Monday, March 08, 2010


JMS is on Superman and Wonder Woman?

I thought when JMS got the Superman: Earth 1 project, his mission to write Superman was resolved. But now you're putting him in control of the main Superman and the alternate Superman?

That doesn't seem like a smart move. It would seem more likely that people pick one JMS Superman project over the other. There is the possibility that there seems to be less differences between the two versions, because it is likely that JMS writes the core of the character rather identically in each version. There's a reason why Marvel didn't just slap Bendis on the traditional Spider-Man title after JMS left, beyond the chance that Bendis didn't want to write two versions of the same character.

The addition of Wonder Woman to his writing schedule makes much more sense, though. With how he seemed to have brought a new level of interest to the THOR title at Marvel, slapping him on to the DC character that deals with a pantheon of gods seems to be a no-brainer.


  1. Re: There is the possibility that there seems to be less differences between the two versions, because it is likely that JMS writes the core of the character rather identically in each version.

    I've seen this complaint/ question raised a few spots, and I'm not sure why this is so troubling. While some of the facts of the story should be different, shouldn't a consistent tone for a character be considered a benefit? Especially if the Earth One books are intended to bring new readers into a greater DCU? I'm not sure how or why Bendis didn't take over Amazing Spidey (other than that he had his hands full with a couple year's worth of Avengers comics). But I'm not sure the situation is applicable.

    It seems as if readers can't fathom that the guy could tell a story in current continuity and one in a continuity of his own making, which is just... odd. If Geoff Johns wrote a WWII-era Justice Society story tomorrow, nobody would blink. Nor did they when he wrote for Smallville.

  2. The Earth One stuff is supposed to be a different take on the character than what we're seeing in the main universe. The main point is, indeed, to shed the continuity of the main series so it is more approachable for new readers, but there is supposed to be a different angle involved, as well.

    The Geoff-Johns/Smallville/WWII-era-JSA stuff is a case of apples and oranges. Geoff writing WWII-era JSA characters in a DC book would be him writing earlier versions of the same characters in the same continuity that he's previously written (and not even concurrently with him writing today's era). His Smallville episodes would be fill-in work in an entirely different medium. If Geoff Johns or JMS were announced as writing the next Superman movie, I wouldn't complain.

    But writing what are supposed to be two different versions of the same character simultaneously seems most likely to be a bad move.

  3. I'm not convinced that different continuity = different character (or characterization) in the DC Entertainment masterplan (with the exception of Batman, who must be all things to all people).

    I guess the best argument for your case would be were JMS to go as divergent from the current continuity as Miller did with Batman post Year One, and they tried to cram All Star Batman into the mainline Batman titles... Yes, it would be problematic. But if we can expect a writer at DC to put Earth 1, 2, and 4 Blue Beetle's in a room (and, really, they could be called upon do so at any moment), then I think you have to give JMS the benefit of the doubt.

    I actually left out the "Earth 2" part of my Geoff Johns argument, so, yes, that was not my best argument.

    Mostly, I think we have to wait and see what JMS will do before we can start complaining, or even if having a single vision of the character is a problem (something I don't actually believe IS a problem). I'll take a little consistency at DC where I can get it.

  4. Cmon man! Where are the rest of the Secret Avenger spoilers! =)

  5. I just listened to a podcast that wanted to give out all that info and...well...has been warned. I'm trying to find out what exactly happened, for my own personal curiosity (not sharing on the blog).


It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.