Frank Miller's Sin City

Way back in 1991, comic book legend Frank Miller introduced us to the world of Sin City. First appearing Dark Horse Presents, the last adventure of the honorable sociopath Marv blew its way into the consciousness of the comic book industry. Between 1991 and 2000, comic and neo-noir aficionados jumped into this strange imaginary world and were further rewarded with an almost perfect transcription to film in 2005.

Since this first story (or "yarn," as Dark Horse labels them), Frank Miller returned to Sin City several times, taking his readers through the wonderfully vicious underbelly of the ambiguously amalgamated Basin City. Mainly a fictionalized Los Angeles (as evidenced by its layout and landmarks), partially a gangster-era Las Vegas (its "industries" and criminal organizations), and somewhat of a 1970s New York City or Chicago (its politics and skyline), Miller builds a living, breathing city unmatched anywhere else in comicdom. Even comic universe stalwarts Metropolis and Gotham City, with their longevity in pop culture consciousness, struggle to feel as real as the streets and alleys of Basin City.

Each yarn, be it a mini-series or a one-shot, is populated by repulsive (yet somehow loveable) characters. The aforementioned Marv, a sociopathic killer whose desire to help the defenseless (particularly defenseless women) leaves you rooting for him, while secretly acknowledging the need to remove him from society. Dwight McCarthy, a gun for hire whose past results in the need for a surgically altered appearance, is a more level-headed protagonist and a more traditional anti-hero, but still resides on the wrong side of the law. Which is fine in the world of Sin City, since the law is often on the wrong side of the law.

Simply put, Sin City is neo-noir, hard-boiled pulp-fiction at its best. That it is one of the few comics out there that can lay an honest claim to being a work of art (both visually and narratively) makes it that much more relevant. And, for a decade, comic readers got to enjoy semi-regular forays into the city that everyone loves to read about, but no one wants to live.

1991 gave us Sin City. 1993 gave us A Dame to Kill For. 1994: The Big Fat Kill. 1996: That Yellow Bastard. 1997: Family Values. 1999: Hell and Back. We were even treated to Booze, Broads & Bullets, which compiled all of the Sin City shorts and one-shots (published from 1994 to 1997) in one book. Hell and Back finished its run in April of 2000, and fans eagerly awaited more.

And waited.

And waited. At one point, Frank Miller hinted at a new book called The Long, Hard Goodbye. Which never materialized.

So they waited.

And waited. In 2005, the film version of Sin City (comprised of the stories for the original Sin City, The Big Fat Kill, and That Yellow Bastard, all almost verbatim adaptations), directed by Robert Rodriguez, hit the screens, temporarily sating fans. After the film, they got The Hard Goodbye. Unfortunately, in what many call a despicable marketing ploy, The Hard Goodbye was simply a re-issue of the original Sin City tale with but a new title. With no word of what happened to The Long, Hard Goodbye.

Frank Miller, it seemed, had abandoned his comic following in pursuit of a film directing career (which, so far, has culminated in the absolutely horrible The Spirit) and more Sin City movies.

So they wait.

Sin City 2 and Sin City 3 are apparently on the Hollywood horizon, and to keep things fresh, Frank Miller has promised that new stories will appear in those films. And that, yes, they will also appear as comics.

But we're still waiting.

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.

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.

Movie Sequels We All Want to See

I was talking to a friend the other day and, as usual, the topic of conversation shifted to comic books (we're both comic dorks) and to movies (also both movie geeks). Given the current slate of movies out there, sequels and trilogies came up. And while we agree that most films should just be left alone (The Matrix), many deserve sequels.

And so, a list of sequels that you know we all want to see (oh, yes, you know it).

DMD2. Think about it... Morgan Freeman going all psycho, digging up Jessica Tandy, and then working out his psychoses by driving around a dead woman. In fact, that could be the title: Driving Miss Daisy 2: Driving Around a Dead Woman. Catchy? Yep. Intriguing? Oh, fuck yeah. Blockbuster hit? Hollywood, you'd better listen.

Star Wars: Episode Seven: Revenge of the Cloned Returned Jedi. Come on, now... only morons (all billion+ of them) were actually satisfied with the prequel trilogy. We need a good movie, not written or directed by George Lucas, to rid the bad taste in the mouths of people who actually have more than half a brain. Besides, now that Harrison Ford has practically disappeared from the big screen (Indiana Jones notwithstanding), what the fuck are any of the original cast doing?

ET2. It's been how many years since that little long-necked fucker went home? Well, come on back, dickhead. I know you're craving some Reese's.

My Big Fat Greek Divorce. Admit it, the original charmed the shit out of you. And, hell, it grossed more than $240 million domestically. How about we add a charming, funny, touching, and totally realistic ending and find out how the two split their estate?

War of the Worlds 2. Not the greatest Spielberg film, but I really want to find out exactly how a space-faring alien race could be so stupid as to not figure in bacteria and viruses in their galaxy-conquering plan.

Gone With the Wind 2. Yeah, I know about that Scarlett TV movie, but we need a proper theater sequel. One in which a pissed off Rhett shows back up, bitch slaps Scarlett, and sues her for half of Tara. Oh, and says the line, "I lied, I do sort of give a damn."

Feel free to post your own suggestions.

300: The Review; The Controversy

Once upon a time, Frank Miller was much like fellow comic uber-great Alan Moore, in that Mr. Miller wanted Hollywood to have absolutely nothing to do with his comic work. Unlike Mr. Moore, however, Mr. Miller's works have made a stunning (and creator-blessed) return to the silver screen, and we, the audience, get the dividends.

As I mentioned in my "One-Line Review" on my film website, 300 is a veritable tour-de-force of comic filmmaking. It is everything that a comic adaptation could and should be. Colorful, highly stylized, extremely violent, equally sexy, it's a kick ass ride into cinema, as worthy of being called a film as it was of being called a graphic novel.

That being said, it may not be everyone's cup of tea; it's not really intended for the film snob crowd. It is also, again, extremely violent. And, for those who are misguidingly going to see it for the historical effect, it is pretty much entirely historically inaccurate. But, a roller coaster of historically inaccurate violence it is, and that was kind of the point to begin with.

All things considered, it's a good movie. To some, it's a great movie. I have it somewhere in between good and great, but it's certainly going in the DVD collection when it comes out.

Moving on... the controversy.

It seems that some scholars in Iran are complaining about the film, saying it's another prejudiced way in which American Imperialist culture is trying to portray Iranians as a global negative. I mean, what else would a film showing Caucasian Occidentals fighting black and Arab Orientals have in mind?

Um, entertainment, maybe?

I have something to say to those scholars: shut the fuck up. I'm willing to guarantee them that 300, in no way, shape, nor form, was made with any intent to offend Iranians, or any other Persian peoples, for that matter.

Evidence:

1) It's common knowledge that comic book adaptations are popular in contemporary American film culture, and 300 is a product of that popularity. Given that Frank Miller's previous comic adaptation, Sin City, made such a splash, it's only natural that someone obtained the rights for 300.
2) Related to the first point, period war films are also now popular. Personally, I think 300 was more of a reaction to that horrible film called Troy than anything. As in: "Troy sucked, we can make something better."
3) As much as I hate to admit it, I'm pretty sure the average American has no idea that Iran is located in the heart of the former Persian Empire. And since this is the case, I'm pretty sure few Americans in the audience made any sort of Xerxes/Persia/Iran connection.

Case closed. Go see the damn movie.

Art & Entertainment Musings

I'm so very bored, and we all know what that means... yes, yes... this is the week that all men prepare themselves for the football game of the year, and all women prepare themselves for its commercials (if that's not a stereotypically sexist statement, I don't know what is).

Katie Holmes has apparently been dropped from the Batman sequel. I think I just converted, because this is proof that there must be a higher power. She sucked in Batman Begins, and there's a shot in which she resembles Sloth from The Goonies. Good riddance.

Rachel McAdams is the rumored replacement for Holmes, by the way.

Chris Daughtry's album is selling well. He's a good guy, in my opinion, but he's also highly overrated. That throat-trill needs to go. There's no gimmick in music that gets older faster (except for five sorta hot British girls with stupid nicknames singing bad songs). Still, he gets kudos for that National Anthem rendition at the NFC Championship game.

There's a movie called Teeth that deals with the supposed male-oriented fear of "vagina dentata." It's supposed to be good, but I wouldn't know. I'm still in disbelief that somebody made this movie.

Some so-called "conservative family groups" are whining about Dakota Fanning's rape scene in her new movie, Hounddog. Um... why? If you can't handle such serious and realistic subject matter, put your blinders on and go watch a different movie.

Have you ever read a lot of bad poetry in a row? Have you ever read someone who writes poetry, but basically just writes the same poem over and over again, with different words? I have, and it made me sick. I've never wished illiteracy on anybody... until now.

The only thing worse than the aforementioned poet's poetry are his so-called song lyrics. Ugh.

The singer Brandy, who might be charged with involuntary manslaughter stemming from a death in a traffic accident, is now being sued by the dead woman's family for $50 million. You know, tragedy is tragedy, but Brandy hasn't even been found guilty yet. And I'm well aware that you can't really put a price tag on a life, but does anybody else think that this family is more concerned with "cash cow" than they are with mourning?

After a couple of years of wondering if Screech from Saved By the Bell was actually cool, it's been confirmed that, no, he's definitely an idiot.

Prison Break and 24 are off to fantastic starts in 2007. Heroes remains overrated and painfully derivative, yet somehow maintains my interest. Battlestar Galactica is officially a stinker. When the Hell does Lost start back up?

Smokin' Aces looks to be painfully painful. But the glutton in me just can't resist. Besides, after watching Lucky Number Slevin, I think I can handle another cheesy hit man movie.

Rage Against the Machine is supposedly reuniting temporarily to play at Coachella this year. Right on. I just hope this means that Audioslave isn't going anywhere.

Television hit Grey's Anatomy seems to be in a bit of a bind, doesn't it?

The best comic book series of the 21st Century, Warren Ellis' Planetary, is about to come to a close. Do yourselves a favor and pick up the trade paperbacks. Phenomenal stuff.

Coming full circle, there's a rumor that Katie Holmes might end up being the new Wonder Woman. I take back what I wrote earlier about a higher power.

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.

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.