DC reboot

[dc20willsave]

Me on the other hand, I stopped reading Spider-man because of One More Day. Peter and Mary Jane and Lois and Clark are, after maybe Sue and Reed, the most important marriages in the comic industry. Nulling any of them without a good reason is all levels of stupidity in my opinion. Frankly, going back to the love triangle is just going back to Silver Age stupidity considering Lois was never as big in to Superman after Crisis. It makes no sense for a strong woman to be stupidly in love with a man she doesn't even know the name of, especially when she's an investigative journalist capable to use her two eyes when seeing a man constantly save her life and the man who sits across from her everyday. I prefer what Austen said of them just reaching a rough patch in their marriage. After all, she's barely seen him in the last couple of years. That's enough to put stress on any marriage.

[Koete]

Me on the other hand, I stopped reading Spider-man because of One More Day. Peter and Mary Jane and Lois and Clark are, after maybe Sue and Reed, the most important marriages in the comic industry. Nulling any of them without a good reason is all levels of stupidity in my opinion. Frankly, going back to the love triangle is just going back to Silver Age stupidity considering Lois was never as big in to Superman after Crisis. It makes no sense for a strong woman to be stupidly in love with a man she doesn't even know the name of, especially when she's an investigative journalist capable to use her two eyes when seeing a man constantly save her life and the man who sits across from her everyday. I prefer what Austen said of them just reaching a rough patch in their marriage. After all, she's barely seen him in the last couple of years. That's enough to put stress on any marriage.

This.

[KnightWing]

No, I absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree.

If you're going to play realism games with the Superman legend, you have to eliminate a ton of what makes it special. Like you pointed out, the Clark Kent identity would never work with Lois, unless you're going to play up the idea that Lois doesn't "want" to believe Clark and Superman are the same person.

The L/C/S triangle was a huge part of post-Crisis storytelling. Hell, it was one of the best things about the Late 80s/Early 90s era. It's not as if Lois fainted at the sight of Superman, but they did have a romantic connection. The romantic tension between Superman and Lois, within the Superman legend, is somewhat akin to the battle between Lex and Superman. It's not necessarily meant to "end." Sure, it might not always make perfect logical sense. It doesn't make sense that no one's put a bullet in Luthor's brain yet. Or Joker's, or Scarecrow's, or any of the other DCU villains that have killed thousands. But it's something we still accept.

One More Day is an entirely different thing, mostly because of the way it was done. It had Peter Parker literally making a deal with the devil to erase his marriage from existence. It was borderline character assassination. Unless there's an in-universe event that specifically dissolves Lois and Clark's marriage, it's not as though the marriage is "ending." It's just being replaced by a new story.

If superhero films can reset continuity every several films, why can't comics have a soft reboot once in twenty-five years?

[slothian]

No, I absolutely, wholeheartedly disagree.

If you're going to play realism games with the Superman legend, you have to eliminate a ton of what makes it special. Like you pointed out, the Clark Kent identity would never work with Lois, unless you're going to play up the idea that Lois doesn't "want" to believe Clark and Superman are the same person.

The L/C/S triangle was a huge part of post-Crisis storytelling. Hell, it was one of the best things about the Late 80s/Early 90s era. It's not as if Lois fainted at the sight of Superman, but they did have a romantic connection. The romantic tension between Superman and Lois, within the Superman legend, is somewhat akin to the battle between Lex and Superman. It's not necessarily meant to "end." Sure, it might not always make perfect logical sense. It doesn't make sense that no one's put a bullet in Luthor's brain yet. Or Joker's, or Scarecrow's, or any of the other DCU villains that have killed thousands. But it's something we still accept.

One More Day is an entirely different thing, mostly because of the way it was done. It had Peter Parker literally making a deal with the devil to erase his marriage from existence. It was borderline character assassination. Unless there's an in-universe event that specifically dissolves Lois and Clark's marriage, it's not as though the marriage is "ending." It's just being replaced by a new story.

If superhero films can reset continuity every several films, why can't comics have a soft reboot once in twenty-five years?

Deal with the devil or not, nullifying a marriage is the basic outcome of One More Day which pissed off a load of Marvel readers and turned them cold on Spiderman. DC would be positively retarded to follow in such footsteps.

And don't use the film industry as an excuse to give comic publishers an easy get-out for reboots. The two industries are entirely separate, with different creative and financial pressures to consider. The fact that Marvel is going to use 3 different actors to play the Hulk in 9 years (ie/ 1 every 3 years) does NOT mean that Jeph Loeb should reboot Hulk's series every 3 years. I know you said "every 25 years" but that simply doesn't reflect the cycle of superhero films now that they're proven box-office draws.

[dc20willsave]

One More Day is an entirely different thing, mostly because of the way it was done. It had Peter Parker literally making a deal with the devil to erase his marriage from existence. It was borderline character assassination. Unless there's an in-universe event that specifically dissolves Lois and Clark's marriage, it's not as though the marriage is "ending." It's just being replaced by a new story.

If superhero films can reset continuity every several films, why can't comics have a soft reboot once in twenty-five years?

Except what you're comparing is a full reboot in films which only have maybe 8 hours of continuity tops, or maybe 500 pages of script, as opposed 50000 pages. What they did with Crisis is redefine the relationship, which is what DiDio is talking about in the interview in question, not regressing it so they can look at it the same as it was back long ago. As for replacing it with a new story, it's still nulling years of continuity. There was little pre-crisis that got outright nulled. Somethings just didn't exist but they were stories that were mainly a few years old, not ones happening a month prior. Most of it got adapted to the new universe.

True, Peter selling his marriage is character assassination but it's at least a story. Imagine you watch a tv show for years and you suddenly, at the beginning of the eighth season, find out that they're, without little explanation, asking you to forget everything from seasons 4-7 involving two character's relationship just because the writer prefers to deal with them dating because, while a lot has been done in the years since, things that have actually defined both characters, if they're dating, well, we can tell other stories. Maybe this is just me, but being pissed is beyond it. If at the end of season 7, they sell their marriage, at least an effort is being put in, it's not just a few months later and everything's different. Sure, there was that time in Season 4 where at the beginning they changed from an action-dramady to straight action-drama but it was just a different way of looking at things, not going back to season 1 and changing everything.

[KnightWing]

Deal with the devil or not, nullifying a marriage is the basic outcome of One More Day which pissed off a load of Marvel readers and turned them cold on Spiderman. DC would be positively retarded to follow in such footsteps.

Except that Spider-Man has been in a better place for the last few years specifically because One More Day happened.

Comic fans (myself included) get pissy when Wonder Woman's boots are the wrong color. There's just no way around angering fans unless you're going to never take a risk or do anything other than stay along a narrowly set path.

That's not to say that angering fans is a positive thing in itself, only that it's acceptable as long as there's a very good reason behind it.

And don't use the film industry as an excuse to give comic publishers an easy get-out for reboots. The two industries are entirely separate, with different creative and financial pressures to consider. The fact that Marvel is going to use 3 different actors to play the Hulk in 9 years (ie/ 1 every 3 years) does NOT mean that Jeph Loeb should reboot Hulk's series every 3 years. I know you said "every 25 years" but that simply doesn't reflect the cycle of superhero films now that they're proven box-office draws.

There's a little bit of a debate to be had there, but I'll concede that point.

What they did with Crisis is redefine the relationship, which is what DiDio is talking about in the interview in question, not regressing it so they can look at it the same as it was back long ago. As for replacing it with a new story, it's still nulling years of continuity. There was little pre-crisis that got outright nulled. Somethings just didn't exist but they were stories that were mainly a few years old, not ones happening a month prior. Most of it got adapted to the new universe.

So far, it seems like that's what they're doing here as well. I do agree with the idea of "redefining" rather than regressing. I didn't mean that they should literally rewind the clock and retell the exact same stories from the 80s and 90s. What I meant was that there are plenty of new and interesting ways to tell the Clark/Lois courtship story, definitely moreso than if they're already married.

Imagine you watch a tv show for years and you suddenly, at the beginning of the eighth season, find out that they're, without little explanation, asking you to forget everything from seasons 4-7 involving two character's relationship just because the writer prefers to deal with them dating because, while a lot has been done in the years since, things that have actually defined both characters, if they're dating, well, we can tell other stories. Maybe this is just me, but being pissed is beyond it. If at the end of season 7, they sell their marriage, at least an effort is being put in, it's not just a few months later and everything's different. Sure, there was that time in Season 4 where at the beginning they changed from an action-dramady to straight action-drama but it was just a different way of looking at things, not going back to season 1 and changing everything.

I think that depends on your view of DC's characters and their stories. If you're looking at the entire 73-year history of Superman as one long single narrative, then yeah, retcons would be a terrible idea. But superhero continuity isn't firmly-set; the only truly unchangeable things are the characters, the ideals they represent, and the basic tenets of who they are.

What about in Buffy season 5, when they literally retconned Dawn into existence? That worked.

The other thing to consider is the new readers. In TV, at some point serialized shows progress to the point where they won't get any new regular viewers because no one wants to jump in at the middle of the story. Lois and Clark already being married is one way of being in the middle of the story (or, depending on your view, at the end of their romantic arc).

[Molly]

Dawn only kind of worked. And that was because they addressed her anomolus nature as a major plot point.

[dc20willsave]

Deal with the devil or not, nullifying a marriage is the basic outcome of One More Day which pissed off a load of Marvel readers and turned them cold on Spiderman. DC would be positively retarded to follow in such footsteps.

Except that Spider-Man has been in a better place for the last few years specifically because One More Day happened.

Comic fans (myself included) get pissy when Wonder Woman's boots are the wrong color. There's just no way around angering fans unless you're going to never take a risk or do anything other than stay along a narrowly set path.

That's not to say that angering fans is a positive thing in itself, only that it's acceptable as long as there's a very good reason behind it.

Having read Amazing pre-OMD and Post-OMD, only reason the stories might seem better is because the writer's had painted themselves into a corner. They revealed who Peter was and then realized that the rabbit couldn't go in the bag so they made a reset button. Most of JMS's run is terrific with a couple of exceptions, Civil War just fucked it in the ass and it didn't help that editorial didn't like the marriage. DC also knows how badly long time readers reacted to that and they can;t afford to lose readers over a similar mistake.

What about in Buffy season 5, when they literally retconned Dawn into existence? That worked.

The other thing to consider is the new readers. In TV, at some point serialized shows progress to the point where they won't get any new regular viewers because no one wants to jump in at the middle of the story. Lois and Clark already being married is one way of being in the middle of the story (or, depending on your view, at the end of their romantic arc).

First off, Dawn being brought in is not the same. Dawn never existed, she was put into people's memories and created by reality altering magic. Hugely different from just magicing away something so it never happened. As for the marriage, we have a story Des and nearly every married couple in existence will disagree with you there. Dating is the prologue to any good relationship, Marriage is the first act always. Thinking that life is boring and has no stories once you get married is what leads to affairs happening. Frankly, I cannot see a single way that Lois and Clark being married would be confusing to any reader. If anything, any reader with a quarter of an IQ point will be able to put two and two together that they got married at some point.

[Koete]

Except that Spider-Man has been in a better place for the last few years specifically because One More Day happened.

Comic fans (myself included) get pissy when Wonder Woman's boots are the wrong color. There's just no way around angering fans unless you're going to never take a risk or do anything other than stay along a narrowly set path.

That's not to say that angering fans is a positive thing in itself, only that it's acceptable as long as there's a very good reason behind it.

I won't argue the point about Spider-Man being in a better place because we'll never change each others opinions on that.

But are you seriously putting complaining about Wonder Woman's boots and complaining about the erasure of a marriage that lasted two decades due to a devil deal on the same level? There's a pretty significant difference: one is nitpicking, the other is a serious change to who the character is. And there was no good reason for getting rid of the marriage. None. It happened because Quesada, JMS, and their crew wanted the Spider-Man of their childhood back. It was a regression done for the pettiest reasons.

So far, it seems like that's what they're doing here as well. I do agree with the idea of "redefining" rather than regressing. I didn't mean that they should literally rewind the clock and retell the exact same stories from the 80s and 90s. What I meant was that there are plenty of new and interesting ways to tell the Clark/Lois courtship story, definitely moreso than if they're already married.

If there are more "new and interesting ways" to tell stories about the Clark and Lois relationship when they're single rather than when they're married, that's the fault of the writers and not the idea of a Clark/Lois marriage.

I think that depends on your view of DC's characters and their stories. If you're looking at the entire 73-year history of Superman as one long single narrative, then yeah, retcons would be a terrible idea. But superhero continuity isn't firmly-set; the only truly unchangeable things are the characters, the ideals they represent, and the basic tenets of who they are.

What about in Buffy season 5, when they literally retconned Dawn into existence? That worked.

The other thing to consider is the new readers. In TV, at some point serialized shows progress to the point where they won't get any new regular viewers because no one wants to jump in at the middle of the story. Lois and Clark already being married is one way of being in the middle of the story (or, depending on your view, at the end of their romantic arc).

You can have that while still allowing your characters to progress.

And on the note about new readers, when I started reading Spider-Man, Peter and Mary Jane were married. Did I care that I didn't read the annual where they got married? No. I just read. I think new readers are smarter than you're giving them credit for.

[KnightWing]

EDIT:

Gah. Chris posts before I finish this one. Ah well. I'll just say that I disagree on point #1 and somewhat agree on #2.

Having read Amazing pre-OMD and Post-OMD, only reason the stories might seem better is because the writer's had painted themselves into a corner. They revealed who Peter was and then realized that the rabbit couldn't go in the bag so they made a reset button. Most of JMS's run is terrific with a couple of exceptions, Civil War just fucked it in the ass and it didn't help that editorial didn't like the marriage. DC also knows how badly long time readers reacted to that and they can;t afford to lose readers over a similar mistake.

Well, considering that a lot of factors happened all at once, it's a little tough to say what was the problem. I still think Peter is better-off not married to MJ, but I won't argue that right now.

First off, Dawn being brought in is not the same. Dawn never existed, she was put into people's memories and created by reality altering magic. Hugely different from just magicing away something so it never happened.

The effect is the same. Events from Season 5 forward moved on as though everything had been changed. Actually, the Dawn-entrance is a little hazy on what actually happened, since the never-produced Buffy animated TV series was actually supposed to have Dawn present in the Season 1-2 era. It's the same fuzzy Whedon logic that allows vampires with no blood flow to get boners.

As for the marriage, we have a story Des and nearly every married couple in existence will disagree with you there. Dating is the prologue to any good relationship, Marriage is the first act always. Thinking that life is boring and has no stories once you get married is what leads to affairs happening. Frankly, I cannot see a single way that Lois and Clark being married would be confusing to any reader.

I would agree if (and only if) DC were willing to age Clark and Lois to the point where they'd start perhaps having kids and moving on with their lives. They almost got there when they briefly adopted Christopher, but that ended up going nowhere once he left. If DC's not going to take the marriage into a further positive direction, then restarting the relationship at its classic point is a good move.

[dc20willsave]

As for the marriage, we have a story Des and nearly every married couple in existence will disagree with you there. Dating is the prologue to any good relationship, Marriage is the first act always. Thinking that life is boring and has no stories once you get married is what leads to affairs happening. Frankly, I cannot see a single way that Lois and Clark being married would be confusing to any reader.

I would agree if (and only if) DC were willing to age Clark and Lois to the point where they'd start perhaps having kids and moving on with their lives. They almost got there when they briefly adopted Christopher, but that ended up going nowhere once he left. If DC's not going to take the marriage into a further positive direction, then restarting the relationship at its classic point is a good move.

I would concede my point if not for the marriage has existed for 16 years. Clark and Lois and Superman will they won't they existed for 52 years with barely any push forward. If anything, there was mostly just stagnant stories with nothing moving forward. Ever. Instead, it was repetive cycles of Lois trying to trick Superman and Superman doing dickish things back. Besides, those stories barely count in the love triangle since in most of them, Clark was the mask and Superman was the person. Post Crisis, it was Superman as the face and Clark as the man and that story already moved onto it's only logical conclusion. To start over with it is disrespectful to the readers who read it the first time. We all know where it goes. Really, I'd say having them go through a trial separation, having negative growth, would be just as interesting as "Lois and Clark go on a date but Lois is also on a date with Superman the same night. OH MY GOD!" Probably even more so.

[KnightWing]

I would concede my point if not for the marriage has existed for 16 years. Clark and Lois and Superman will they won't they existed for 52 years with barely any push forward.

See now, that goes back to my earlier point about other elements of the superhero mythos. Nobody bats an eye at the fact that the Joker has broken out of Arkham Asylum and killed countless innocents time and time again; it's recognized as a staple of the mythos. Were that story to logically progress, somebody (likely a cop) would have killed the Joker, or he'd have been sentenced to death.

I think there are ways to make the Lois/Clark dynamic interesting while still keeping up the wall of mystery between them. I'm not advocating regression back to the ridiculous antics of the Silver Age, but I do think that there are ways to tell new stories with the characters' original setting.

[Delete]

I would concede my point if not for the marriage has existed for 16 years. Clark and Lois and Superman will they won't they existed for 52 years with barely any push forward.

See now, that goes back to my earlier point about other elements of the superhero mythos. Nobody bats an eye at the fact that the Joker has broken out of Arkham Asylum and killed countless innocents time and time again; it's recognized as a staple of the mythos. Were that story to logically progress, somebody (likely a cop) would have killed the Joker, or he'd have been sentenced to death.

I think there are ways to make the Lois/Clark dynamic interesting while still keeping up the wall of mystery between them. I'm not advocating regression back to the ridiculous antics of the Silver Age, but I do think that there are ways to tell new stories with the characters' original setting.

What you are advocating is everything that would cause me to stop reading DC comics over this

[Guest]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

The fact that they'll never take a risk like that and are more content to go in circles is a big reason why I'm pretty much done with superhero comics outside of GL.

[Delete]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

The fact that they'll never take a risk like that and are more content to go in circles is a big reason why I'm pretty much done with superhero comics outside of GL.

They've done stories like that before. The cop dies.

[SuaveStar]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

Sort of like this?

[Missy]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

Commissioner Gordon should have blown The Joker's face off at the end of "No Man's Land." Hell, Batman was even willing to let Gordon do it. But instead, all Jim did was shoot The Joker in the knees, which allowed The Joker to get one more joke in, hurting Gordon even more.

[Molly]

To be entirely fair, it was a great line by Joker.

[Guest]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

Sort of like this?

Joker made it out of that story alive. I'm not talking about cops getting close, or someone really really wanting to kill him. I'm talking about an in-continuity story where someone actually does it. Being insane shouldn't make you bulletproof.

[Stavros]

Put me in the minority that would actually love to read a story about a cop that gets fed up and kills the Joker.

Sort of like this?

Joker made it out of that story alive. I'm not talking about cops getting close, or someone really really wanting to kill him. I'm talking about an in-continuity story where someone actually does it. Being insane shouldn't make you bulletproof.

And yet the modern Joker has a bullethole in his forehead.

[Guest]

Yes. He's walking around with it.

You know, like not dead people do.

[Stavros]

So at least his brain itself is bulletproof if not his forehead.

[Guest]

I'll grant you that, even thought it means we are now miles away from the original point I was trying to make.

You can still see it in the horizon if you squint a little.

[Stavros]

If we move far enough away I'm sure it'll come back around.

[Molly]

Joker wasn't intended to live past his first appearance.