Comic Book Resources

So, yeah, why is this comic called Deadman?

Why was Sandman called Sandman? It really had nothing to do with Wesley Dodds or any character like him (despite the nod to him in the first arc). Instead of the original Phantom-esque night-time crimefighter, we got the supernatural embodiment of dreams - a bit of creative license there, to be sure. Don't get me wrong, I like Neil Gaiman's Sandman lots, but it's far more removed from the concept it was nominally spun off from than Bruce Jones's Deadman is from Boston Brand.

I mentioned this when it was solicited - it seems a weird way to sell the book, because people who know who Boston Brand is will be misled, and those who don't won't have any reason to pick it up. Strange.

And Mr. Moose, the reason it was called Sandman was, I presume, because back then it was still tied into the DCU. And Gaiman DID tie in Wesley Dodds and Hector Hall to Morpheus, showing how those characters were influenced by the one, true Sandman. Now that Vertigo is completely separate from the regular DCU, it doesn't seem like a good idea to use a name of a character who is long established in the mainstream. If this series lasts a while, you know at some point a writer is going to want to use Boston Brand in a regular book. Will DC allow that?

I think a better analogy would be the Creeper series that Vertigo did a while back that had nothing to do with the DCU character. That wasn't particularly successful, and now we're back to the original version again.

If this series lasts a while, you know at some point a writer is going to want to use Boston Brand in a regular book. Will DC allow that?

DC has already explicitly said yes to this. And while Gaiman made connections to Wesleey Dodds and Hector Hall, they were incredibly tenuous connections (and in the case of Hector Hall a pretty unflattering one - he gets retconned into being a delusion created by his unstable wife). The concept of "Sandman" was a radical departure from the original Golden Age Sandman; this Vertigo Sandman seems not too much of a stretch from the Boston Brand version. I mean, really. What are you complaining about here?

Sorry, that should read "this Vertigo Deadman seems not too much of a stretch from the Boston Brand version."

I'm personally not complaining at all - the series looks interesting, and I don't care what DC calls it. But I would argue that Deadman has a bigger presence in the DCU than Hector Hall ever did (not by much, of course, but still bigger), so it's a weird way to market it. The Creeper IS a good example - the Vertigo series was underrated in my book, but DC didn't hesitate to bring back the original (with a new origin, of course). Shade is another case of using an older character in a radically new way. "Creeper" and "Shade" are very specific names, however, and both Vertigo series, as well as Sandman, did have connections, however tenuous, to their predecessors. It does not sound like this Deadman series has any connection whatsoever to Boston Brand, so that's why it's strange.

It's nice to know that Jones is writing something "sharp," to use Brian's word. Except for his early Hulk issues, he hasn't really been that sharp, so I'm intrigued by this book.

I believe the idea behind Gaiman's Sandman was that it *was* supposed to be a revival of one of the earlier superheroes by that name before Gaiman had anything to do with it, and he propsed going in a different but related direction when he was hired to write it (although the series eventually tied back to the previous characters anyway). Hence the Sandman title. I'm sure the Sandman Companion book goes into this, but I don't have my copy handy.

"What’s the point of calling it Deadman?"

This may sound a little cynical, but maybe the point is that an ongoing serial called "Deadman" centering around a mysterious plane crash and the adventures of the "survivor" as he unravels the mystery is easier to sell to the creatively bankrupt Hollywood types than a story about a murdered trapeze artist who haunts the afterlife in red leotards and helps out the living by possessing people's bodies.

PRODUCER: "I don't get it. Circuses? 'Rama Kush?" How are we supposed to film this?"

DC SUIT: OK, OK. How about we keep the name "Deadman," but give it THIS treatment? Think of it as 'Lost' meets 'Dead Like Me.'"

To emphasize how utterly unconntected Neil Gaiman's Sandman was to previous characters called Sandman, let me point out that throughout the seventy-odd issue run of Sandman, virtually no one calls the main character "Sandman." In fact, I think no one actually addresses him as "Sandman" at all - he just mentions it in passing as one of his names. People call him Dream, Morpheus, Oneiros, you name it, but they do not call the title character of "Sandman" the Sandman. Hell, Morpheus has more ties to Doctor freaking Destiny than he's got to anybody previously named Sandman.

It seems pretty obvious what the logic was here. DC has had a number of hits in the past in their Vertigo line based on gritty, supernaturally-tinged nominal revamps of obscure characters (most notably Swamp Thing and Sandman, but also Animal Man and Shade). This isn't a bad idea since it's got a chance of becoming a crossover hit, drawing DCU-only readers to a Vertigo character they might otherwise avoid (or vice versa). At a time when Vertigo's most recent crop of ongoings hasn't been all that spectacular, falling back on an old standby like this couldn't have looked that bad.

Think of it as ‘Lost’ meets ‘Dead Like Me.’”

Yeah, because old superhero characters were never thrown together in cheap pitch meetings. "See, he's a circus acrobat - like Robin! - but he gets killed and comes back to avenge himself - like the Spectre!" "I loves it already, baby!"

So, wait, is he a ghost or a zombie?

I'd imagine it's called Deadman because it was pitched as Deadman.

I thought this series was about the Dead, man.

I think this is Bruce Jones being involved in another DC project that just isn't going to work which is too bad because this looked pretty good but the whole Deadman connection/corruption is going to turn a lot of readers off. I certainly put it back on the shelf mainly to punish DC for this manipulative marketing practice.

Jones has recently been connected to the failed revamp of the Vigilante character, his hideous and wildly unpopular Nightwing run, and now this. How long till he becomes synonymous with ruining concepts and fan favorite characters.

I personally liked his HUlk run but most hardcore Hulk fans are still flinching from his years on the book.

He has single handedly torched the Nightwing book, lowered sales, and pissed off the very vocal and largely female Nightwing fanbase (just who DC wants to alienate women readers).

Some would also argue his OMAC mini is peeing all over the Kirby concept but from what I've seen OMAC doesn't stir a lot of passion among comic readers and even Kirby fans.

Maybe Bruce can move his tent to Dark Horse and rile up Concrete, Conan, and give us a new dark vision of Little Lulu.

He has single handedly torched the Nightwing book, lowered sales, and pissed off the very vocal and largely female Nightwing fanbase

He hardly did this "single-handedly." Devin Grayson did a good job of slowly running the character into the ground for a while, and the Infinite Crisis "we're going to kill this character, oh wait we're not, well what do we do with him?" move did a good job of torching the book all on its own. DC has no idea what to do with this character, and hasn't known for a while.