Robot 6

DC’s ‘New 52′ web page inadvertently reveals names of original writers

The original Supergirl listing on DC Comics' "The New 52" landing page (courtesy ComicsAlliance)

We’ve known for a few weeks now that some writers were attached to titles in DC Comics’ upcoming relaunch, only to find themselves shuffled off even as the official announcement was made. While some creators have spoken openly about the hurried, and somewhat-confused, pitch and rejection process, the names of other writers, and the corresponding titles, have been a mystery.

But with the launch last night of the publisher’s new landing page for “DC Comics: The New 52,” ComicsAlliance discovered that some of the original creators were, at least briefly, listed among the issue descriptions, providing evidence of the original plans. There’s confirmation of Brian Wood, instead of Michael Green and Mike Johnson, on Supergirl, Michael Alan Nelson, rather than Ron Marz, on Voodoo, and Simon Spurrier and an undetermined artist, rather than Paul Jenkins and Bernard Chang, on DC Universe Presents.

C.O. Austen, whom ComicsAlliance theorizes might be much-criticized Uncanny X-Men writer Chuck Austen, was also listed on Blackhawks, in place of Mike Costa, who actually ended up with the gig.

DC has made the corrections this morning, but ComicsAlliance has the screencaps from last night.



Reason #2176861 why I honestly believe this wasn’t as well planned or planned as in advance as they’ve claimed and why so many people are worried they’ll botch this. Hopefully they won’t, but, seriously, it’s the little stuff like this that makes people wonder.

Ricardo Amaral

July 1, 2011 at 10:35 am

If anyone had any doubts DC did not really plan this for a long time….

I believe more thought was put into the digital publication side than the actual books. Once the decision was made to relaunch the entire DCU editorial scrambled to get creators signed up. I don’t blame the writers & artists who are just doing their job, but the success or failure of this should be laid at the feet of the higher ups. I also have a bad feeling that some of these books may have deadline problems after the intial issues hit the stands.

@Steve, supposedly they’ve been mandated to have three issues in the can by the time of the launch, but, you’re right, beyond that, and especially with guys like Finch who take three months to draw issues sometimes, DC damn well better make sure this goes off without a hitch to alleviate people’s feelings.

For one, old readers, some that are already quite wary, will possibly see delays as a sign this wasn’t as thought out as they claim, and, two, newer readers may be turned off when they check in to see what the hype is about and find out the next part of the story they’re being expected to become invested in is not coming out for two more months. Maybe.

Looking forward to Jenkins & Chang’s Deadman series in DCU Presents. Thank God it wasn’t Simon Spurrier – the sh*t Warren Ellis…

Oof! DC Comics is a multimillion dollar a year company and they can’t pay attention to a screw up like that?! Just goes to show you that their editors are not doing their jobs on two fronts!

By the way, this entire endevour has been in the works since Spring of last year when Marvel announced that they we’re being purchased by Disney and DC reacted by shifting around key higher ups. For them to compete they knew major changes had to occur. That doesn’t mean that a year is (most likely less) is enough time to coordinate something like this, but don’t let anyone (including DC) make you think they had loss planned any longer. The writing is on the wall (literally)!

Free album download at

I agree with all of you: this seems awfully rushed, and DC has some of the sloppiest editors ever (no mean feat when you consider they’re based in New York City, where just about every third person is a writer/editor of some kind). Furthermore, I’m still baffled by the huge volume of books being launched all at once – if the whole point is attracting new, lapsed and casual readers, why the overkill? Why stretch the company’s meagre talent pool to the limit, just to pump out more books? Looking at the creative teams and their track records, it is readily apparent that fill-ins are going to be inevitable, so why not put multiple artists on a smaller selection of truly strong, attractive titles that will come out like clockwork and expand from there? That would ensure consistent quality and steady momentum, which is the only way to build up a larger audience, I think.

And I would have bought Chuck Austen’s Blatant GI Joe Rip-Of…er, I mean Blackhawks.

I’d buy Brian Wood’s version in a heartbeat. But really reading that solicit kinda wondered if maybe that was more of an indie writer’s idea of Supergirl, this confirms those suspiciions and makes me really bummed that DC didnt let Wood run with this title.

Pls put Wood on a DC title….i mean heck New York Four and Five showed that he can certainly diversify his audience in a whole new way. Daniel talked about “writing Bruce before his time came to an end on Detective” so maybe daniel writes the first year or so of Detective then next Wondercon we get Brian Wood writing detective (i’ll sacrifice a goat if it’ll help) pls. :)

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives