A slower introduction to each character serves new readers who aren't as familar with everyone.

***

Do you really think these mythical new readers are so dumb that they can't grasp the concept of 7 superheroes teaming together to fight a common foe?  It has to be rolled out slowly so they can comprehend it?  Really?

As to the ancillaries, I found Batman: Knight of Vengeance to be the best of
the lot, but Secret Seven and Frankenstein and the Creature Commandos
were fun, too!

***

Do you really think these mythical new readers are so dumb that they
can't grasp the concept of 7 superheroes teaming together to fight a
common foe? It has to be rolled out slowly so they can comprehend
it? Really?

-------------

I didn't say it was the only way or the best way, I just said it is a way to
introduce people to the characters. It serves the purpose of
introduction. And like I said, I have seen other storytellers do the
same.

Pulling the whole team together in the first issue is fine and I would
agree it is the best way, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the
story. Since this story seems to be more quest-like where they follow
clues from one point to another and where members are added as the
journey continues, then a slow introduction fit.

I have no problem with a "putting the band together" story, I would just lead off with them facing their first major threat and figuring out how to work as a team when they have each had solo careers up to that point.  An economic writer can move the story forward with enough small portions of relevant flashback material (to keep moving the story forward, al a LOST) without getting bogged in with this Brave & the Bold Year Zero approach.  Seems like it can wear thin quick.  Although I only skimmed JL 1 at the LCS, from the feedback I've read thus far, seems like there's a lot of "get on with it!" sentiment.

An economic writer can move the story forward with enough small portions of relevant flashback material

Well said, Craig. What's wrong with starting issue 1 in the heat of the action (with the group already asembled), and using flashbacks for each individual to fill in the blanks?

I think that approach makes more sense for limited attention spans <g>.

For example, are we 100 percent sure we know who is going to be on
the first team? It doesn't look as if Cyborg will be.

DC's been pretty self-destructive since Infantino was put in charge back in '71 or so.

I'll disagree a little on that. I'll preface by saying I don't know who has their story straight: I think Infantino gets the Jim Shooter treatment in retrospect. Everyone says Julie Schwartz was the only guy who knew how to run DC. I can't dispute it, but I read Infantino's biography/interview book released recently. I should have it on hand but I lent it out. While Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil are busy, in the 50th issue of "Back Issue," praising Julie and damning Carmine, I feel like it's a question that will never be answered sufficiently.

I don't think Infantino made decisions to do anything but Sell More Comics. He was a company man who maintained DC Comics' integrity, which back then was extremely strict where creative license was concerned. If I'm understanding, Julie Schwartz barely had an idea of what was going creatively, half the time. Which, for a lot of writers and artists acting as essentially their own editors, was probably a great thing. Meanwhile, Infantino gets lambasted for going on a media tour during the Green Arrow/Green Lantern buzz of the earlier 1970s. I mean, it sounds like Infantino was told by management to put a voice to comic book "relevancy," which rubbed Adams/O'Neil raw. Which I can't understand: Adams/O'Neil were freelancers? Why would DC have freelancers interviewed about characters owned by DC Comics, regardless if Schwartz or Infantino had any idea what was going on?

Infantino can only be blamed for not being a creative rebel, but let's be honest here: by 1971, on the other side of things, Marvel Comics had settled into an extremely formuliac publishing machine. With Jack Kirby gone, they were already recycling all of Jack's ideas, ad nauseum. Marvel was secure in its product, and got lucky with a couple of post-Kirby movie fad tie-ins. But where were the new characters, the new stories? The only thing that kept Marvel relevant creatively was their ability to match talent with output, TOMB OF DRACULA and MASTER OF KUNG FU notably, OMEGA THE UNKNOWN and MAN-THING. And those barely scraped by while people bought Spider-Man vs Dr. Octopus for the fourteenth time in droves.

And the fact remains, if Infantino had stuck to his instincts, to really force the creative issue and forge ahead of Marvel instead of collapsing the DC line based on tepid sales during an economic crisis, Infantino would be praised today as the Man Who Crushed Marvel. What he'd begun in the 1970s took flower in the 1980s, when DC decided they had to take the creative shots they'd held back. CRISIS was a mistake, but what wasn't a mistake was reinventing their characters through fresh professional and uncommonly talented eyes like Byrne, Miller, ect.

If only DC had maintained character integrity after that, instead of falling victim to the pressures of a shrinking, aging fanbase, we wouldn't have a need for Nu DC. Ever.