Print Thread
My BIGGEST problem with the REBOOT
supermanofsteel
Here is my biggest gripe with the reboot.

The costume, the marriage, the origin?
THATíS NOT WHATíS BOTHERING ME.

There are creative decisions that have been made that I disagree with. But ultimately thatís something I will have to judge when I actually read the books. The writers after all are just doing their jobs, and I have all the faith in Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns writing ability. I believe that they can and will deliver a truly compelling and engrossing story for all to enjoy.

Whatís really bothering me is I canít help but feel that this change isnít motivated by the pursuit of creative enlightenment but by corporate greed.

After all, this is a business. And make no mistake, this WILL MAKE MONEY based on the hype and the name value of Grant Morrison alone. And there's a reason why the Batman and Green Lantern books will be the only ones least affected by this overhaul.

But in the last 8 years, Iíve already spent time and money on THREE separate status quo changes to the Superman mythology: Birthright, Infinite Crisis, and Secret Origin. Not to mention the multitude of other DC spanning crossover events that promised to "change the DC Universe forever".

And now itís happening again.

And I canít help but feel cheated because ultimately I wouldnít have bought those books.
I would have bought the regular Superman comics, but I wouldnít have spent the time, the energy and money on those other origins and event/gimmick inspired books if I knew that theyíd be obsolete in less than a few years. I would have just started buying here at the birth of this new universe.

And if this new reboot fails and they change everything again in a year or two, wouldnít you feel the same?
 
baalroo

>supermanofsteel wrote:


Here is my biggest gripe with the reboot.

The costume, the marriage, the origin?
THATíS NOT WHATíS BOTHERING ME.

There are creative decisions that have been made that I disagree with. But ultimately thatís something I will have to judge when I actually read the books. The writers after all are just doing their jobs, and I have all the faith in Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns writing ability. I believe that they can and will deliver a truly compelling and engrossing story for all to enjoy.

Whatís really bothering me is I canít help but feel that this change isnít motivated by the pursuit of creative enlightenment but by corporate greed.

After all, this is a business. And make no mistake, this WILL MAKE MONEY based on the hype and the name value of Grant Morrison alone. And there's a reason why the Batman and Green Lantern books will be the only ones least affected by this overhaul.

But in the last 8 years, Iíve already spent time and money on THREE separate status quo changes to the Superman mythology: Birthright, Infinite Crisis, and Secret Origin. Not to mention the multitude of other DC spanning crossover events that promised to "change the DC Universe forever".

And now itís happening again.

And I canít help but feel cheated because ultimately I wouldnít have bought those books.
I would have bought the regular Superman comics, but I wouldnít have spent the time, the energy and money on those other origins and event/gimmick inspired books if I knew that theyíd be obsolete in less than a few years. I would have just started buying here at the birth of this new universe.

And if this new reboot fails and they change everything again in a year or two, wouldnít you feel the same?


nope.

I guess I just don't understand these arguments about continuity. Does the fact that Moby Dick didn't have a sequel make Moby Dick any lesser of a book? What if Geoff Johns decided to redo Moby Dick as an exposition filled graphic novel, would that make the original "obsolete?"
 
supermanofsteel

>baalroo wrote:

nope.

I guess I just don't understand these arguments about continuity. Does the fact that Moby Dick didn't have a sequel make Moby Dick any lesser of a book? What if Geoff Johns decided to redo Moby Dick as an exposition filled graphic novel, would that make the original "obsolete?"


But continuity isn't my argument here (at least not in this case but that's another matter all together). It's about DC in the past making promises of growth, progression and change in order to increase sales.

The entire reason we put money in big name events is not just for the potential for a good story but also for the possible ramifications for future storylines. We wanted to see how the stories and characters progress and evolve based on these events. It's probably why so many people are reading flashpoint right now.
 
baalroo

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>baalroo wrote:

nope.

I guess I just don't understand these arguments about continuity. Does the fact that Moby Dick didn't have a sequel make Moby Dick any lesser of a book? What if Geoff Johns decided to redo Moby Dick as an exposition filled graphic novel, would that make the original "obsolete?"


But continuity isn't my argument here (at least not in this case but that's another matter all together). It's about DC in the past making promises of growth, progression and change in order to increase sales.

The entire reason we put money in big name events is not just for the potential for a good story but also for the possible ramifications for future storylines. We wanted to see how the stories and characters progress and evolve based on these events. It's probably why so many people are reading flashpoint right now.


So continuity isn't your argument, except for continuity?

Again, I think I'm just out of sync with the average reader. I'm reading the flashpoint stuff because it's an interesting elseworlds style tale. Since it's not intended to be a permanent change to the status quo, the writers are actually taking some liberties and doing something with the characters that is actually different from the norm and somewhat compelling. I don't care about the ramifications TBH. I really don't intend to read enough of the top tier DCnU titles after the relaunch to expect to really comprehend the "ramification" of flashpoint anyhow. I figure Johns and Didio will be keeping a much closer eye on those titles (or writing them) and making sure that nothing too interesting or challenging to the status quo will occur (gotta keep the fanboys happy afterall).

I mean, honestly when it comes down to it, how much character progression have we seen from ANY of the top tier titles in our lifetimes? How much difference is there between the tone of any particular title from this year in comparison to the same title 5 or 10 years ago? If you ask me, very little. They always end up coming back around to the same status quo and all we can really hope for is short diversions of compelling content between those returns to said status quo.
 
supermanofsteel

>baalroo wrote:

They always end up coming back around to the same status quo and all we can really hope for is short diversions of compelling content between those returns to said status quo.


That's exactly my point, but you're still not understanding what I'm trying to say.

There was no reason for me to buy Birthright.
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Secret Origin.
But I had to because DC said it was going to be the new origin and would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, 52, Countdown, Final Crisis, or Blackest Night
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading

There's no reason for me buy this new reboot.
But I have to because DC says this is Superman from now on.

If they end up going back to the status quo in a year or two, I'll be very upset at the amount of money I fed DC once again.
 
King Creole
I understand your frustration. Something similar happened to Wonder Woman. Just for starters, why make such drastic change like her costume if in less than a year none of that will matter. I doesn't make sense at all. I'm looking forward to this reboot, but some things just don't add up.
You are here for a reason.
 
baalroo

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>baalroo wrote:

They always end up coming back around to the same status quo and all we can really hope for is short diversions of compelling content between those returns to said status quo.


That's exactly my point, but you're still not understanding what I'm trying to say.

There was no reason for me to buy Birthright.
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Secret Origin.
But I had to because DC said it was going to be the new origin and would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, 52, Countdown, Final Crisis, or Blackest Night
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading

There's no reason for me buy this new reboot.
But I have to because DC says this is Superman from now on.

If they end up going back to the status quo in a year or two, I'll be very upset at the amount of money I fed DC once again.


yeah, I hear ya, but it doesn't mean there aren't any good stories that have come out of any of those things. just try to ignore the hype and read things when a creative team you like is writing it and the story interests you and you won't have that problem anymore. just because they tell you it's important doesn't mean you have to read it, that's just marketing y'know?
 
Saint Expeditus

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>baalroo wrote:

They always end up coming back around to the same status quo and all we can really hope for is short diversions of compelling content between those returns to said status quo.


That's exactly my point, but you're still not understanding what I'm trying to say.

There was no reason for me to buy Birthright.
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Secret Origin.
But I had to because DC said it was going to be the new origin and would affect what I was reading.

There was no reason for me to buy Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, 52, Countdown, Final Crisis, or Blackest Night
But I had to because DC said it would affect what I was reading

There's no reason for me buy this new reboot.
But I have to because DC says this is Superman from now on.

If they end up going back to the status quo in a year or two, I'll be very upset at the amount of money I fed DC once again.


What were you reading that you HAD to buy those collections? There is no reason for you to buy any comic book story unless you want to.

Regarding DC's greed, if DC doesn't make money then they cease to exist. They are currently not doing well as a company. I object to this reboot not for being a reboot but for how it is being handled. I think they will fail to address the root causes of declining sales while making the circumstances worse.

"Continuity" is a modern comic conceit that as often as not does more harm than good. The the same goes for the Johnsian explainification stories and the Morrison yournotsmartenouhgtogetit stories.
 
theagingfanboy
Well, I know they have to make cash to keep the business going, and I appreciate that the lawsuit must be a problem for them, but I think that at heart DD and company do want to tell good stories and establish a 21st century Superman. So let's give them a chance eh?

On the other hand, I like the current continuity!! Can't win.
With great power comes great responsibility.
No Lois, Superman is what I can do, but Clark is who I am.
 
copacetic
The thing is, comics have a very liquid, or elastic, timeline, much like soap operas. I think I read somewhere that 3 years in "our" time is about a year's time in the X Men universe...and yet things happen on an almost hourly basis that OMG CHANGES EVERYTHING.

"Continuity" is something that is only thrown in to appease the most Comic Book-iest of Comic Book Guys out there. If we were truly to sweat out over whether every single event we read about month in and month out to our fave characters actually happened or not, we'd have some pretty messed up characters to work with here. Can you imagine if every single day of your life, something catastrophic or universe-threatening was happening? The serial nature of comics is meant to just give us a general backdrop for the characters, that they will then occupy and then act out a story for us.

The serial nature of comics also means the status quo has to be reset now and then since the noodly continuity left by the last big shakeup will eventually get so tangled and messy, you won't be able to tell what is what. It's the concept of Hypertime - everything exists and yet doesn't exist, for the sake of a story. What should matter is the story being told NOW, with elements of previous stories placed in to form some meat to the matter.

I had a feeling Birthright wouldn't matter in the long run, nor would Secret Origin. But what I wanted to see was, what would the writers do with the material? And to be honest, I enjoyed Birthright far more than Secret Origin because the former didn't feel "safe"...it was taking liberties, experimenting, while staying true to certain aspects of the character/established norms, and I was fine with that.

As baalroo says, it's the story that's the thing.
 
supermanofsteel

>Saint Expeditus wrote:

What were you reading that you HAD to buy those collections? There is no reason for you to buy any comic book story unless you want to.

It was just an example.

If I'm reading Superman. And those books were supposed to affect Superman. If I want to understand what I'm reading, then DC says I "HAVE" to get those books.

I'm not saying that they were right or that I even believed them. In fact the complete opposite, besides Secret Origin I stopped after Infinite Crisis. I'm just saying it was a deceptive marketing ploy to get more people to buy those books. And I can't help but feel that it's being used here again.


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

Regarding DC's greed, if DC doesn't make money then they cease to exist.

I don't agree with that logic. I don't believe that just because a company is struggling that it's okay for them to deceive their customers. I'm NOT saying for a FACT that's what's happening here. But if it were, having poor business doesn't justify it.


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

"Continuity" is a modern comic conceit that as often as not does more harm than good.

>copacetic wrote:

"Continuity" is something that is only thrown in to appease the most Comic Book-iest of Comic Book Guys out there.

I didn't really want to address this here because it's not my central point. But since it keeps coming up, I will.

I LOVE CONTINUITY.

Not just as a comic book fan, but as a fan of stories in general. You're more than welcome to disagree with me, but I love the idea that these stories and adventures have weight and relevance. I love the idea that characters can be affected and grow from their experiences.
It's really hard to defend this argument when we talk about Superman since his continuity is already so convoluted. But if we talk about someone else....

I love Batman's continuity.
It's not perfect. After 70 plus years there's no way you can keep everything intact, and it's really based on the whim of the writers (or the editor). But I love the fictional history and mythology of the character. Even more importantly, I love the history of Batman's allies. Specifically Dick Grayson.
Watching Dick become Robin, growing up, leading the Teen Titans and creating a legacy with that group. Leaving Batman's shadow to become Nightwing and proving he can survive on his own. Then eventually taking up the mantle and becoming Batman. That is great storytelling in any medium, comics or otherwise. Witnessing the growth and evolution of a truly fantastic character is serial fiction at its finest. Dick Grayson is a prime example of continuity done right.

If this reboot were to erase that (it's not going to, but if it were). If they were to bring Dick Grayson back to square one, I would be devastated.

I understand that continuity can't last forever, especially as readers grow up and unfortunately pass on. It's a reality that we readers have to accept. It's why the first Crisis was necessitated in the mid-80's and why it's allegedly being utilized here. But I don't believe continuity to be an absolutely negative thing to comic storytelling.
 
Saint Expeditus

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

What were you reading that you HAD to buy those collections? There is no reason for you to buy any comic book story unless you want to.

It was just an example.

If I'm reading Superman. And those books were supposed to affect Superman. If I want to understand what I'm reading, then DC says I "HAVE" to get those books.

I'm not saying that they were right or that I even believed them. In fact the complete opposite, besides Secret Origin I stopped after Infinite Crisis. I'm just saying it was a deceptive marketing ploy to get more people to buy those books. And I can't help but feel that it's being used here again.


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

Regarding DC's greed, if DC doesn't make money then they cease to exist.

I don't agree with that logic. I don't believe that just because a company is struggling that it's okay for them to deceive their customers. I'm NOT saying for a FACT that's what's happening here. But if it were, having poor business doesn't justify it.


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

"Continuity" is a modern comic conceit that as often as not does more harm than good.

>copacetic wrote:

"Continuity" is something that is only thrown in to appease the most Comic Book-iest of Comic Book Guys out there.

I didn't really want to address this here because it's not my central point. But since it keeps coming up, I will.

I LOVE CONTINUITY.

Not just as a comic book fan, but as a fan of stories in general. You're more than welcome to disagree with me, but I love the idea that these stories and adventures have weight and relevance. I love the idea that characters can be affected and grow from their experiences.
It's really hard to defend this argument when we talk about Superman since his continuity is already so convoluted. But if we talk about someone else....

I love Batman's continuity.
It's not perfect. After 70 plus years there's no way you can keep everything intact, and it's really based on the whim of the writers (or the editor). But I love the fictional history and mythology of the character. Even more importantly, I love the history of Batman's allies. Specifically Dick Grayson.
Watching Dick become Robin, growing up, leading the Teen Titans and creating a legacy with that group. Leaving Batman's shadow to become Nightwing and proving he can survive on his own. Then eventually taking up the mantle and becoming Batman. That is great storytelling in any medium, comics or otherwise. Witnessing the growth and evolution of a truly fantastic character is serial fiction at its finest. Dick Grayson is a prime example of continuity done right.

If this reboot were to erase that (it's not going to, but if it were). If they were to bring Dick Grayson back to square one, I would be devastated.

I understand that continuity can't last forever, especially as readers grow up and unfortunately pass on. It's a reality that we readers have to accept. It's why the first Crisis was necessitated in the mid-80's and why it's allegedly being utilized here. But I don't believe continuity to be an absolutely negative thing to comic storytelling.


I am not endorsing deceptive marketing but rather making the point that it isn't necessarily always abut greed.

Re: Continuity. It is totally cool to love continuity, I think most fans who love something for a long time end up getting attached. I simply want to point out that comic books are serial fiction. They were by design set up so the characters never age and similar stories were told again and again as the readership turned over every 4 or 5 years.

In the modern sense, I like short term continuity for the purpose of good story telling and I demand it in books that overlap; but more often then not long term continuity ends up being crushed under it's own weight.

As a fan, what I would love most, is on set of books that try to craft stories with a tight continuity for a few years, like a good tv show. And another line of books that are unencumbered and just tell great serial stories. Why can't there be a 4 issue arc with a golden age Superman followed by one from the Silver age and then on to modern?
 
theagingfanboy
Nailing my colours to the mast: I LOVE CONTINUITY TOO!! It means a lot to me that stories and characters have some consistency. If there's going to be a reality-changing "event" OK, but I want tight continuity afterwards. The comments about Dick Grayson are well made, but just look at Donna Troy's continuity over the years. But if the new Superman eats beef with his parents now, but says he's a vegetarian the next month I'll be very cheesed off!

Might seem fanboyish, but there you go.
With great power comes great responsibility.
No Lois, Superman is what I can do, but Clark is who I am.
 
supermanofsteel

>theagingfanboy wrote:

Nailing my colours to the mast: I LOVE CONTINUITY TOO!!

GrinGrinGrinGrinGrin


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

I am not endorsing deceptive marketing but rather making the point that it isn't necessarily always abut greed.

Fair enough.


>Saint Expeditus wrote:

In the modern sense, I like short term continuity for the purpose of good story telling and I demand it in books that overlap; but more often then not long term continuity ends up being crushed under it's own weight.

You're right. In the past, more often than not, DC continuity has a tendency of collapsing in on itself. But in my opinion, that's really more a fault of the editors rather than a fault in the concept of continuity itself. Minor variances I can understand, but full blown plot holes and gratuitous retcons to fill those plot holes are just ridiculous.

I say if you're going to do a reboot, do it completely. None of this picking and choosing what stays and what goes, then pretending afterwards that everything fits perfectly (IE Superboy Prime punching walls).
 
copacetic
The point in this discussion being, just enjoy the stories for what they are, take away whatever continuity the writers offer up at that point of time, but don't expect every single event you read about to always exist because it would be nigh on maddening to keep track of everything.

As far as DC "deceiving" people into buying a new origin story or Event book by saying "THIS one really counts"...that's just marketing spin, and the sooner we all understand that, the happier we'll all be. Obviously they're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, they want to sell books, they are a for profit business owned by one of the biggest media companies in the world. They are also not forcing anyone to buy anything - you still have the power of choice, and can vote with your wallet if you want to show them that no, you're NOT going to get fooled again. That is your right, and that is a vote that DC will certainly understand.
 
Whogaman
I am not going to put down this relaunch without reading it yet. I just question the reason for doing it.

It seems that every so often when sales fall off, DC does something that generates a lot of interest in the comic book community. I suppose we call them "events".

My problem is that events like this happen all too often. In the pre Crisis stories, wholesale changes happened like Wonder Woman loses her powers, Green Lantern and Green Arrow traveling across America to see people and their needs and the list goes on.

And Superman went through changed like "Kryptonite Nevermore", and a slight reduction in his power. These things happened to critical acclaim and fans really embraced some of those stories. The difference, in my opinion, is they didn't feel that that they had to recreate the universe because the current crop of stories aren't resonating with fans.

It seems that stories that aren't in continuity are more interesting than the stories that are. And this is what we are seeing in "Flashpoint". We are seeing a totally different universe from what we have seen in recent times. And it would seem that the fallout from this will result in another reset of the DC universe. Another need to reset because some characters stories are getting stale.

Now there are some comics stories that are popular and are well received. But will some of those stories be rendered irrelevant? Are the stories that appeared post Crisis be rendered moot? I thing that some will eventually be redone in the DCnU. I think that some of the most popular events will again happen only with a DCnU spin.

So I have a few concerns here, but perhaps we might like where this goes.

Peace Whoga
[img]https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/1543679_624694037566834_909789152_n.jpg?oh=448b277b52c10f94d290f54275a18dc1&oe=52D8C0FD[/img]=====================================
"Like the only real magic -- The magic of knowledge."
 
hakavon
Superman's gotta have the red briefs. He was the first. His costume assumed a certain look within maybe five years of his launch back in '38, and it's stayed essentially unchanged since then. The loss of the briefs and the yellow belt is like a loss of the cape, or the colors, or the shield.

It changes Superman and makes him something else.

I hope they wake up and restore the look. People who say the costume looks "dated", "odd", or even "stupid" because of the briefs ignore the cape, even the costume itself?

Bah. Super hero costumes are SUPPOSED to look "odd". That's why they wear the costumes in the first place. Superman should have his briefs and they should never go away. They're a part of the costume and always will be. If this change ends up being permanent, then we'll have lost a part of Superman permanently.

I hope the suits in Warner's upstairs offices wake up and give us back the real Man of Steel.

Besides, what's an indestructable character need armor for anyway?!?!?
 
NeoRanger
Besides, what's an indestructable character need armor for anyway?!?!?

Saving money on tailors after every battle.

Besides, Superman hasn't been indestructible in forever. Darkseid can head-butt him across the galaxy. Lesser villains can do a fair amount of damage as well.
 
A6K

>NeoRanger wrote:


Besides, what's an indestructable character need armor for anyway?!?!?

Saving money on tailors after every battle.

Besides, Superman hasn't been indestructible in forever. Darkseid can head-butt him across the galaxy. Lesser villains can do a fair amount of damage as well.


True, plus he's not indestructible, he just has a greater molecular density. It's a different take on the suit. Now he's wearing traditional Krypotian battle armor, kind of an paying homage to his past and where he came from.

I'm not wild about the armor but I get it and I guess it works.
 
Victory-Prime
i get what your saying you waste all that money on basically, now elseworlds. this is a whole new dc and everything you know is false. my biggest problem is the way Grant Morrison describes the new supes and the way he's drawn, that we might get a "dirty harry" superman. no longer the boyscout.
 
Jump to Forum: