The Superman, Siegel, Shuster Problem

Not many are aware, but due to recent litigation, DC Comics is in danger of losing the copyright to the Superman character (as well as much of his supporting cast). There are circles that are worrying incessantly about this happening, as pessimists tend to do, but I'm going to climb out on an extremely tiny limb and make the following statement: DC lose Superman? Never.

I'll get to why I believe this in a moment, but first... some background:

• 1938 - Superman is created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and appears in Action Comics #1.  Siegel and Shuster are paid $130 for the rights to Superman and are employed by Detective Comics, Inc. (a precursor to DC Comics). Given that profits from Superman skyrocket over the next few years, Siegel and Shuster renegotiate their original deal.
• 1947 - Siegel and Shuster sue to void the 1938 contract completely and reacquire rights to the Superman character. They are unable to void the contract but are awarded the rights to Superboy (reportedly published by DC without their permission), which are promptly sold back to DC.
• 1973 - invoking the Copyright Act of 1909, Siegel and Shuster claim that they never allowed DC to renew its copyright of Superman, stating that the original deal was for only 28 years. Siegel and Shuster lose the suit and its 1974 appeal.
• 1975 - with public support against it, DC Comics initiates pensions and benefits for both Siegel and Shuster. Warner (DC's parent company) also begins its policy of crediting all-things-Superman (including film and television) to Siegel and Shuster.
• 1976 - DC extends its copyright again, but the Copyright Act of 1976 ostensibly provides Siegel and Shuster the opportunity to reclaim the copyright between 1994 and 1999.
• 1992 - Joe Shuster dies.
• 1996 - Jerry Siegel dies.
• 1998 - The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act allows DC to extend its copyright to Superman in spite of the Copyright Act of 1976.
• 1999 - Siegel's wife and daughter file a copyright termination notice.
• 2004 - Shuster's nephew files an intent to reclaim copyright by 2013.
• 2008-2009 - Siegel's estate wins a share of the United States copyright of Superman (international copyright remains with DC), but Superboy remains in question. DC and Time Warner have until 2011 to initiate a new Superman film or the Siegels may sue for further damages.

Crazy, right? If there were ever a case of greed-induced iconoclasm, this is it. Still, there's no arguing that DC Comics took advantage of Siegel and Shuster early on (particularly concerning Siegel's service in World War II). There's also no arguing that the subsequent suits were about an estate gaining assets.

Regardless, motive will not affect execution. And why not? Well, as implied (despite its obviousness), this is all about money. And Superman makes a great deal of money through DC Comics and its licensing. The estates of Siegel and Shuster have to know that, were they to win back Superman's copyright, the character's value decreases immensely. Which is why, I boldly state (okay, safely state), the Siegels and Shusters don't really want the copyright.

First, the Siegels didn't win international rights, only US domestic (making it safe to assume this is the best the Shusters can hope for, as well). And while that market will undoubtedly make the Siegels and Shusters extremely wealthy people, 100% of that share would still be much, much less than a significant share of the international take.

Second, without DC, Superman loses much of his supporting cast. Popular characters who will undoubtedly move on, much to the chagrin of comic book and film fans alike. Doomsday, Steel, The Eradicator, and everyone else not protected under any victory under "derivative works."

Third, without DC, Superman will no longer go on grand adventures with Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Justice League America, and everyone else pop culture expects Superman to be teamed with.

I am not claiming that DC wouldn't feel the pinch from losing its most iconic character. Of course it would. But it is far more likely the DC would continue to prosper without Superman than the Siegels and Shusters would continue to prosper with him. Adding irony to the mix is that DC now owns a character whose creators it once sued because that character was deemed "too similar" to Superman (Captain Marvel of Shazam!). Perhaps it's been no accident that DC has been prompting Captain Marvel into the limelight over the past 15 years. But who knows?

All I know is that Superman is at DC to stay. And the Siegels and Shusters wouldn't have it any other way.

A Foray Into Comic Books

I'm a huge comic book fan, and anyone who's read me long enough knows this. That stated, I've not actually purchased a comic book in at least three years; probably longer. My heyday of collecting was in the late 90s when DC enjoyed its renaissance and comics in general were of a relatively high quality. No, the late 90s were nothing like the new vision of comic writers in the 80s (darker, grittier, crazier), but the era was certainly a bastion of consistently good writing.

Then it all went to shit.

But, I figured I'd give the comic shop a try, and after watching Kick-Ass (the superb adaptation of the graphic novel) I moseyed my way into a store and picked up three books (and on Free Comic Book Day, no less... talk about serendipity). From DC Comics I grabbed Justice League: Cry for Justice #6 (of 7) and Wonder Woman #43, and from IDW I picked up The Last Unicorn #1.

And here's what I discovered:

I rarely read IDW Comics, save for the occasional Transformers title (once published by Dreamwave, a foolishly-run company that quickly went out of business). Like Dark Horse Comics, IDW specializes in licensed material. Always a fan of Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn, the comic adaptation caught my eye, so I bought it. The art was intriguing, in typical IDW/Dreamwave style, but the story is so fast, so ready to "get on with it," I was bored from page 1. Sad to say, I won't be picking up #2.

Now, I'm a huge DC Comics fan. Their stable of characters and legacies are, far and away, my favorite. Yes, I like Marvel, too, but nobody creates a modern myth like DC does. I'd go on to posit that DC seems to realize that it's in the business of comics and therefore (more often than Marvel) allows itself to "create worlds" in which to play, while Marvel attempts to stay "more grounded in reality." Sure, they wax and wane, but for the most part, that's what I've noticed.

Anyway, long-story short, I've been looking for an excuse to return to comic collecting for a while now. And I've not found it.

Wonder Woman has long been (along with Aquaman) the most popular DC staple who can't seem to hold her own title for very long. Her writers simply can't seem to keep her interesting for a decent period of time. The current writer, Gail Simone, seems to suffer from this shortcoming. Admittedly, as I have a fictional crush on the character, I picked up #43 because the art finally seemed appropriate to the title, and while not the best Wonder Woman work, Nicola Scott and Doug Hazlewood are definitely above par for the book. Still... serious letdown.

The Justice League is another DC staple that enjoys periods of extremely well-put together work and periods of extremely lame work. Browsing through the comic shop, I noticed that one of the best comic writers of the last 20 years, James Robinson, was handling the team. I'm usually hesitant to jump into the middle of a story (particularly a 7-issue miniseries), but I had to see what it was about. And, you know what? I kinda liked it. A bit quick, especially for Robinson (anybody who hasn't yet, pick up his fantastic run on Starman), but the art blew me away. Mauro Cascioli, whose work I've never had the privilege of seeing, is a brilliant artist, ranking with the likes of Alex Ross. I must admit, I've little idea what the overall arc of the story is about, but I was impressed.

Still, I doubt I'll be jumping back into comics full-on for a while. From the books I did pick up, to the advertisements for other books that didn't seem all that great, I'm not confident in spending the money... yet. But I will be keeping my eyes open.

Irrewind, 20100320: DC Comics

I haven't written about comic books in a long time, but I assure you that I am a comic book nut. Marvel, Image, Dark Horse... Hell, even Archie... I love my stapled pages of silly little drawings and bad dialog. That stated, out of all the established "comic book universes" out there, my favorite (by faaaaaar) is the DC Universe (DCU, for those in the know).

I suppose I haven't written about them frequently because I haven't been reading them as of late, but I aim to rectify that. In any case, if you're a DCU fan like I am, check out these old pieces I've written:

"DC Comics Returns... or Relapses -  Part 1"
DC Comics, for a long time, has been infamous for its failure to keep continuity clear and not confusing, and equally infamous for its money-making yet ultimately futile attempts at "cleansing" continuity. Once upon a time, DC Comics was (supposedly) totally and completely consumed with telling a good story, continuity be damned. The... Read More

"DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - Part 2"
See, in an attempt to diversify the DC Universe, the editors at DC decided that more minority superheroes were needed. Now, I'm not just talking about race, I'm talking about gender and sexual preference, too. While it's hard to disagree with the fact that true-to-life demographics aren't accurately represented in most comic books, it's easy... Read More 

"DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - The End"
Has anybody noticed a pattern? If not, let me spell it out for your limited mental capacities... character switches and dramatic changes almost always seem to happen at around the same time and almost always subsequently never work. You see, DC gets these itches to "update" and "modernize" their characters quite frequently. The... Read More 

"Why DC Should Revive Adventure Comics"
There are several ways to solve this, the most obvious of which is to grant these characters the A-list writer and illustrators they deserve, but as the talent pool isn't as large as comic fans would like, it is unlikely that DC would sacrifice Batman or Superman for the likes of Green Arrow or Aquaman. They could, however, simply release a ton... Read More

"Justice League Unlimited: A Review and a Prayer"
Which brings me to the glorious standard of animated superheroes: the DC animated universe (DCAU). In it, we were given the absolutely phenomenal Batman: The Animated Series, the consistent Superman: The Animated Series, a couple of still-good but more obscure cartoons (such as Static Shock), and the pinnacle of superhero... Read More  

Justice League Unlimited: A Review and a Prayer

If you haven't noticed yet, there is a serious glut of comic books making their way to the big and small screens. Surprisingly, most of these attempts are excellent, many are simply good, and only a select few are crap.

Of the outstanding ones, we have the first two X-Men films, the first two Spider-Man films, the two new Batman films, Superman Returns, Iron Man, Hellboy, and a few non-superhero adaptations like Road to Perdition and 300.

In the good category, there are the two Fantastic Four entries, The Punisher, both of the Hulk films (albeit arguably), Blade, and others like A History of Violence.

The garbage includes Daredevil and Ghost Rider (both directed by Mark Steven Johnson, which should tell people something), Catwoman (which had nothing to do with the comic book character) and most of the third entries in various trilogies (X-Men, Spider-Man, Blade, etc.).

On TV we get to watch apparently excellent Smallville (I have only seen a couple of episodes), the very good non-comic-based Heroes, and a plethora of cartoons, both good and bad.

Which brings me to the glorious standard of animated superheroes: the DC animated universe (DCAU). In it, we were given the absolutely phenomenal Batman: The Animated Series, the consistent Superman: The Animated Series, a couple of still-good but more obscure cartoons (such as Static Shock), and the pinnacle of superhero cartoons: Justice League Unlimited (which began life as the two-season Justice League).

Other DC entries have been, admittedly, child-oriented crap, and it's no accident that the aforementioned DCAU series was produced by the venerable Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, who have nothing to do with DC's other cartoons.

Marvel cartoons have only come close to the quality offered by the DCAU once, with the 1990s cartoon version of the X-Men.

Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, Warner Brothers and DC pulled the plug on the DCAU, and motion picture comic fans have been feeling the sting ever since.

Justice League Unlimited was, and I can't emphasize this enough, the best superhero cartoon television series of all time. In fact, if one includes the DCAU Batman and Superman series, what we witnessed was the best superhero television-in-general series of all time.

Mature storylines, rife with violence, sexual tension, and geopolitical plots, supported by a who's-who of DC comic book characters, made this the must-see comic adaptation of the past, well, ever.

The characters were developed, dimensional, and depicted both strengths and weaknesses often ignored by other series. Even Superman, the one character most easily turned cardboard, was written with an attitude that made you love him or hate him, depending on what he was in the middle of.

The show explored relationships the comic book universe rarely explored, or even thought of (a hint of a Batman-Wonder Woman love affair was fantastic, even if underdeveloped and short-lived). The black Green Lantern, John Stewart, was taken from his stereotypical roots and given a believable background worthy of a superhero. And the list goes on.

But, alas, the show is no more, having been canceled in 2006. As such, we'll never get to see the Dini-Timm version of the Legion of Superheroes, set up via a backdoor pilot in an episode in the final season of JLU. We'll never get to find out what happened to Lex Luthor and Darkseid, who disappeared together in a blaze of glory in the series' final episode. We'll never know if the JLU was able to save Longshadow from his degenerative state. And we'll never get to see if Green Lantern reveals to Hawkgirl that he met their child in the future.

And that just plain sucks.

In all honesty, Heroes is not as intriguing as JLU was. As a cartoon, JLU wasn't limited by special effects, or by large casts. As a cartoon, it could sneak in pop-culture references without the gratuitous eye-rolling that often acompanies an audience reaction to a live-action series. As a cartoon, well, it could do damn-well whatever it wanted.

DC should bring it back. Given the current muddled state that DC's actual comic book universe is in, JLU was, quite simply, the best and most consistent product they were putting out.

Don't let it fade away.

Why DC Should Revive Adventure Comics

Adventure Comics was a comic book published from 1935 to 1983 by DC Comics. Initially called New Comics, then New Adventure Comics, it was (and still is) the fifth longest-running title in the DC stable.

Primarily an anthology, it consisted of a revolving stable of characters, and was the source of many "firsts" in the DC universe. Superboy met the Legion of Superheroes in its pages; the first Sandman was officially introduced in issue 40; and was the first comic headlined by Supergirl.

Historically, it is an important comic, and DC should make every attempt to revive it.

DC Comics' Struggling Iconography

For those of you who remember my three-part "DC Comics Returns... or Relapses" rant from the Summer of 2006 (see the links below), you'll know that I consider DC to have 10 iconic characters. As a refresher, they are: Aquaman, Atom, Batman, Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Starman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.

Of these, only half (Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Superman, and Wonder Woman) have little or no trouble headlining their own titles. The other half have only enjoyed limited success with their own books, with Atom and Hawkman in particular seeming to have the most difficulty.

As a result, these characters are often underutilized, usually taking on a role as a supporting character in a team book (such as the Justice League of America titles), or popping up in various guest spots. As icons, I take issue with this. As icons, these characters deserve their own pages.

There are several ways to solve this, the most obvious of which is to grant these characters the A-list writer and illustrators they deserve, but as the talent pool isn't as large as comic fans would like, it is unlikely that DC would sacrifice Batman or Superman for the likes of Green Arrow or Aquaman. They could, however, simply release a ton of miniseries focused on those characters, but such miniseries tend to be treated as bastard stepchildren by publishers.

Blast from the Past

So, why not resume publication of Adventure Comics?

This would allow DC to continue one of its vaunted titles, and give these struggling icons regular pages in which to show off their solo adventures and foster their currently subdued appeal. It would be low risk for DC, as it would be a title not as restricted by continuity as most of their titles are, and it would provide another "focal point" for their oft-convoluted crossovers.

In addition, reader feedback would give the editors at DC a valuable resource in determining which of these struggling characters are "ready" for yet another attempt at their own books. Not to mention that it would likely attract those aforementioned A-list writers and artists, because it would give them an opportunity to write and draw several different characters in several different storylines at the same time. What writer or artist wouldn't want that freedom?

Come on, DC. It's high time you brought some of your best characters, and some of your own history, back into the spotlight.

Let's do it.

As of Right Now...

... my top five favorite films are Road to Perdition, followed by (in no particular order) Beautiful Girls, Children of Men, Good Will Hunting, and Heat.

... I'm reading a book called The Short Screenplay by Dan Gurskis.

... I have yet to convince my hopefully-future roommate to move to Los Angeles NOW.

... the San Diego Padres are undefeated (2-0).

... grooming creme has replaced mousse as my hair product of choice.

... my latest script, Clandestine's Daughter, has yet to go out to my reader, despite my having promised it to her by last December (and I had intended to get it to her last May or so).

... I haven't worked on an actual set in 156 days.

... I am very upset that one of the good-looking girls on American Idol went home instead of that Sanjaya fruitcake.

... I'm really, really hungry.

... I'm officially excited for the new Transformers movie.

... the 15 Britons taken by Iran are on their way home.

... she has a boyfriend.

... ridiculously oversized "bunny slippers" are keeping my feet warm.

... my Boston Terrier/Pointer mix is trying to keep warm by sleeping under my German Shepherd.

... snow still caps the Sierra Nevadas.

... Charger Girl tryouts are underway.

... DC comics generally suck.

... I'm trying to figure out where I'll be tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.

... I'm bored off of my ass, but not tired enough to go to sleep.

... I could use a backrub... and a pedicure.

... my pickup truck needs an oil change.

... you're probably wondering why the Hell you're reading this.

DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - The End

Okay, here it is, as promised...

Superman created in 1938, and he's been Kal-El (a.k.a. Clark Kent) ever since. DC killed him off once; brought him back. They also changed him from "The Man of Steel" to "The Man of Energy" once; changed him back.

Batman created in 1939. Little known outside of comic-dom, DC attempted to change his character in the early 90s. He went from Bruce Wayne to Jean-Paul Valley. Now, a lot of indications exist that this was a temporary ploy from the get-go, but I'm sure the fans complaining they wanted Bruce back didn't hurt one bit.

Wonder Woman created in 1940. She's actually been four different characters. The version we all know and love (thank God for Lynda Carter... mmm... Lynda Carter...) is Diana Prince. But, twice in the 90s they switched her character, and both times they switched her back. Heck, right now she's a different character (Donna Troy, the former Wonder Girl), but all bets are on that she'll be Diana Prince again before too long.

Flash created in 1940 as Jay Garrick. Switched to the uber-popular Barry Allen during the Silver Age launch in 1956 (and is generally credited with starting the Silver Age). Barry is killed during the (gasp) Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986 and is replaced by Wally West, who, up until very recently, has kept the Flash mantle as his own. Keep in mind, the Flash has been one of only two examples of character-switches actually working. However, given the fact that a new Flash is on the horizon (two are rumored, actually), it won't be any surprise if Wally West or Barry Allen find themselves back in business.

Hawkman created in 1940 as Carter Hall. In what is probably the worst Silver Age revamp anyone can think of, he's changed to an alien, Katar Hol (I know, what a stretch, right?). Ever since then, he's pretty much been confused. I don't even want to touch this guy, especially since he's actually, along with Atom, my favorite character (Grant Morrison had the right idea... and if you know what that means, you have as much of a need for a life as I). At any rate, Carter Hall came back, disappeared again, but is more than likely coming back once more.

Green Lantern created in 1940 as Alan Scott. Switched to the uber-popular Hal Jordan during the Silver Age in 1959. Remained Hal until the 80s, at which point John Stewart became the predominant Green Lantern for quite a few years. Eventually, Hal was put back, but went crazy, killed all of the other Green Lanterns (long story) and was replaced by Kyle Rayner (the BEST incarnation of Green Lantern EVER, by the way). Needless to say, fan-boy clamoring and nostalgic editors brought back Hal (in a convoluted manner worthy of a DC crisis).

Atom created in 1940 as Al Pratt. Changed to the physicist Ray Palmer in 1961 thanks to the Silver Age. Was temporarily replaced by Adam Cray in the early 90s, and temporarily made a teenager in the late 90s. Both times he reverted back to being regular ol' Ray Palmer. Is currently a Chinese-American, Ryan Choi. Despite a statement by current DC chief Dan Didio, Ray Palmer is probably going to be back in the not-so-distant future.

Aquaman created in 1941. Has pretty much been the same character (albeit with some drastic costume changes here and there) up until this year. Strangely, the old Arthur "Orin" Curry has been replaced by Arthur Joseph Curry. Not sure where they're going with this, but the second it becomes stupid or silly, Orin is on his way back.

Green Arrow created in 1941 as Oliver Queen. Killed in Zero Hour: Crisis in Time! and replaced by his illegitimate son, Connor Hawke (like Kyle Rayner's Green Lantern, a fantastic character). Kevin Smith of Clerks and Dogma fame, however, preferred Oliver Queen, finagled his way into writing Green Arrow for DC, and brought back Oliver in the most ridiculous of ways.

Starman created in 1941 as Ted Knight. Probably having the record as the most incarnations (seven, including character switches in 1976, 1980, 1988, 1990, and 1994) and probably the most obscure of the DC Icons, Starman is also the most successful example of a legacy living up to its expectations. The current Starman, Jack Knight (Ted Knight's son), is also the best Starman and, thanks to some excellent writing by James Robinson, the Starman continuity is (finally) well-defined.

Has anybody noticed a pattern? If not, let me spell it out for your limited mental capacities... character switches and dramatic changes almost always seem to happen at around the same time and almost always subsequently never work. You see, DC gets these itches to "update" and "modernize" their characters quite frequently. The problem is that their Silver Age characters are so loved and cherished, that the readers DON'T WANT their characters changed. The only way to successfully change a character is if the legacy of that character remains intact. To date, only Flash and Starman (again, expertly written by James Robinson) have enjoyed that success. Ron Marz' take on Green Lantern also offered a great take on a character's legacy, but the controversial manner in which Hal Jordan lost the mantle proved to be too much for the Kyle Rayner character to overcome, despite some seriously excellent writing.

Side Note: Personally, other than the holy trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, I was looking forward to a "Bronze Age" of characters. Kyle Rayner, Connor Hawke, and Wally West were perfect archetypes for the transition. Unfortunately, narrow-minded fan-boys and nostalgic writers ultimately decided against it.

In any case, it's only a matter of time before all of the new versions of these characters revert once again to the old versions (save for Starman), thereby creating multiple incarnations of characters that are eventually going to have to be "cleaned up." Which, as can surely be guessed by now, is going to lead up to the inevitable fourth DC Crisis, which will probably be called Crisis of Infinite Characters. DC, it seems, needs a complete reboot if it's ever going to truly going clean up the mess the Silver Age made. And that, people, is the end of that.

Superman Returns: A Review

I can't help it, I simply must write about Superman Returns. And you know what? Given that today is Independence Day and almost no other icon is more associated with "the American Way" than Superman, why the hell shouldn't I?

Superman Returns marks the triumphant, well, return of Superman to the silver screen. In a film that at once homages the great Superman and Superman II films and erases the horrible Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the franchise has, like Batman, successfully reinvented itself.

Relative newcomer Brandon Routh, a cause for concern to many Superman fans, pulls off Superman and Clark Kent with surprising ease. True, his dialogue was kept to a minimum and the appropriate "depressed" emotional state the character was in probably helped his acting seem better than it was, but Routh pulled it off nonetheless. Kate Bosworth was solid as Lois Lane, though it's no secret that she's not anybody's first choice for the role, and Kevin Spacey was fantastic as a new, quasi-Gene Hackman Lex Luthor. The rest of the supporting cast was more than adequate, and it was a nice, poignant gesture by Bryan Singer to reunite Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando on-screen one last time.

The plot was fairly simplistic and involved Superman returning to Earth after a five-year absence. Astronomers had found the remnants of his old homeworld, Krypton, and being the prodigal son, he left to see if he could find any other survivors. To give away anything else would be an injustice to filmgoers who haven't yet seen it, so that's all I'm going to say.

Take heart, however, in that the film's execution was superb. Bryan Singer once again balances action with character and layers every aspect of the film with depth that it may or may not have needed. In either case, the film is better for it. It may seem like directorial oversight that some of the plot points of the film are left unresolved, but you needn't worry; it's clear that this was the intent. After all, you don't make a movie like Superman Returns and not plan a sequel or two.

I, for one, am already eagerly waiting.

Postscript: My one complaint about the film: the rather blatant omission of the final part of the oft-spoken phrase, "truth, justice, and the American way." Has Hollywood seriously become so disenchanted with this country's political atmosphere that it's now embarrased to admit that both it and Superman are American institutions?

DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - Part II

So I still haven't seen Superman Returns (as of this writing), and I still haven't jumped back into reading comics they way I used to, but I'm going to finish analyzing this new DC reboot anyway...

The question you should've been left with (if you had any brains) after Part I of this particular subject is "Why is DC going to need a fourth reboot in about 10 years?" Well, my friends, the answer is simple... DC is doing to many of our favorite characters what they've attempted to do many times before and, with few exceptions, failed at many times before: changing the characters.

See, in an attempt to diversify the DC Universe, the editors at DC decided that more minority superheroes were needed. Now, I'm not just talking about race, I'm talking about gender and sexual preference, too. While it's hard to disagree with the fact that true-to-life demographics aren't accurately represented in most comic books, it's easy to disagree with forcing these true-to-life demographics on our favorite characters, especially when it isn't going to work. In fact, the only time something that like has worked with resounding success was during Julius Schwartz' launch of the Silver Age DC. Ironically, that same launch is also the reason for the enormously confusing DC continuity problems. But I digress...

Some examples of diversification include: the Atom is no longer the WASP Ray Palmer (and one of my favorite characters), he's now the Chinese-American Ryan Choi. The Blue Beetle is no longer the WASP Ted Kord (also a great character), he's now the Hispanic teenager Jamie Reyes. Batwoman Kathy Kane is now a lipstick lesbian. Other "diversifications" indirectly related to the DC Reboot include changing Firestorm from the WASP Ronnie Raymond/Martin Stein combination to the black teenager Jason Rusch solo act, as well as the animated push to depict the black John Stewart over the WASP Hal Jordan as the main Green Lantern (to be fair, John Stewart has been around for decades and is one of the better written minority characters in the DC Universe). And the list goes on...

The problem with diversifying existing characters rather than creating new ones is two-fold. First, it pisses off a lot of readers. Some, like myself, are reserving judgment, but are likely to be eventually pissed off anyway. Others are already incensed. Second, changing existing characters almost never works. In fact, other than the aforementioned Silver Age launch (which brought us the most popular versions of Green Lantern, Flash, Atom, and a popular version of Hawkman) and the excellent handling of the Starman franchise, CHARACTER CHANGES DON'T WORK.

To show this, one only needs to take a closer look at the 10 characters DC generally considers at its iconography. I suppose I'll break down and do just that in a Part III to this subtle admission that I'm I nerd, but for now, vote for Zauriel as Hawkman!

DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - Part I

Superman Returns opened yesterday to a lot of fanfare. I haven't seen it yet, but it's clear that the film, along with the earlier Batman Begins, heralds a new era for the celluloid Justice League (indeed, the long-rumored Wonder Woman film project has reportedly picked up steam). However, and this is for us closet-geek comic fans out there, what isn't as clear is that the entire DC Universe is getting a nice little "reboot" in the form of its third "continuity cleanser" in as many decades. In fact, the reboot is even felt in Superman Returns, which apparently acknowledges the first two Christopher Reeve (rest in peace) Superman films and completely ignores the last two.

Some of you are probably confused, others of you probably don't give a shit, but in any case, let's back up and start closer to the beginning.

DC Comics, for a long time, has been infamous for its failure to keep continuity clear and not confusing, and equally infamous for its money-making yet ultimately futile attempts at "cleansing" continuity. Once upon a time, DC Comics was (supposedly) totally and completely consumed with telling a good story, continuity be damned. The artistic readers (such as myself) loved this. Good story = sold comic. This "good story" emphasis resulted in several versions of Earth, three different versions of Superman (and other heroes), and a DC History that was so convoluted, nobody could figure it out. Hey, blame it on the Silver Age redux, I say (only us comic geeks know what that is; the rest of you can piss off).

At any rate, the nitpicking technical readers (such as myself) soon grew tired of trying to figure out what was DC canon and what was not. So, in 1985, DC decided to launch its first, well, "relaunch" of the DC Universe. This relaunch was called Crisis on Infinite Earths. To make a long story short, DC killed many of the duplicate heroes, destroyed all of the duplicate Earths, and rebooted DC History to encompass one planet and one timeline.

Fast forward to 1994. Although the one planet thing worked out well, the one timeline thing somehow fell into disarray. I mean, shit, technically all of those multiple "timelines" are happening on the same planet, right? It should be easy to decipher. But it wasn't, so DC launches another, well, "relaunch" of the DC Universe: Zero Hour: Crisis in Time! (apt, isnt it?). Now all of the timelines are set straight and everything is hunky-dory.

Alter timeline (I mean, fast forward) to 2005. Grant Morrison's ambitious "hypertime" concept in the late 90s and early 00s effectively ruined the one timeline and the one planet thing. So, DC decided to launch another, well, "relaunch." This one was called Infinite Crisis and is supposedly a "direct sequel" to the original Crisis on Infinite Earths. DC fanboys are loving it, while casual readers are beginning to wonder whether or not the DC editorship does this kind of thing on purpose. DC universe rebooted; all's well.

Unfortunately, DC's semi-political agenda in this new reboot will undoubtedly lead to another one in about, say, 10 years or so. But more on that later... In the meantime, let's celebrate DC's return to Hollywood glory and drink away the awful memories of the funny but misguided Superman III, the embarassing Superman IV, and the utterly horrifying Batman & Robin.