There's One In Every Newsroom

Just in case you thought Lois Lane had the market cornered in "snoopy and obsessed news gals," let's take a look at the offices of KSF-TV:

Let me just say that Geoff there might just be the most 70s man EVER.

Anyway, a couple of stories later in the same issue...

Wait, what is old sour-puss going on about?

Gee, I don't know...that she's happy?!?

By the way, that's Nasthalthia, Lex Luthor's niece. Because comic books.

From Adventure Comics #414 (1972)

Another Super Power Revealed

If you ever have to kick a door in...

THAT is how you kick a door in!!

From Adventure Comics #414 (1972)

Supergirl's Identity Crisis

Linda Danvers is sharing her swinging bachelorette pad with a young alien princess--don't ask--but she comes home to find things askew:

And how does the miscreant know that she's Supergirl??

D'oh!!

I know the bar is set pretty low, Kara, but that has got to be the stupidest place to put your costume in the history of super-heroes. Just hanging on a hook in your closet? Sheesh, you'd never see Clark doing that/. And I thought Kryptonians were "super-intelligent"...

From Adventure Comics #414 (1972)

This Is What Happens When You Let The Kids Read Ayn Rand

I think The Fountainhead would have been more exciting if it went a little something like this:

Steve Ditko should have been totally doing this story...

From Adventure Comics #414 (1972)

Please Don't Think About How This Applies To Marvel's Man-Wolf

So, a (pretty terrible) scientist has developed an anti-kryptonite serum, and Supergirl willingly chugs the untested formula.

Bad move.

Well, at least she's still a blonde wolf-girl, right?

Still, a closer look reveals...

...that at least her super-gams haven't been affected.

An astute reader noticed, too:

And the answer?

Fair enough!

So, if we ever see a Bizarro Supergirl Wolf-Girl, then...

The Wolf-Girl story is from Adventure Comics #387 (1969). The letter and reply is from Adventure #392 (1970). Please, please PLEASE don't ask how Supergirl overcame being transformed into a Wolf-Girl. Seriously, don't ask.

Manic Monday--Those Goshawful January DC Covers

Permit me a kvetch.

First, a caveat...I am an idiot. I know nothing about marketing. My knowledge of artistic value is questionable at best. And I'm more than willing to admit that I'm a lone voice on this issue.

But man, this month's DC covers stink on ice.

You've already seen them, no doubt...with a few minor exceptions, every DC cover is going to be a solid white background, a huge-ass logo/emblem for the star(s) of the book, and the titular heroes vogueing in a generic action pose. Check 'em out in DC's January solicitations if you haven't seen them yet.

Now, the whole point of this is to be "iconic," says DC, as"each title gets a unique and yet familiar logo treatment that brings the focus on the characters and stars of their respective books. New year. New beginnings. New focus."

Now, it may very well just be me, but that seems a pretty stupid way to market your comics. Back in my day, covers helped sell the individual issue of the comic book. Even if it was a book I didn't follow, I could be enticed into picking it up if there was a compelling story idea displayed on the cover (leaving aside, for now, the possibility that the cover was lying...).

If you ask me, that's one of the things hurting the industry today--generic covers of heroes in generic poses that have little if anything to do with the contents of the book, that do little or nothing to persuade people to take a chance on the book. Way too many books doing that these days.

Granted, since word balloons and captions have apparently been declared verboten by the same secret committee that outlawed thought balloons inside of books, that does limit the options available in creating a cover that tells the potential buyer why he should buy it.

But still, this is carrying a stupid trend to ridiculously stupid extremes. The entire DC shelves in comic shoppes this entire month will be filled by nothing but backgroundless covers with heroes floating in midair trying to look tough. I'm not sure how "iconic" that is, but there's damned little there to entice someone to pick up a new book. (Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that "Dang, that cover sure is iconic, I'd better buy it" isn't going to be going through the heads of many potential buyers, ESPECIALLY when every single cover looks exactly the same).

Let's take a concrete example: Starman/Congorilla #1:

Now, you've got to applaud DC for giving a couple of obscure characters their own one-shot. But how many copies will this sell? 10,000? Maybe??

Now, if DC had used the cover to show that this issue teamed up those heroes with Animal Man and Rex The Freakin' Wonder Dog in a battle to keep a cell of intelligent terrorist apes from seizing the Fountain Of Youth? Heaven forbid you put something like that on your cover. How could that have possibly increased sales? Not iconic enough, I guess. Why let people know what a cool story you're got inside?

Concrete example #2: Adventure Comics #522. Now remember, DC's stated purpose was to "bring the focus on the characters and stars of their respective books."

So, pop quiz: Just try and guess how many of the characters on this cover actually appear inside the comic. Just guess.

Answer: just one, Dawnstar. And she's in a coma, and you only glimpse her through a medical stasis tube in two panels. The others not only don't appear, but aren't even mentioned.

So "bringing the focus on stars of their respective books" means...showing a bunch of characters who aren't even in the bloody comic.

Now, this issue features Mon-El, who's now apparently popular, having starred in the Superman comic AND having won the fan vote for Legion leader. Not only that, but it features Mon-El wearing a Green Lantern ring and costume. Last time I checked, anything Green Lantern was pretty popular, too. But wait--it features Mon-El as a Green Lantern, and he's fighting a solar-powered sumo.

But, of course, we can't put anything featuring popular characters, or cool concepts, or any heroes who are actually IN the comic on the cover--that wouldn't be iconic.

OK, end of rant.

The Past Is Prologue

Sometimes, you re-read something that you had read a long time ago as a child, and it looks completely different to adult eyes. And you see that editorial departments shamelessly calling a pig's ear a silk purse isn't particularly new.

Take, for example, Adventure Comics #459 (1978):

Great Aparo cover, by the way...

Adventure Comics has been through many, many permutations over the years. And in late 1978, it went through one of the odder ones. At a time when comics were 35¢, it went to a 68-page, no ads, $1 anthology title.

Now, in retrospect, there was an obvious behind the scenes reason--DC had just experienced the infamous DC Implosion, when economic woes caused DC to retrench and cancel about 30 ongoing or planned comics. They wanted to keep publishing the characters though, and they wanted to run some of the work they had already paid for. So Detective Comics "absorbed" Batman Family, and became a bi-monthly $1 book, and Adventure became an odd hodgepodge.

Of course, they couldn't come right and say that, could they? So they gave us some grand (and lengthy) text pieces to explain why we should be excited for the new format:

Now, let me emphasize, I'm not trying to be mean to Paul Levitz here. He had a job to do, and a corporate line to toe. Plus, with no ads, they had to put something inside the covers...Still, what we get is a litany of silliness, about what a bold new experiment this was.

Well, Paul, some of us loved those crazy-ass theme giants. Super-Heroes Battle Super-Gorillas was brilliant then, and is brilliant now. Dis those at your own risk.

And "no featuring supporting characters who should have stayed supporting" kind of rips on the companies existing product, doesn't it? Detective was featuring Batman Family, and the very issue you're writing this in features an Elongated Man story, and a Deadman series picking up from the cancelled Showcase!! Not to mention, in just over a year Adventure would be back to a "normal" format starring Plastic Man and Starman (the lame one nobody remembers).

Having no "tone" for all the stories, sadly, resulted in the series being a mish-mash, a collection of unrelated stories that didn't really have any reason to be published together. If you were expecting people to plop down a buck, you had to give them some clue as to what to expect every issue, and this "no domination by one star" did exactly the opposite. And eventually the readers did decide.

Actually, the New Gods story could easily have "fit within the creative confines" of another DC comic...except you guys cancelled it. These two stories were just the conclusion of the abruptly yanked Return Of The New Gods series, buried in the Implosion.

Apparently, the "uncertainty" about who would script the future Green Lantern solo stories was so great, they just dumped him after two stories and replaced him with the unpublished stories from the cancelled Aquaman series.

Oh, and they had big plans for the slots at the back of the book:

Despite the "endless litany of ideas" for the "experimental area," after the first two issues they just said "the heck with it" and just started running the JSA stories from the cancelled All-Star Comics. The Man Called Neverwhere series never appeared anywhere (as far as I can tell).

Again, I shouldn't nitpick too harshly. But then I read a signoff like this, it bugs me:

Seriously? "More than we have ever wanted any of our titles to take off??!?!" And what is the list of titles that you didn't really want to take off?? Huh?

So, big surprise, DC in 1978 puffed up a salvage job as something new and bright, and was vaguely insincere in introducing it. Big deal, right? Hardly worth blogging about...Then again, when you compare this to the excited PR Dan DiDio put out about Milestone and Red Circle, it seems that puffing up an experiment you fully plan to let crash is obviously still the DC editorial policy.