash, sometimes things need to be done to try and raise revenue. I stress try, because yes, I know they don't all work out.

Spectre-x

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Munch wrote:

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

which is another way of saying that you don't want them to change.

From a creative standpoint, I think that what DC has been doing is extremely important. Didio may not be a writer, but in broad terms, it certainly seems to me like he 'gets it'.

I also think that character and financial success go hand in hand.

Ha ha ha what? Munch has only ever shown an extreme distaste -dare I say unparalleled hatred- for bad change, non-sensical change, change from a good characterization of a character back into a previous and now out-dated version of a character.

Case in point: Booster Gold. Why did he go from a guy who lost his best friend, probably partially to something he feels is his fault, to a guy who only cares about himself? Going back to basics, right. Why? No reason at all.

Dan DiDio talks about change, but what he really talks about is changing characters into earlier characterizations that make absolutely no sense considering what has happened to them since those characterizations.

And I agree with Munch completely. Dan DiDio doesn;t give a shit about character development. He is all about the moolah. He is stirring up shit not because he thinks it's interesting, he stirs up shit to spark more sales, and he doesn't care what kind of shit he stirs up, so long as it sells books, even if the people buying them hate what happens in the books and they only buy them to desperately try to find out why the characters they followed and loved were suddenly changed into homicidal maniacs with completely altered personalities.

tl;dr: Shut up, you ninny. Dan DiDio is a jerk.

Munch

Conditional_Axe wrote:

which is another way of saying that you don't want them to change.

Was AzBats a good idea? Was Superman Red and Blue, Electric Boogaloo? Or when Sue Richards became a bondage queen? Or when Iron Man became a teenager?

No, they were basically retarded ideas that, while they had their fans, and were new and interesting, took existing characters and took them to a place that fans of those characters didn't like, and that eventually became jokes of the industry. I feel the same way about some of the recent changes to certain characters. Unfortunately, a lot of the characters I like don't have the benefit of being on coffee mugs and t-shirts, so they're more likely to stay in an incarnation that I feel is kind of fucked. Feel free to disagree, as I said, it's my opinion as a fan, which really doesn't count for shit.

Bad Karma wrote:

Just to play devils advocate here, the comic industry is still an industry. Especially after the 90's crash, sometimes things need to be done to try and raise revenue. I stress try, because yes, I know they don't all work out.

Munch wrote:

Eh, pretty much the same old song and dance from Didio. He dodges questions, twists facts to suit his needs, and in the end comes off as looking at comics from a primarily financial point of view, and caring little for the characters. Which is okay, the comics industry is, after all, an industry, but as a fan I don't care for his attitude.

Bad Karma

Eh, didnt catch that part, I thought it was the same ol song and dance from Munch. :winky: :winky:

Conditional_Axe

I think that conceptually, they were good ideas, except for The Crossing.

In practice, they stumbled a bit, perhaps.

In addition, I think a lot of those things were always intended to be temporary changes in order to create an arc or refocus a character.

Spectre-x

I assume that Munch is hiding in DiDio's bushes in order to drop a log there out of spite for the man. I believe I may join him shortly and perhaps engage in enlightened conversation.

Skullo

I'll have to go and find the exact quote later (i'm leaving my dorm in about two hours so all my comics are packed away) but in one of his columns in a recent JLA issue, DiDio was talking about things he considered "defining" of DC.

For one of them, he wrote "Countdown", gave an explaniation of what it was, and wrote "Usually invovles a dead Blue Beetle". Another was "Crisis - usually involves a dead Flash".

Sure, fans are going to react negatively to change every now and then. But at least don't treat your characters with such irreverance.

Charmy

Skullo wrote:

For one of them, he wrote "Countdown", gave an explaniation of what it was, and wrote "Usually invovles a dead Blue Beetle". Another was "Crisis - usually involves a dead Flash".

He tried to explain the Flash quote away later, saying what he meant was that The Flash had always been a character that marked significant events (the start of the Silver Age, the birth of the multiverse concept, the original crisis, etc.), so it was important that something significant happen to him now.

Of course, it's hard to tell if that's just backpeddling from the uproar he got, or if he really meant it.

Bad Karma

Maybe it was...a joke!

Leave the poor dead horse alone for while.

Charmy

Bad Karma wrote:

Maybe it was...a joke!

Can't be. The funny books are serious business.

Conditional_Axe

Bad Karma wrote:

Maybe it was...a joke!

Leave the poor dead horse alone for while.

Man, joking is irreverant. He should respect fictional characters more.

Spectre-x

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Bad Karma wrote:

Maybe it was...a joke!

Leave the poor dead horse alone for while.

Man, joking is irreverant. He should respect fictional characters more.

Actually, from his decisions, you can clearly see that Dan DiDio hates comedy in comics.

GABBO GABBO GABBO

You know, Dan DiDio seems like a pretty cool dude from that interview.
Why does everyone hate him again?

Skullo

It just didn't seem right, what with all the uproar over BB and stuff.

Bad Karma

Spectre-x wrote:

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Bad Karma wrote:

Maybe it was...a joke!

Leave the poor dead horse alone for while.

Man, joking is irreverant. He should respect fictional characters more.

Actually, from his decisions, you can clearly see that Dan DiDio hates comedy in comics.

I thought Spirit #1 had some funny moments, as did the Infinite Holiday Special. Shadowpact and All New Atom have both had some goofy comedic moments. The scenes with Maxine Hunkel where a riot in JSofA #1. But like I always say...

Thats just me.

Spectre-x

I liked a lot of those, too. But you just wait! He'll dangle them in front of you like some sort of carrot, so hey, there's hope! But then he keeps it out of your reach!

Like some sort of



carrot

Briareos

Spectre-x wrote:

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Munch wrote:

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

which is another way of saying that you don't want them to change.

From a creative standpoint, I think that what DC has been doing is extremely important. Didio may not be a writer, but in broad terms, it certainly seems to me like he 'gets it'.

I also think that character and financial success go hand in hand.

Ha ha ha what? Munch has only ever shown an extreme distaste -dare I say unparalleled hatred- for bad change, non-sensical change, change from a good characterization of a character back into a previous and now out-dated version of a character.

Case in point: Booster Gold. Why did he go from a guy who lost his best friend, probably partially to something he feels is his fault, to a guy who only cares about himself? Going back to basics, right. Why? No reason at all.

Dan DiDio talks about change, but what he really talks about is changing characters into earlier characterizations that make absolutely no sense considering what has happened to them since those characterizations.

And I agree with Munch completely. Dan DiDio doesn;t give a shit about character development. He is all about the moolah. He is stirring up shit not because he thinks it's interesting, he stirs up shit to spark more sales, and he doesn't care what kind of shit he stirs up, so long as it sells books, even if the people buying them hate what happens in the books and they only buy them to desperately try to find out why the characters they followed and loved were suddenly changed into homicidal maniacs with completely altered personalities.

tl;dr: Shut up, you ninny. Dan DiDio is a jerk.

What? You want comics to just be the artist's constant evolving story-telling, only going where the artist's visions lead? That's fine for limited series, one-shots, and graphic novels, but I don't think it makes sense for a monthly book to focus solely in that direction. A monthly has to sell. It's the book's only reason for existence.

If all stories are just going to be the real deep character stuff, the industry should just switch to releasing quarterly graphic novels for the main stories. Lessen the deadline pressure and focus more on writing and quality. Of course, then we'd see the publishers suffering greater losses on advertising, and the audience would probably shrink, too.

Monthly books are the industry's bread and butter. They give publishers the room to be able to release the really interesting one-offs and graphic novels that delve deeply into our favorite characters. I'm fine with a trade-off of a lighter monthly book in exchange for a chance to see great talents really focus on characterization, story, and art in specialty books.

Besides, the quality of DC's monthlies, at least for their main characters and lines, has been pretty high this year. And I think that the quality of the main lines has been strong across the board for both Marvel and DC, with a few exceptions, of course.

Spectre-x

Yes, you're pretty much going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Furu

I'd have to say the dead Beetle/dead Flash quote can be chalked up to Didio mistakingly thinking people can take a joke.

Skullo

Bwa. I realize it was a joke. I was just putting it out there, since that whole thing and the other recent character kill-offs have been a big deal. I couldn't care less about Blue Beetle. And countdown sucked anyway.

I don't care about DiDio. Hell, I wouldn't have even known who he was until the begining of this semester.

Furu

And there wasn't even a dead Flash in IC!

...except for Barry.


Clever, Didio.

Terrorbyte

Manifest wrote:

You know, Dan DiDio seems like a pretty cool dude from that interview.
Why does everyone hate him again?

Munch just likes to piss and moan constantly.

The Muffin Man

Conditional_Axe wrote:

Munch wrote:

Viewing them as largely interchangeable properties to be destroyed, twisted around, or discarded to maximize controversy and interest, and therefore profits.

which is another way of saying that you don't want them to change.

From a creative standpoint, I think that what DC has been doing is extremely important. Didio may not be a writer, but in broad terms, it certainly seems to me like he 'gets it'.

I also think that character and financial success go hand in hand.

Change is good.

A lot of people bitched about Superman changing because he was the standard for superheroes. That's where we got the TERM, really. And remember Spideys new costume? We all cried and bitched but after a while? "It's not THAT bad."

Shit, I'm sure we'll even like the Fantastic Four once we get used to the fact that Black Panthers not SUPPOSED to be a racist dick and Storms not a whiny dependent brat

Case in point: Booster Gold. Why did he go from a guy who lost his best friend, probably partially to something he feels is his fault, to a guy who only cares about himself? Going back to basics, right. Why? No reason at all.

As much as I hate the Booster Gold change, it could be more of a reaction similar to "I got close to Ted and he died. If I don't get close to anyone, I can't be hurt when they die."
They could've, y'know, shown us. Considering 52 was meant to be the stories that were told to develop characters, it'd be nice if we didn't IMMEDIETLY get Booster Asshole. Maybe an early story of Booster feeling guilty and dealing with loss, then deciding to be a dick to avoid getting hurt by losing another best friend.

But what do I know, I only want characters to seem human. (Note: This was not a shot at Spectre. It's a shot at DiDio/Whoever the fuck decided to make Booster a cock for no discernable reason)

Why does everyone hate him again?

Munch Was it a good idea when wrote:

Or when Sue Richards became a bondage queen?

Yes.

The Muffin Man

Terrorbyte wrote:

Manifest wrote:

You know, Dan DiDio seems like a pretty cool dude from that interview.
Why does everyone hate him again?

Munch just likes to piss and moan constantly.

$5 says if this was about Joe Quesada you'd say "BECAUSE HE SUCKS LOL"

Not to say Quesada isn't a douche, but...

well...

You're Terrorbyte.

Garlic Bread

Furu wrote:

And there wasn't even a dead Flash in IC!

...except for Barry.


Clever, Didio.

Bart says Wally's dead in the Infinite Holiday Special

Charmy

Keith wrote:

Furu wrote:

And there wasn't even a dead Flash in IC!

...except for Barry.


Clever, Didio.

Bart says Wally's dead in the Infinite Holiday Special

You want to know who's dead, Keith?

You. To me.

[spoiler:384df0e593]Say it ain't so, Keith. We all loves Wally.[/spoiler:384df0e593]

Garlic Bread

Charmy wrote:

Keith wrote:

Furu wrote:

And there wasn't even a dead Flash in IC!

...except for Barry.


Clever, Didio.

Bart says Wally's dead in the Infinite Holiday Special

You want to know who's dead, Keith?

You. To me.

[spoiler:fe1cf6f9f9]Say it ain't so, Keith. We all loves Wally.[/spoiler:fe1cf6f9f9]

Bart talks about Christmases spent fighting people with Max, Wally, and Superboy, and then says, "That's a great way to remember the holidays, thinking of your dead friends." or something like that

of course, there's also another Earth in the Speed Force so I'm sure it's only a matter of time until that pops out of Bart and everyone's back to life again

Briareos

Spectre-x wrote:

Yes, you're pretty much going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I thought it had a salient point when I wrote it.

There's a lesson for you kids: don't leave and come back to your post and try to remember where you left off.

Bloods End

Manifest wrote:

You know, Dan DiDio seems like a pretty cool dude from that interview.
Why does everyone hate him again?

We all hate upper management. DiDio is a douche, Quesada is a bastard, and Stradly killed my dog.

Conditional_Axe

Stradley, to be fair, is a giant asshole and is downright combative with the fans. On a Daniel Way or John Byrne level, if not worse.

Quesada is a bit uncouth, but I don't think he's a bad guy.