www.ComicBookPage.com

BobBretall wrote:

martheus wrote:
Guys, care to put up an "Idiot's Guide to Final Crisis"??

and make a companion guide in 3D called The DCU for Dummies.


Maybe it's just me, but after coming back into comics after 20 or so years, I look at Final Crisis (and Batman RIP to some degree) and state that if you haven't been reading DC on the regular from Infinite Crisis to Countdown or any other Crisis that DC has had, then you are better off trying to follow an episode of 24 or Lost than tryng to follow this series. This is not a book for new or returning readers to latch onto and right now if it wasn't for Green Lantern and the New Krypton stories catching my attention at this time, I surely would be writing off DC.

Now here is the question (if it hasn't been discussed already) In your opinion, how does it stack up to Secret Invasion in terms of storytelling, marketing, tie ins, over affect to their universes, etc.

afroloq wrote:

martheus wrote:
Guys, care to put up an "Idiot's Guide to Final Crisis"??

and make a companion guide in 3D called The DCU for Dummies.


Maybe it's just me, but after coming back into comics after 20 or so years, I look at Final Crisis (and Batman RIP to some degree) and state that if you haven't been reading DC on the regular from Infinite Crisis to Countdown or any other Crisis that DC has had, then you are better off trying to follow an episode of 24 or Lost than tryng to follow this series. This is not a book for new or returning readers to latch onto and right now if it wasn't for Green Lantern and the New Krypton stories catching my attention at this time, I surely would be writing off DC.

Just to be clear, not understanding FC has nothing to do with having a long-term understanding of DC. John & I both have been reading almost every DC book for 20+ years and we didn't understand FC either.

I've said before, understanding FC has more to do with being on the same wavelength as some of Morrison's more obtuse writing than any other single factor.

BobBretall wrote:

afroloq wrote:

martheus wrote:
Guys, care to put up an "Idiot's Guide to Final Crisis"??

and make a companion guide in 3D called The DCU for Dummies.


Maybe it's just me, but after coming back into comics after 20 or so years, I look at Final Crisis (and Batman RIP to some degree) and state that if you haven't been reading DC on the regular from Infinite Crisis to Countdown or any other Crisis that DC has had, then you are better off trying to follow an episode of 24 or Lost than tryng to follow this series. This is not a book for new or returning readers to latch onto and right now if it wasn't for Green Lantern and the New Krypton stories catching my attention at this time, I surely would be writing off DC.

Just to be clear, not understanding FC has nothing to do with having a long-term understanding of DC. John & I both have been reading almost every DC book for 20+ years and we didn't understand FC either.

I've said before, understanding FC has more to do with being on the same wavelength as some of Morrison's more obtuse writing than any other single factor.

Yeah, I have been reading DC since the early 80s and I had a hard time understanding Final Crisis. I agree with Bob on that Final Crisis is more similar to Morrison's Doom Patrol and Invisibles work than his JLA and X-Men work. And that is where the problem lies.

I've only been heavily reading comics again after a long absence since 2004 and I understood Final Crisis. I'd really like to know what is so incomprehensible about it. Issue #7 I can completely understand, but it seems to be a series long problem for a lot of people.

I have been reading DC comics since 1979 with no break. Right now I buy every single title. I loved Final Crisis up until issue #7. I understood issue 7 but I totally thought it was crap. That is my opinion. I have a DC podcast and will continue to support all of their books because I love DC. I hardly ever complain but this issue really rubbed me the wrong way.

Wood wrote: From the context that things were essential and not included in the main series, I agree that's problematic. Morrison, in his exit interview on Newsarama, explains the intended order:

FINAL CRISIS # 1- 3
SUPERMAN BEYOND # 1- 2
SUBMIT
FINAL CRISIS # 4 – 5
BATMAN #682 – 683
FINAL CRISIS # 6 – 7

I just read Final Crisis #7 and scribbled down an entire page of comments for the next Weekly Comics Spotlight. I think I should probably reread the entire storyline before then to see if getting it all in one dose alters my thinking of a few things in any way...

BobBretall wrote:

Wood wrote:

BobBretall wrote:
Guys, care to put up an "Idiot's Guide to Final Crisis"??

It's a dense series, packed with a lot of ideas [some fleshed out, many just hinted at], not sure it lends itself to a quick elevator pitch. If it did, chances are more than 10%-20% of us would've enjoyed it.

I'm not sure I want an "elevator pitch" or even something that will necessarily fit in a forum post. However, I' assuming that there will be folks doing lengthy dissertations on FC, maybe devoting whole podcasts to it, or even whole web-sites.

So, if you come across any good ones, point them out to us. What I'm really looking for are more objective explanation & analysis as opposed to people fawning over what a genius Morrison is in genera.

If anyone is looking for a place that is willing to host a good in-depth analysis of Final Crisis, I would be more than happy to host such a thing here on the Comic Book Page website.

Koete wrote:

martheus wrote: I guess the thing that I am most confused about in the last issue, the relevance of Wally and Barry outracing the black racer.

I know Wally raced him before. But what does this have to do with Final Crisis? Is it because Barry was out racing death in order to help?

Wally and Barry outraced the Black Racer, leading him to Darkseid and bringing about the death of Darkseid's physical form. Also, I'm pretty sure the bullet Darkseid fired is the one that goes back in time and kills Orion and is able to travel back in time due to the speed the Flashes are going at.

Didn't Batman know in Final Crisis #6 that Darkseid had fired the bullet? I'm a little confused by how Batman knew that since at that point Darkseid hadn't yet done so.

BobBretall wrote:

afroloq wrote:

martheus wrote:
Guys, care to put up an "Idiot's Guide to Final Crisis"??

and make a companion guide in 3D called The DCU for Dummies.


Maybe it's just me, but after coming back into comics after 20 or so years, I look at Final Crisis (and Batman RIP to some degree) and state that if you haven't been reading DC on the regular from Infinite Crisis to Countdown or any other Crisis that DC has had, then you are better off trying to follow an episode of 24 or Lost than tryng to follow this series. This is not a book for new or returning readers to latch onto and right now if it wasn't for Green Lantern and the New Krypton stories catching my attention at this time, I surely would be writing off DC.

Just to be clear, not understanding FC has nothing to do with having a long-term understanding of DC. John & I both have been reading almost every DC book for 20+ years and we didn't understand FC either.

I've said before, understanding FC has more to do with being on the same wavelength as some of Morrison's more obtuse writing than any other single factor.

Yeah. My problems with Final Crisis have come from the overly inaccessible storytelling style Morrison used for the series. While I may not know every aspect of the DC Universe backstory, I have read the overwhelming majority of the comics set in the DC Universe since well before Crisis on Infinite Earths.

While I may not recognize the annoyingly untranslated Spanish speaking armored hero, I don't think that knowing his name or which handful of comic the character appeared in makes Final Crisis any more or less understandable.

What I'm looking for is less of a "who was that character in the background of page x, panel y" but more of a "what was story point Grant Morrison trying to convey in page x, panel y".

Just within the Grant Morrison written Final Crisis and tie-in issues there seemed to be a number of continuity glitches and jump that just didn't make sense to me.

Put me down as "3) I enjoyed the first six issues, but the finale let me down"

A major part of why I didn't like the last issue was that I really missed JG Jones' art. I felt his realistic style did a lot to ground Morrison's bizarre ideas. The contrast between the story and art in JG's pages created a palpable atmosphere of tension, and enforced the book's themes about combating entropy. Mahnke's style is a bit more loose, and felt too disjointed along with the disjointed story, especially in the last issue, where I was expecting themes and story threads to dovetail more elegantly. Also, the Batman vs. Darkseid scene (in issue 6) cried out for more, especially since Batman R.I.P. was a long build-up to this confrontation.

I also felt that Morrison was doing yet another meta-fictional ending, of the sort we've already seen from him on numerous occasions. While I liked the meta-fictional aspects that were in the background of FC, I was hoping there would be something else to unify all the storylines -- some new twist or plot thread to tie things together. And there was simply no way for him to top the meta-ficitonal ending in All Star Superman #10, which was still very fresh in my mind.

FC is the closest we've gotten to Morrison achieving his vision of the DCU as a living organism. It's almost as if he just came up with a few story ideas, and then just let them write themselves at random. Unfortunately, I think this vision is flawed. I don't think the writer can just sit back passively and let this organism -- his creation -- do whatever it wants because in the end all you'll have is a First Draft. Ultimately it has to be honed and crafted by the creator. So FC ended up being an incredibly ambitious creative writing experiment, but little more. One can only wonder what a masterpiece FC The Second Draft might have been.

Finally, I want to take issue with a criticism that I've heard from a lot of people, which is: "It's only okay for the story to have lots of layers and subtext if it is enjoyable and accessible on a surface level, a la Watchmen." (This point was made multiple times on CGS 572.) On a business level, I can agree with this statement. However, for literature it is absolutely not a requirement that a work needs to be accessible on a surface level. I would classify FC as modernist lit., in the same vein as Conrad, Joyce or Pynchon. These authors' works are also not easily accessible on a surface level. Indeed, they can be quite off-putting; however, they provide great depth for those willing to study them, and to some extent are only fully enjoyed when one reads the footnotes alongside. In terms of story, many of these works are really quite thin once you strip away all the detail. e.g.: "Heart of Darkness" is just about a guy sailing into the jungle who goes crazy. I'm not surprised, therefore, that many found the underlying story of FC to be banal. Morrison is a playing with familiar story patterns, and it's the way the story is presented that's interesting rather than the story itself. You could even make the case that, for this style of writing to be effective, the underlying story has to be simplistic.

To me, it is a good thing that DC still publishes literature, not just product, and I'm glad they let us tap into Morrison's imagination. However, I agree with other critics who contend that it was a marketing disaster. It should not have been presented in the mainstream DCU, and it should have been titled something else, like "Return of the New Gods" or "Crisis on New Earth" or even "All Star Crisis", and sold as a Kingdom Come style event, loosely connected to the DCU. Then other writers could choose to bring in elements as they saw fit, without worrying about continuity. And of course the less said about the Countdown debacle, the better.

Finally, if you didn't like FC, or don't like this style of storytelling in general, I can totally understand that. I certainly wouldn't want all my comics to read like this. But I'm glad for the diversity that FC provides, and I find it compelling in a "what wacky thing will they do next?" kind of way.

In the end just 3 out of 5 stars. An noble experiment, but in many ways a failure. I'm hoping maybe it will improve with age...

adampasz wrote: Finally, I want to take issue with a criticism that I've heard from a lot of people, which is: "It's only okay for the story to have lots of layers and subtext if it is enjoyable and accessible on a surface level, a la Watchmen." On a business level, I can agree with this statement. However, for literature it is absolutely not a requirement that a work needs to be accessible on a surface level. I would classify FC as modernist lit., in the same vein as Conrad, Joyce or Pynchon. These authors' works are also not easily accessible on a surface level. Indeed, they can be quite off-putting; however, they provide great depth for those willing to study them, and to some extent are only fully enjoyed when one reads the footnotes alongside.

Personally, I have never said "It's only okay for the story to have lots of layers and subtext if it is enjoyable and accessible on a surface level."

What I have said is that it's a REALLY REALLY stupid business decision to make a major company event out of a story that is not accessible to a wide audience at a surface level.

I have zero problem with the existence of deep layered storytelling, I just don't want or need it in my escapist entertainment (which comics are to me). Personally, I think the FC story would have been better off in a corner of the DCU without the huge spotlight that it got being the major hyped event, and it would have most likely drawn far less criticism (because far fewer people would have been reading it, and those that did would have gravitated to it for the love of that kind of deep storytelling).

So, there you have my view. A good story? maybe for the right audience. A good business move for DC. Not so much.

We really can't say for sure whether this was a "good business decision" or not yet because we don't yet know if people complaining about the book will, in turn, vote with their wallets.

But from an abstract view, I agree that the marketing of this story as DC's big event was problematic. DC and Marvel have to accomplish two things simultaneously, they have to a) satisfy their wildly loyal, core niche audience and b ) attempt to tell stories that at least, theoretically, will attract new readers.

To that end, based on the feedback I've seen and heard from the comics community, DC didn't achieve those goals.

It's a real shame, because I thought this was a fun, grand experiment. But to be fair I don't have a hard and fast expectation for what a "Crisis" has to be, I didn't read COIE until a few years ago, as an example.

Luckily, whether you loved or hate this, it's going to work out for both sides. I'm sure DC won't soon again allow someone to have carte blanche over a Crisis, particularly someone prone to layering in so much metatextual content. And for we Morrison fans, he's already on record as saying that this was his farewell to mainstream superhero books [save for Batman] for a good long while, and while I enjoyed FC just fine, I'm betting I'll enjoy his Vertigo and creator-owned stuff a lot more.

Got my shipment yesterday and I have read both 6 and 7. After reading it I guess I fall into category 3 of Bob's list. Number 7 seem disjointed to me. It was a fun read for the first 6 issues because Grant had all these huge great ideas for the Crisis but for me couldn't bring them together in the end.

It was frustrating as well that the tie-ins in the end had absolutely nothing to do with Final Crisis. What Montoya did in Revelations had no relevance what was occurring in Final Crisis. They made mention of it for one panel and but it was unclear how Montoya made that journey from Final Crisis #1 into Revelations back into the gathering of Supermen in Final Crisis #7.

Resist/Submit were great stories but when it came to Omacs to play a part in Final Crisis #7 all there was one panel of Mr. Terrific shouting wondering where his Omacs were, when we already saw him charging the enemy with them in those mini's.

What I did like about #7 was there some good characters beats and interaction. For instance I liked the character beats between Hawkman and Hawkgirl. I did like how in one panel Aquaman is back.

Some major flaws will hurt this Crisis series in the end. The cover dress they used was not great. Having Grant Morrison as a writer who is not accessible to everyone was a mistake for a series you want everyone to buy.

J.G. Jones is a great artist and can do monthly titles but event titles are different and the Big 2 need to realize there is a lot going on in these events being ultimately a showcase for all the popular characters in your library. You simply need to get an artist that can draw all these distinctly and fast. Also having J.G. doing the interior art and covers I think was a mistake. From what I have learn, editors get very nitpicky over the covers and you have to do them several times. If this was true in the case of FC then it only served to slow J.G. down.

Secret Invasion ended being more successful in the end because 1) Written to be accessible to everyone 2) Same artist and never late 3) Great cover dress

Wood wrote:We really can't say for sure whether this was a "good business decision" or not yet because we don't yet know if people complaining about the book will, in turn, vote with their wallets.

In my opinion, any event that generates as much bad press & negative buzz as it does positive would seem to be a bad business decision.

You want positive, and the detractors to be at worst neutral parties who just skip it.

Whether they vote with their wallets or not, there is an intangible loss of good will that DC has suffered as a result of FC, plus lots of people making the statement (technically incorrect, but I hear it a LOT) that you need a "degree in DC-Universe-ology" to understand the event. Heck, I even heard Blair Butler on G4 Attack of the Show saying this.

In any event, this cannot be a desired result, and a decision that leads to an undesired result was a bad decision. Disastrous decision? Not really. Bad decision? Most assuredly.

BobBretall wrote:

Wood wrote:We really can't say for sure whether this was a "good business decision" or not yet because we don't yet know if people complaining about the book will, in turn, vote with their wallets.

In my opinion, any event that generates as much bad press & negative buzz as it does positive would seem to be a bad business decision.

You want positive, and the detractors to be at worst neutral parties who just skip it.

Whether they vote with their wallets or not, there is an intangible loss of good will that DC has suffered as a result of FC, plus lots of people making the statement (technically incorrect, but I hear it a LOT) that you need a "degree in DC-Universe-ology" to understand the event. Heck, I even heard Blair Butler on G4 Attack of the Show saying this.

In any event, this cannot be a desired result, and a decision that leads to an undesired result was a bad decision. Disastrous decision? Not really. Bad decision? Most assuredly.

But it did nothing to restore any of the good will DC had lost with Countdown either. If anything they might of lost some more.