Casstoons: My Take on the DC Reboot

[espanolbot]

By me

Comments

[jaybee3]

I mean in comparison to how they've been treated NOW. If a reboot could eliminate Evil Mary Marvel, Billy as the Wizard "Marvel", and Freddy as the unrecognizable roided-up "Shazam" from continuity then it's automatically better.

But I agree that as long as Dan Didio has any say the Marvel Family will never really prosper within the DCU.

[q99]

The Mary Marvel thing is one of those choice that I just Do Not Get why it happened.

Or rather, happened repeatedly. Possessed-Mary I can get, but aside from that she's chosen to be evil, what, three times in recent stories?

I cannot see why anyone would think an evil Mary is a good idea.

[jaybee3]

I have said that for a long time (i.e. why Mary Marvel). I think the only explanation that works is:

a) Morrison wanted to use Mary Marvel as the quintessential sign of the corruption of Darkseid (picking on DC's purest character) and he also (and this part is on the record) was infatuted with Supergirl and wanted a fight in the book about the role of "feminity" in the DCU Universe (which of course Supergirl would win). The problem with this is that he based his perceptions of Supergirl based on a single issue of Mark Waid's Brave and the Bold in which she appeared sweet and innocent like Silver Age Kara and nothing like the obnoxious Paris Hilton-wannabe that was starring in the Supergirl at the time -which Morrison never seemed to have read since THAT Kara was much more likely to be possesed by Darkseid (in fact had already been in her introductory arc) than Mary Marvel.

b) Morrison told DC he intended to have an evil Mary Marvel but never told anyone how that would occur (i.e. she would be possessed by DeSaad) so the Countdown writers /Paul Dini had to get from point A (Sweet Mary) to point B (Evil Mary) on their own.

c) Many of the writers on Countdown either didn’t know much about the character’s history (no mention of her parents or her friends or how an underage minor just out a coma with no money suddenly has her own apartment) or even if they did actually enjoyed tearing her down because of what she represented (if you can manage to find some of the interviews with Beechan, McKeever and especially Palmiotti and Grey this is obvious). That’s how you get the fixation on her virginity (Grey said the solution to Mary’s problem would to get in her a closet alone with Jimmy Olsen and a bottle of tequila) or the complete sexualization of the character (both the Countdown and FC outfits were complete fetish outfits and how many panty shots were there - dozens - and she’s supposed to be just 15) and the complete dumbing down of the character to make her as thick as a brick (when in the Shazam series she was smarter than Billy or Freddy). There’s no justifying the end though - by the time Countdown finished they knew Morrison’s plan and that she was going to be possessed yet they still had her make a deal with Darkseid even though she had her powers back (as Linkara stated in his review of Countdown, if she had just refused Darkseid and have him possess her against her wishes it would have ended her arc in Countdown as a heroic one but no....we couldn’t have that).

d) Jerry Ordway publicly stated on the DC message boards that he and Geoff Johns original plans were to end the JSA arc with Billy, Freddy and Mary back to the original pre-Infinite Crisis status quo but that Editorial (i.e. Dan Didio who has personally overseen everything to do with the Shazam franchise) overruled them. That would explain how we have Mary in her Countdown outfit on the Alex Ross JSA cover and Mary in her Final Crisis DeSaad outfit as pencilled by Ordway within the book itself. They just didn’t know what they were doing and had only 3 issues so they just used “Black Mary” as a catalyst for a new status quo (the depowering of her and Billy) even if made no sense continuity wise (i.e. Black Adam regretted giving Mary power in Countdown and outright tried to kill her in FC and now she’s one of the Black Adam family again?).

The best explanation of course comes from Mark Waid when he was asked about what DC had done to Mary Marvel:
“A lot of what Mary’s gone through over the past decade or so has nothing to do with what’s broken or not broken about the concept, and everything to do with a bunch of creepy-ass older men working out their issues . Just thinking about it makes me want to take a Silkwood shower. It takes more imagination than most comics creators have to find something interesting about a good girl, but it’s not impossible.”
Link here: http://www.popgunchaos.com/2010/11/16/talking-shazam-with-mark-waid/

Ultimately few DC characters (Cassandra Cain being one though, Roy Harper is currently another) have been trashed and made toxic in such a short time for no apparent reason than Mary Marvel. Which is sad because she premiered only a year after Wonder Woman and so pre-dates most of the other female characters in the DCU and was an iconic figure for generations (her co-creator, Otto Binder, even named his daughter, Mary, after her and he’s the guy who also created Supergirl).

[q99]

Yea, I can kinda get A and B, especially since it's a possession, but C is just so dumb I have trouble wrapping my head around it, and I can't figure out why editorial would do what it did in D.

Mark Waid may just be right.

-
Ultimately few DC characters (Cassandra Cain being one though, Roy Harper is currently another) have been trashed and made toxic in such a short time for no apparent reason than Mary Marvel. -

The thing I don't get is that kind of trashing has almost never produced a character that people are more interested in as far as I can tell, at least without major setup, yet they did three in a row? And, IMO, getting worse about it as it went on? That's even speaking as a Cass fan, as at least her villain form was more 'generic dragonlady' than ... Black Mary's dumbness or Swing-a-dead-cat Harper, and she got a rapid 360 while editorial actually protected Mary's change.

[jaybee3]

The thing I don't get is that kind of trashing has almost never produced a character that people are more interested in as far as I can tell, at least without major setup, yet they did three in a row? And, IMO, getting worse about it as it went on? That's even speaking as a Cass fan, as at least her villain form was more 'generic dragonlady' than ... Black Mary's dumbness or Swing-a-dead-cat Harper, and she got a rapid 360 while editorial actually protected Mary's change.

I don't think DC actually learns from its mistakes. I can't think of a hero gone bad story that ever worked coming from DC (and that includes Captain Atom, Hawk/Hank Hall and Hal Jordan) and largely because they were concerned with fitting the character into a pre-ordained plot than actually developing the character. Emerald Twilight was all about getting rid of Jordan and the Corps, turning both Hawk and Captain Atom into Monarch was all about the need for a "surprise" villain for a crossover, Mary Marvel was all about mocking her "nice girl" image by jaded writers/editors and hitting all the points needed to get her to Final Crisis as a bad guy for Morrison and Cassandra Cain's villain turn was all about providing a villain for Robin and the rise and introduction of Batwoman making Cass unnecessary as a female "Bat" (and the reason they did a quick turnaround on her was because Beechan screwed up so royally and they didn't have a plan for her beyond the opening OYL arc so they could reverse course easily- Mary Marvel by contrast HAD to be in Countdown so she could be a villain in Final Crisis which took up almost two years of straight storytelling). Roy Harper was all about shock value - period - and was not thought out at all ("Rise of Arsenal" for instance seems made up as it goes along and the writer seems to laughing at the reader).

None of these stories had anything to do with the characters themselves and that's why fail again and again. But DC still doesn't get it.

[q99]

Yea, the *closest* to a successful one was Hal Jordan, "Parallax Hal" was actually menacing when he was around, and that one had concrete motives behind it (if a bit sudden), even if it got much-deserved backlash and was then replaced with Spectre-Hal (which I liked). Also unlike the others, they actually did something good with the clean slate they made and spent a lot of effort on the follow up.

That was one of the earlier ones and from that they could've gone "Hm, here's what we did wrong and right, we can do better" but Hal's fall, clearly a mixed bag at best, might as well be solid gold next to the ones of the last 5 years.

It's similar to their weekly/biweekly books in terms of learning from past ones. 52 was massively popular, but pretty much everyone after has been worse in some fashion. Lacking an end, spending issue after issue spinning their wheels, or both.

-Mary Marvel was all about mocking her "nice girl" image by jaded writers/editors-

Something which it also definitely failed at, as it's pretty much "Mary decides not to be a nice girl. The end." There's no meta commentary there.

-
None of these stories had anything to do with the characters themselves and that's why fail again and again. But DC still doesn't get it.-

It has taught me some valuable lessons; If I'm ever in charge of a shared universe, and I think I might want to mess with a character I don't have an attachment with, consult with someone who does have an attachment before making my decision and get their thoughts.

Also 'shuffling someone offscreen' beats "figuratively lighting them on fire with bad storytelling" any day of the week. My DC would be full of "So-and-so's heroing, just elsewhere. In city X. You probably never heard of it." "Oh yea, stuck on an alien world. Maybe they'll get back some year." "Non-active lantern? Why, they're on detached duty in galaxy Y! Very important".

[nezchan]

You know, that's something I don't think really happens that much on these books (or Marvel either, for that matter), is the indication that any sort of post-mortem happens following a run, or a storyline wrapping up or whatever. You know, sitting down and saying, "this worked, this didn't work, we're gonna have to go with this in the future, etc." It might happen, but from the results we get it certainly doesn't look like it happens often.

[q99]

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Marvel, in the recent string of story-events they tended not to repeat the same mistakes. They made new ones, but it wasn't the same ones repeatedly.

And even if there's no formal process, the writers and editors should get some idea just from the results and such.

[nezchan]

Ugh, I really don't want to be right on this. There should be a formal, or at least expected, process. For major storylines I'd say it's one of the most important parts of improving your stories and improving your brand. If it doesn't happen, then a lot of decisions end up being essentially by whim.

And yes, I know. It sounds like they already are.

[heckfire]

...geez...reading that Waid quote almost made me tear up. That there is still someone who GETS the Marvels, particularly Mary, and are PREVENTED from doing anything with them..? Gah, maybe I AM too emotional over comics...