And we are expected to live with this.

Previous to this, most of DC’s more energetic, vibrant and “cool” books were from Wildstorm, on the other side of the country. Their lauded “Batman” revamp was safe - it gets the sales but reviews have not been glowing. But just how many times can you revamp a character by getting Jim Lee to DRAW it? ”
- Rich Johnson, ‘ The Cold War ‘, Lying in the Gutters, 7/27/2003

Dan Didio, in a nutshell.

The problem with the reporting in today's comics business is that it all seems so inbred. It seems half those reporting on comics news are The Comics Journal employees or ex-employees.

Bright-Raven---if I have any more responses, I'll write them later. Thanks for the discussion, but I am done for today. Too tired to debate. Must. Get. Sleep.

Is this Mike Leung?

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/06/23/dc-update-didio-not-going-anywhere/

But at the same time Didio's DC has also produced a lot of good stuff. Just a biased list:
Morrison's Seven Soldiers
Morrison's All Star Superman
Meltzer's JLA
Identity Crisis
The recent Metal Men miniseries
Ostrander returning to Suicide Squad for a mini series
The Sinestro Corps War
52
Waid's Brave and the Bold

Perhaps Didio's leaving will force DC to reevaluate its line and and force the publisher to cutback on its events.

Then I would've traded him to Marvel for Howard the Duck. And given Howard the Duck to Steve Gerber.

But I don’t even KNOW anyone who owns Batman.

I owned him once, but sold him on for a nickel.

, but WHERE is he now amidst all this.

Scotland, right?

And, OUR Batman? Not my Batman. DC comics's inc.'s Batman.

If you own part of the trademark, than "my" Batman is fine.

So it's damn sure not my made-up character. (I have a trademark on my made up characters.)

And, therefore, not "ours."
But I don't even KNOW anyone who owns Batman.

Sure, it DID bring us New X-men and all the other proper work he's now apparently ashamed of since, but WHERE is he now amidst all this. Amidst his FELLOW CO-WORKER getting screwed FOR FUCKING REAL, because he just feels like screwing OUR Batman at the fucking moment with his ' enlightenment ' in his bogus made-up creep religion nobody damn cares the fuck about ? Geez. You think, aren't these people suppose to be WORKING ?

This guy is so damn surreal. Labor relations IN THE REAL WORLD do not concern him. Like the rest of them over there.

Probably why they want to bring the ' Silver Age ' back that much.

DC's ' editorial management ' is, after all, apparently nonexistent. It's just ' all about their damn feelings '.

"It depends on what the decision was made on. If they truly like creator B better than you and think the series would sell better with creator B, then that is what can happen when you work on spec. (If you are under contract and write something they decide not to use, then they should pay you for the work done.) "

So, you would prefer all the non-contracted comics creators not bother submitting anything to Marvel / DC / Dark Horse / Image / Oni / *fill in the blank here* anymore? Because no matter what you're submitting, it's "on spec" unless you already have a well recognized established body of work or working relationship with a given editor who's going to go to bat for you. Why bother sending any work in at all then, hm?

As for whether the publisher (Marvel in this specific case) 'liked' the other creator's work better than mine, how can one claim they liked the other creator's work better when they never looked at mine to compare it? If you're saying they liked the other writer more than me as a person- considering they've never met me in person and have never worked with me, they don't know me, so they have no grounds for making that decision, either. Further, the job as editor is to judge the merits of the WORK and decide whether you want it. (Or at least that's the job as how *I* function as an editor, thank you very much.) In this instance, this did not occur.

Now, can we say the other writer is more marketable? Yes, definitely. So is that the reason? Sure it's one of the reasons. Fine and dandy. But if all you're going to concern yourself with is hiring the most marketable names or possibly the few writers who happen to be your friends, then you're going to get nothing but redundant books by the same group of writers trying to write the latest "Can you top THIS?" event. And isn't that pretty much what Marvel and DC both have been producing for the past twenty years, when you get right down to the nitty gritty? Why yes. Yes it is. And isn't that really the bottom line complaint of fanboys the world over?

And for the record, I'm not saying my story should have been picked up, despite what I'm sure some of you will assume. I'm simply saying it should have been given equal and fair consideration for acceptance. There's a BIG difference. Had I submitted the story and Editorial said, "We're going with WRITER S instead because of these reasons," then fine. We could have discussed the matter, and maybe something could have been resolved to the benefit for all involved. Instead, I was effectively blown off. (Though to be fair, the editor with whom I had been directly working with *did* apologize for the inconvenience about a week after the fact. Unfortunately, apologies don't pay my bills, and I wasn't offered any other opportunity.)

"As to the idea of stolen plots and stories, multiple people can come up with the same ideas relatively at the same time."

Yes, that's called circumstantial similarity. That's not what I refer to. I've had that happen to me six times in my career (incidentally all with DC between 1997-2004). Each time that's happened, I've received email or was phoned by editorial to confer on the matter. If anything, I am very appreciative of the communications and respect shown by Mike Carlin, Denny O'Neil (twice), Bob Schreck (twice), and Stuart Moore in regards to those circumstances, respectively. Sure it's disappointing (as with any rejection), but there's no greivance to be had. Honesty and integrity was in place at all times, and I was invited to submit other works at my earliest opportunity when appropriate. That's all any creator can ask for in such circumstance. Have other creators have had similar experience or opposing experiences? Probably a bit of both, to be honest.

What I am talking about is having one's project rejected and then seeing a project published 18-24 months later that is nearly identical to what one had originally submitted and it happens to be edited (or sometimes even WRITTEN) by the editor that one had submitted to. John Byrne has cited this happening to him once on his personal message board, and I have seen other blogs and have received numerous emails from other writers which have been essentially, "Have you seen this book? Compare it to my rejected project here." And I'm talking about creators with hundreds to thousands of comics to their credit, not unpublished aspiring talents.

*********

"Your example of inkers is full evidence of cowardice on the part of editorial, I agree. If they aren’t adult enough to tell you right away, they don’t deserve their job. You can complain to their boss, and you can complain to your friends, but honestly, if you want to complain publicly you are always going to risk getting labeled a troublemaker."

That happens to all creators, not just inkers. And to be fair to the editor (again, having been an editor and submissions director myself), it's hard to have to tell someone you're taking away their income. Some editors are human, too and some do have *some* sympathies, you know. But still, it's an ugly part of the job. But like Valerie D'orazio once commented on her blog as an assistant editor, she was once ordered to call up some freelancer who was chronically late and read them the riot act to the point where both she and the freelancer were crying.

That kind of action is absurd and uncalled for. If a freelancer is regularly that damn bad with deadlines, you cut them loose and find someone else, no matter how popular they may be. It's not like there isn't anyone in this business who can't be replaced. Or you put them on a different project that you can schedule around them. If it's a one time circumstance and there's a reason for it, chewing them a new ass isn't going to get the pages done any faster either, because now the creator is exasperated and frustrated and can't focus on the work. But the fact is, shit flows downhill and when the editors get bawled out by their bosses, they want to delegate that bawling down to the people who put them in that compromised position. Understandable, and sometimes warranted. But realistically? Usually not all that productive.

As an editor, I've dealt with "difficult" creators. And the only truly "difficult" creator I've ever had to deal with are those who didn't meet their deadlines in accordance to the schedule without valid explanation. And even then, you might let it pass once. It's the patterns or chronic problems that lend you to having to cut a person. And frankly, if they aren't meeting their professional obligations, then they shouldn't be surprised, now should they? But it's a two way street, Alan. When the publisher goofs up, they have to be held accountable too.

On the first, I don't know any great long-term solutions. I think these issues get covered pretty well. And, like hoping for a viable third American political party, expecting DC/Marvel to lose their dominance and power is a pipe dream.

On the second, I think "What DC Should Do Next" deserves it's own thread. Personally, I think that they are in the process of ruining a lot of their Universe, perhaps permanently (or as permanently as they can). So what can they do to fix it?

I humbly propose:

1. A year-long moratorium on "events". I know they're addicted to them, and they help sales (which is not insignificant), but I just think they need to go cold turkey for a few months, and see where they are. If you're constantly destroying, and never resting to build new characters/teams/relationships, eventually you just destroy everything.

2. No more "reboots". Leave everyone where they are. DC's history is so interwoven, one brilliant reboot to fix continuity just opens up five holes somewhere else. See Byrne's MAN OF STEEL: A great update, and a disaster for continuity for the next twenty years.

3. Learn something from Marvel's multimedia success. What Marvel is doing now is exactly what we expected the Time-Warner deal to do for DC, but it's never really happened. How many wildly different versions of Batman does DC have in pop culture? BATMAN BEGINS, THE BATMAN, B:TAS, the DCU comics version, the scary smiling SUPERFRIENDS version, and who knows what BRAVE AND THE BOLD will bring? Make a similar list for Superman (just compare Brandon Routh to Tom Welling to the comics). Where is the consistent vision for their characters?

Then look at Spider-Man. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, the Raimi movies, the comics version, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. Different formats, but much closer to being the same character. And he would feel at home in IRON MAN or INCREDIBLE HULK, or in the animated AVENGERS movies.

There seems to be an overwhelming sentiment that DC has lost their way. What would you do to fix it?

They fired just about anybody, except Mr. Dan.

Son. Of. A . Bitch.

Yeah, I worked that out in the end. I was using an old email address that I use as a spam box when I posted the first two comments, then tried a newer one for the third one, which worked. I don't comment much here anymore, and it's been AGES since the last time, so I'd forgotten which addy I used when I signed up with gravatar.

And it seems that proper capitalisation of my own name means that I lose my avatar… Damn it.

Once you have created your avatar, you can spell your name however you like. You don't even have to login, ever again. The trick is in the e-mail address; as long as you type the same one that you used or have on record with Gravatar, then your avatar picture will appear.

Okay, maybe this'll work. Let's see.

Whether it does or not I'll stop filling up comment space with my technological inabilities after this attempt anyway...