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.

Spoiler Saturday Redux--Starman/Congorilla #1

Remember when Dan DiDio proclaimed that, after Blackest Night, there wasn't going to be anymore "revolving door" with the death of characters? Here's the quote:

Following Blackest Night, I think that death is a trick we will not be using very often – or at all for a long, long time. There is a finality of what goes on in Blackest Night, and there is an explanation of the “revolving door” sense of death in the DCU that’s part of the Blackest Night storyline.

And you guys actually believed him???

Suckers...

Yeah, James Robinson, who casually and offhandedly killed the Tasmanian Devil offscreen during Justice League: Cry For Justice--merely to show what a badass Prometheus was--has gone straight for the "trick" of death, and used the "revolving door" to undo that death.

So the "finality" of what went on in Blackest Night didn't even last a year. Death, used as a cheap and lame story device, with an equally cheap resurrection making it "all better," apparently is back on the table at DC.

Tas was revived with the help of Rex The Wonder Dog and a Lazarus Pit (which is also the Fountain Of Youth---please don't ask), which might have won some awesome points...except my mouth is still tainted by the bitter aftertaste of Robinson having Tas killed, skinned, and turned into a rug for some immature shock effect.

I suppose that, given the fan outcry over Tas' unnecessary death, this could be seen as some form of half-assed apology from James Robinson, maybe a way to try to undo some of the damage to his reputation after the pillorying JL:CFJ took.

But Lian Harper is still dead, so no sale.