The Hollywood Reporter interviewed artists Nick Dragotta and Daniel Warren Johnson, and they even claim DC's Absolute line is literally a huge success. Here's what they say:
Dragotta, who is the regular monthly artist for DC’s Absolute Batman title, and Johnson, the indie creator who last year wrote and drew the Absolute Batman annual, have emerged as two of the biggest artists that the comics world has seen in a long time. They are at the center of a seismic shift in the industry.
Call it the return of the superstar artist.
For most of the 21st century, comics, despite being a visual field, has been a writer-dominated medium. Even though some artists gained a degree of popularity, it has been authors such as Brian Michael Bendis, Robert Kirkman, Scott Snyder, James Tynion IV and Brian K. Vaughan that have been the stars in the field, rising off a platform built by a previous generation of wordsmiths, names such as Alan Moore and Grant Morrison.
And again, they just cite figures like Bendis, Tynion and Morrison, etc, as though they were all unquestionably admired and everybody's buying their stuff unquestioned, sans any objective viewpoint. What's so great about them that isn't so great about the writers who were blacklisted in the mainstream, like Chuck Dixon, Mike Baron and even Larry Hama? Tynion's a particularly galling example for citation as a writer, based on the horror comics the MSM is virtually gushing over now. And as for the issue of artists:
Dragotta, Johnson and a handful of others that include names such as Hayden Sherman, Jorge Jimenez and Peach Momoko, have become among the biggest artist names in the comics industry since the early 1990s, when a group of artists led by Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefeld quit Marvel Comics and created Image Comics. It was comics’ Beatlemania when those artists made store appearance in places such as L.A.’s Golden Apple. In response, Marvel and DC clamped down on the power of artists and raised the voice of the scribes.
This sounds like an exaggeration regarding the artists, if only because they still had talented artists working for them at the time. As for raising the voice of the scribes? Yes they did, and it wasn't always for the better, considering some like Scott Lobdell and Ron Marz were overrated or simply mediocre, and
Gerard Jones had to have been the worst. It's more like in the past decade of the 2010s the power of artists was clamped down upon, and while that may have improved somewhat of recent, storytelling certainly hasn't. And when Liefeld's cited so casually, as though he was never a poor influence to start with, you know something's not serious about this puff piece.
“Certainly in the ‘90s, artists and Image artist ruled the land,” says Lee, who lived through the artist reign of the 1990s and has been the DC chief since 2010, first as co-publisher and then sole publisher. He has seen the vagaries of the comic industry ebb and flow, including the rise of the writer class. Lee described the current state as a “getting back to a balance where both artists and writers are driving sales, driving fans.”
The return of the artist as superstar “is good for the business, it is good for the artform,” he says.
That depends on if they know better at this point than to censor or water down the artwork, again recalling
when this happened with Donna Troy, in example. I think even Jesse Quick fell victim to this censoring of female sexuality in the past decade, and so too did Rogue. Lee himself was dumbing down his artwork to some extent, and if he and the trade journal are obscuring all that, it only suggests all's still not well. The lecturing continues with the following:
Key to the rising artists phenomenon is the runaway success of DC’s Absolute line. Launched towards the end of 2024, the line led by Absolute Batman, Absolute Wonder Woman and Absolute Superman, reinterpreted characters and origins in a truly sweeping way. Unlike other so-called “relaunches” that DC or Marvel have done, this one has reinvigorated publishers and retailers alike, unexpectedly brought in new readers, and created name artists who can turn a simple three hour signing into a caffeinated, we’re-still-signing-at-midnight mania, as Dragotta and Johnson did late last year in an Oakland, Calif. comic shop. Or have hundreds upon hundreds line up in a shop in Spain, as Jimenez did in February. And they are now capitalizing on that newfound mainstream recognition. [...]
The line has been so seismic for DC that the company has overtaken market share over longtime rival Marvel for the first time this century. It has sold almost 12 million units since its launch. In the case of Absolute Batman, sales continue to rise, bucking normal publishing trends that see a drop or leveling off of sales.
Even this is hard to swallow, since it's more likely they're alluding to how much of this line's allegedly sold in the past 2 years since its launch. And the following makes clear something's awry here:
Absolute Batman is now consistently selling 300,000 issues a month, a monster number in the comic book publishing field.
“The Absolute comics have restored faith in the comic industry and retailers alike,” says Ryan Liebowitz, the owner of LA’s Golden Apple Comics, who said that first-time comic book readers are part of the movement. “We haven’t seen anything like this in a long time.”
All they've done with the above is compound the comedy. A serious business agent wants to sell far more than that in millions, yet we're being lectured that a sum equivalent to what some weekly urban newspapers see printed up is a triumph? The Hollywood Reporter has again proven they're one of the biggest farces in how they cover entertainment, and since when weren't readers part of the movement? It's quite likely we're being told this is a staggering success because of
the politics the Absolute line's built upon. And who knows, maybe these "first-timers" they speak of took to the books because of said politics? But when it's far less than a million for individual issues sold, it's as dishonest as it's laughable to say this is a stunning success. The following is also annoying:
And it’s not just the comics that are selling. Artists in today’s comic industry have new revenue streams that did not exist in prior generations. Signings, which were once gratis, can be a major money maker. Runs of limited editions variant covers another. And, the biggest is the sale of original art.
In other words, creators are demanding we pay for their signatures? Why should we want to pay potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for a mere signature? That can be quite the ripoff and makes the the medium look all the more absurd, as does the following news:
The original comic art for Dragotta, Johnson, Sherman, and others is selling out as soon as they drop on the online store run by Felix Lu, a former Hollywood assistant-turned-comic art dealer, and commanding prices that are more in line with classic artist from the 1970s and 1980s.
“It is a moment,” Lu says. “We will look back on this and see that this was a special time.”
Dragotta’s cover for Absolute Batman No. 1 sold for $70,000 in late 2024, when the title was less than a month old. It was a record sale for a modern age cover and would probably sell higher now in light of the title’s explosion in popularity.
Another change: initially, collectors bought individual art pages but now complete issues are being snapped up at a time, with aficionados paying well into six figures.
This is telling too. Mainly because pamphlets continue to be the coveted "holy grail" for speculators. What an insulting farce they're trying to sell us on here. I don't know if this is exactly what they mean by "original art", but it sure doesn't sound like wall paintings have become the name of the game. This is nothing more than a continuation of the very same unfunny jokes that have plague the industry for years, particularly since the turn of the century.
In further detailing of Dragotta's history, they tell that:
But little by little, he nabbed assignments here and there. He drew a silent issue of Fantastic Four which centered on the memorial for hero Johnny Storm (don’t worry, it’s comics, and Storm would eventually be resurrected). He was lucky to be paired with writer Joe Casey and the two created America Chavez, a young Avenger that was a key character in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Yet, even then, he and his family was getting by on credit cards.
So he was one of the developers of a
diversity/social justice pandering creation, which unsurprisingly isn't elaborated upon here. Why must we find that impressive? If Marvel wanted to, they could've put a big emphasis on Firebird/Bonita Juarez, who was created by Bill Mantlo and Sal Buscema in the pages of Incredible Hulk back in 1981. I suppose because she was characterized as a Christian adherent, she wasn't good enough for today's PC crowd at Marvel, right?
As for Johnson:
Raised in a strict Christian household and home schooled from third to 12th grade, Johnson’s interests butted up against the will of his parents. Certain music wasn’t allowed. Some comics were tolerated. Many were not. Once, his grandparents bought him a few Superboy issues in which the hero wore a leather jacket (hey, it was a ‘90s look).
“My parents took a flip through it and they were like, ‘No,’” he recalled. His father took those comics away and instead bought him a Spider-Man “that specifically had no punching on the cover.”
One defining moment was when a teenage Johnson and his father were in a comic shop and Johnson was intent on buying a copy of Battle Chasers, a comic known for shapely and busty heroines and plenty of violence.
His father was appalled at the mixing of sex and violence. “This is horrific,” the father said. “You shouldn’t buy that.”
Johnson stood his ground. He said, “Dad, I’m buying this” and put his money down.
“He was a good dad. I think he was just trying to be really careful with the visual that I was taking in,” says Johnson. “And eventually I just had to go my own way with it. We would always have this back and forth.”
Depending how you view this, it's a shame if his parents took a sex-negative viewpoint on the one hand, and on the other, overreacted in regards to the 90s Superboy series, since from what stories I recall reading, it was far from gory in terms of violence. Of course, you could also wonder why his parents thought Spidey was any better, because if DC could have jarring moments in their comics, so could Marvel, and did, though it was post-2000 this was sadly more likely, because that's when they really began losing their moral compass. Also, strange if they believed Spidey had no punching of any kind, because there were plenty of times ever since Web-head debuted in 1962 where fisticuffs prevailed as much as web-slinging.
He studied art at Chicago’s North Park University, but even when he began discovering comics beyond the superhero genre such as Spawn, The Walking Dead and Hellboy, a future in the industry was still not on his mind.
Oh, this is telling too. When somebody cites graphically violent products like those as influences, you know something's wrong. If that's what Johnson considered masterpieces, then he's no better than the PC advocates who claimed
the disgraced Neil Gaiman's Sandman series was better because it alluded to subjects that even mainstream superhero comics actually had dealt with in some form or other in past years. Jarring violence and gore alone like what the 3 Image/Dark Horse comics cited are noted for does not a good story make. Johnson's also hinted at his leftist politics in the following:
It was when he rekindled his childhood love of Transformers, launching the eponymous comic under Skybound/Image in 2023, that he powered his first major breakthrough. As both the writer and artist, he transformed a licensed comic, a type of endeavor that is not normally known for artistic achievements, not just into a massive sales hit — the first issue sold over 100,000 copies — but also, unbelievably, into an Eisner Award winner. Two, in fact. One for best continuing series, one for best writer/artist.
He was already skyrocketing in popularity when DC came calling, offering something in the Absolute world. At first, he declined their advances, but as he says, “the election and inauguration happened and then I had an idea.” That was the beginning of 2025. By the end of the year, Absolute Batman Annual No. 1 was in readers’ hands.
Again with powerbombs and chokeslams, not to mention one arm being snapped in mid-Hitler salute, Batman took on white supremacists. Like the main Absolute Batman, an energy pulsated through the pages, giving it an urgency and a nowness.
The comic sold a walloping 150,000 copies. It then breezed through a second printing and is now on its third.
Once again, they've lengthened the joke regarding sales figures, and taking on white supremacists of what's bound to be a western variety in an era where
Islamic terrorism is more a serious concern is also a joke. What makes the above fall flat is that, according to
this page recorded from leftist Bleeding Cool, Johnson, disturbingly enough, drew an anti-ICE illustration, exploiting Batman's image for something quite loathsome. What Bleeding Cool refuses to mention is that
the woman tried to strike the ICE officer, and he fired in self-defense. Such omissions only compound how tasteless Johnson's illustration really is.
And after years of comics being the domain of middle-aged male nerds, the audience for the books is younger and more diverse than before, thanks to Gen Z growing up on non-superhero graphic novels such as Dav Pikey’s Dog Man and the works of Raina Telgemeier. Their fervor can be seen in YouTube videos and launch comics trend on TikTok.
“It’s one of the first times we’re seeing social media having an impact on store sales,” says Golden Apple’s Liebowitz. “In this instance, the people are talking about this thing called Absolute Batman or Wonder Woman or whatever, and rushing into local comic books stores to find it.”
Or as Lu put it: “One thing we haven’t seen is that the kids are back. I didn’t think we’d see that again.”
It won't be shocking if it turns out their claims are hugely exaggerated, and besides, note that the examples cited above aren't superhero comics, but rather, independent GNs. Has social media really never had an effect on sales before? I think chances are it has, yet when sales figures aren't cited unambiguously, how can you believe this at instant face value? They also don't mention that, if comics were really left to middle-aged, that's because they all but stopped being sold in supermarkets and regular bookstores, and gradually became more mature themed to the point where they were all but unsuited for children. Not to mention less interesting because successive writers were exploiting them for leftist propaganda, including J. Michael Straczynski's take on Spidey, and despite any claims to the contrary, the Big Two didn't even try appealing to children. They certainly didn't make them suitable, and
what they did to Iceman was just the beginning.
Like with most cases of popularity or art trends, it’s hard to know where this one will to or how long it will last. Dragotta is committed to Absolute Batman for the foreseeable future, which will give the title a cohesion rare in modern comics (not counting the occasional fill-in issue or two by other artists, which allows him to catch up on his schedule).
From what I can tell here, it's no different from other big headlines written for the sake of them. And the part about cohesion couldn't be more forced, based on how they don't make the same argument for flagship titles, nor do they suggest much of what came up in the past quarter century be jettisoned as part of an effort to restore some coherency and meaning to the flagship Marvel/DC titles. Despite what they claim, this alleged popularity of the Absolute line hasn't even lasted a year, but what is clear is that, because of the political metaphors, that's why they're promoting it drenched in sugar. I'm sure they know the sales figures given are a laugh riot, and their failure to make a valid argument why it could do a lot of good to find a way to boost sales to millions - possibly by shifting to paperback/hardcover formats - speaks volumes. They keep wasting so much paper on puff pieces but never write up any op-eds about what could be done to improve marketing and readership. Nor will they make an argument why at this point, it would be better if Marvel/DC closed down comics publication, seeing what an artistic travesty they've become.
If there's anything this whole fawning over the Absolute line reminds me of, it's the fuss made over Marvel's Ultimate line a quarter century ago. That line did have its share of tasteless shock value, and it won't be shocking if the Absolute line has anything similar. That's why we could really do without what DC is now foisting on the audience.
Labels: censorship issues, dc comics, history, indie publishers, licensed products, marvel comics, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics, sales
