DC reboot

[Guest]

And Superman wasn't initially intended to fly. I really don't see what that has to do with anything.

My point really has little to do with Joker's mortality as it has to do with the cyclical nature of superhero comics, wherein nothing ever reaches its logical endpoint. It's just the beginning and middle chasing each other in a circle because reboots and retcons are safer than taking risks and fucking with establishment.

I mean, fuck, people lost their minds when Wonder Woman put pants on. I understand the pressure to protect iconic cash cows, but it makes the whole idea of investing in stories kinda futile.

[Molly]

It was just relevant trivia, no position attached.

[KnightWing]

My point really has little to do with Joker's mortality as it has to do with the cyclical nature of superhero comics, wherein nothing ever reaches it's logical endpoint. It's just the beginning and middle chasing each other in a circle because reboots and retcons are safer than taking risks and fucking with establishment.

You see it as running in circles, I see it as continually re-examining the same basic universal ideas generation after generation. Were those same stories not still compelling, they would have died out half a century ago.

I think the problem with taking comics to a logical endpoint is that the story, well, reaches its endpoint. The main universe comic lines are never meant to end, thus the idea of putting logical endpoints in just doesn't work. No comic can be told with realistic development and go on for 900 issues.

If you're going to treat a story with realistic logic and development, it should be written with the express purpose of having a clear beginning and end. That's why a lot of the DC stories that actually do take risks and have great development are Elseworlds stories; they're the ones that are specifically made to stand on their own, not stretch on into infinity.

I think the main DCU (in regards to the classic characters like Superman, Batman, and the rest) should remain in its "classic" form. Multiple Robins, sure. Giving Superman and Lois kids of their own? Might be a bit too far.

On the other hand, if you're going to actually do something audacious, do it in an Elseworlds/alternate Earth place, where the story can thrive on its own and develop far beyond the restrictions of a neverending DC line. Make a Superman family book. Make a World Without Heroes book. Kill the Joker. Have all those great stories. But don't try to shove them in the primary DC line.

[Koete]

Who says it has to be an either/or proposition? You can have (using the example that was the starting point for this conversation) Superman get married and still remain true to the "classic" trappings of the character and his stories. Progress doesn't mean the characters have to be changed to the point of being unrecognizable.

[Guest]

Obviously, most people would agree with you, and that's a big reason that a majority of my favourite stories have been Elseworlds.

I'm not even saying that Batman should grow old and die, or this or that should happen, but the fact that I can read a main universe story knowing that it will never happen, I kinda wonder what the whole point of it is. It doesn't feel like a narrative anymore. It feels like a fable or a bedtime story that's constantly being re-written with the same basic plot. Hell, I'm not even opposed to Clark and Lois having kids, especially since, you know, they'd have powers. Bam, time passes and you have a new Superman. Of course, it wouldn't be "their" Superman, so people would bitch. More power to those people, honestly. They're the ones keeping the industry afloat long after everyone else gave up on the medium.

I'm just personally frustrated and don't see myself reading any superhero books at all in about six months time.

[Stavros]

I understand your frustration dubs. There are certain foes are too significant to truly get rid of, this is particularly a problem with guys like Joker. Lex Luthor or Norman Osbourne can go through long term arcs, change their position in their relative universes so that you're not just telling and retelling the same stories. Batman's gallery on the other hand is more limited. I particularly don't see the point of Arkham anymore, they've been referring to it's revolving door in the books for years. It's one of the reasons that Jason Todd comes off as the good guy, Batman appears to treat crime as a catch and release game rather than something that hurts people. His moral code hasn't in the long run done Gotham any favours.

However I think there are plenty of books where these conventions aren't stale. Invincible in particular demonstrates awareness of the normal tropes but also uses that for character development, Invincible himself clearly questions whether his actions are for the best and you genuinely feel like he will take a darker route at some point (he's already willing to beat enemies to death with his fists). It's not the genre that's tired, it's the main characters who are deemed too influential to change properly because it could effect long term marketing.

I'd love to see a proper death of one of those characters though. They properly killed off Norman Osbourne for decades and it meant something. DC taking a similar step with the Joker or someone like that could be very interesting.

[KnightWing]

I think a good chunk of my favorites are Elseworlds, too.

I'm not even saying that Batman should grow old and die, or this or that should happen, but the fact that I can read a main universe story knowing that it will never happen, I kinda wonder what the whole point of it is.

I get that, and to a certain extent I agree. I don't turn to main DCU books for that same type of deep development that I get elsewhere. (I'd turn to Marvel for that, but they just retcon the crap out of EVERY major change they ever make, so I always give up eventually)

I think the idea is that a lot of the same stories do repeat. But they do so differently each time. As the generations have passed, those exact same stories have evolved and been shown in new light. Batman is the same guy he was in the fifties, but he's not smiling gleefully as he and Robin punch goons' faces in anymore. (unless it's Frank Miller writing him...)

It feels like a fable or a bedtime story that's constantly being re-written with the same basic plot.

It's funny; that's actually one of the things I've always loved about superheroes. It's that simple myth that gets retold a thousand times over in a thousand different ways, yet can still be thrilling because it reaches back to the same essential core of humanity that longs for those types of stories.

[Guest]

I understand your frustration dubs. There are certain foes are too significant to truly get rid of, this is particularly a problem with guys like Joker. Lex Luthor or Norman Osbourne can go through long term arcs, change their position in their relative universes so that you're not just telling and retelling the same stories. Batman's gallery on the other hand is more limited. I particularly don't see the point of Arkham anymore, they've been referring to it's revolving door in the books for years. It's one of the reasons that Jason Todd comes off as the good guy, Batman appears to treat crime as a catch and release game rather than something that hurts people. His moral code hasn't in the long run done Gotham any favours.

However I think there are plenty of books where these conventions aren't stale. Invincible in particular demonstrates awareness of the normal tropes but also uses that for character development, Invincible himself clearly questions whether his actions are for the best and you genuinely feel like he will take a darker route at some point (he's already willing to beat enemies to death with his fists). It's not the genre that's tired, it's the main characters who are deemed too influential to change properly because it could effect long term marketing.

I'd love to see a proper death of one of those characters though. They properly killed off Norman Osbourne for decades and it meant something. DC taking a similar step with the Joker or someone like that could be very interesting.

Absolutely. There are stories out there willing to take risks, but they're more the exception that proves the rule.

I tried with Invincible, but every time I had it for review, the quality seemed to vary wildly. Also, I hate the Alice Eve character muchly.

[Stavros]

I understand your frustration dubs. There are certain foes are too significant to truly get rid of, this is particularly a problem with guys like Joker. Lex Luthor or Norman Osbourne can go through long term arcs, change their position in their relative universes so that you're not just telling and retelling the same stories. Batman's gallery on the other hand is more limited. I particularly don't see the point of Arkham anymore, they've been referring to it's revolving door in the books for years. It's one of the reasons that Jason Todd comes off as the good guy, Batman appears to treat crime as a catch and release game rather than something that hurts people. His moral code hasn't in the long run done Gotham any favours.

However I think there are plenty of books where these conventions aren't stale. Invincible in particular demonstrates awareness of the normal tropes but also uses that for character development, Invincible himself clearly questions whether his actions are for the best and you genuinely feel like he will take a darker route at some point (he's already willing to beat enemies to death with his fists). It's not the genre that's tired, it's the main characters who are deemed too influential to change properly because it could effect long term marketing.

I'd love to see a proper death of one of those characters though. They properly killed off Norman Osbourne for decades and it meant something. DC taking a similar step with the Joker or someone like that could be very interesting.

Absolutely. There are stories out there willing to take risks, but they're more the exception that proves the rule.

I tried with Invincible, but every time I had it for review, the quality seems to vary wildly. Also, I hate the Alice Eve character muchly.

Atom Eve? Eh, she's alright. Invincible is at it's best when it turns serious, it's one of the few books where because they are still building a mythology it really feels like no-one is safe.

[Guest]

Yeah. Atom Eve. Freudian slip there. Playing too much 360.

But yeah, she's just written like this annoyingly perfect Stepford wife that never argues with him and goes out of her way to never say or do anything that will inconvenience him in the slightest.

Might pick up some trades and give it another shot down the line.

[Koete]

Marvel acting like children in response to DC's relaunch. I know, I couldn't believe it either.

[Venneh]

Except for the part where Uncanny won't be in a few months. Jest sayin'.

[Delete]

I agree with all of this

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/seriously_dc_what_the.php

[Missy]

I think that "Still #..." thing is beautiful!

[Koete]

I will give them the Uncanny one. That's hilarious. Putting the "Still #" thing on a title they'll be relaunching a couple months later? That's just clever.

[dc20willsave]

Thunder Agents and Batman Odyssey are keeping their numbering and coming back in October. Apparently, anything not getting renumbered just skipped relaunch month. Start speculation about what titles you thought got canceled but are going on with their original numbering.

[Dread]

I will give them the Uncanny one. That's hilarious. Putting the "Still #" thing on a title they'll be relaunching a couple months later? That's just clever.

Yeah, I think Marvel's just pissed that they've been outdone in the whole renumbering thing they used to be the kings of.

[prez]

I agree with all of this

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/seriously_dc_what_the.php

Is all that stuff confirmed? Because if so, then I'm totally with him on that. Those changes are fucking ridiculous. The DC age started five fucking years ago? That's ludicrous.

[Missy]

From George Pérez's Facebook page:

I have just received word from my editor at DC that DC decided to pull the original story slated for issue #712 and replace everything with another story and replacement covers ALL WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE COURTESY OF TELLING ME! Considering the personal nature of this cover, and their knowledge of its significance, I am both extremely upset and personally embarrassed. My deepest apologies especially to Scott Mills and all of Rob Morrisroe's friends and family and the Moonlight Players. I've been told that the cover has been rescheduled to appear as the cover for Issue 714 (the last of the classic SUPERMAN run, meaning that I draw the last of the old and the first of the new), but this doesn't assuage my consternation and disappointment at the way this has been handled. I'm awaiting a call back from my editor but please don't expect me to discuss any particulars about it on a public forum. Just know that I feel horrible about all this and and can only apologize to all those who may have been inconvenienced or disappointed by this unexpected (and totally preventable) turn of events.

Though this doesn't have anything to do with the reboot directly, I will say it doesn't bode well for DC and their post-reboot comics if they're disrespecting creators -- especially George Pérez -- like this. It might be sooner, rather than later, that we see creative teams shuffled around due to a general frustration with the company.

[KnightWing]

Considering the large amount of importance and reverence that DC's given George Pérez recently, this makes little-to-no sense.

[SuaveStar]

From Bleeding Cool.

There’s a lot of fuss right now over the removal of the planned story for Superman #712, out this week, Chris Roberson’s original solicited story, replaced by the Kurt Busiek Krypto story, itself subject to repeated removal when originally solicited four years ago.

People having kittens, as it were.

Comics Alliance have run a long article by Chris Sims in which they ask if it has something to do with the appearance of an Islamic superhero, Sharif, in the issue in question. And they run down all the circumstantial evidence backing it up.

However, it’s not that at all.

I’ve spent the evening tracking down sources around the world, people who work at and for DC Comics, and who have all heard a very different story.

That the story content change in Superman 712 has nothing whatsoever to do with the appearance of Sharif.

And everything to do with the story starting with Superman rescuing a kitten out of a tree. Like in the Superman movie.

And this caused considerable problems with certain DC executives. They thought it was too sweet, too innocent, too anodyne, and not the kind of Superman stories they wanted to tell. The kitten up a tree image symbolised for them what was wrong with the Superman books. It became totemic in the office, standing for far more than it could possibly symbolise. It had to go.

That the book also has a lead Islamic superhero character, the kind of thing that does get the attention they like, seems to have passed them by.

And a story that started with a kitten has been replaced by a story starring a dog.

But, no, DC are not making publishing decisions over islamophobia. They’re doing it over kittenophobia instead.

[Guest]

And this caused considerable problems with certain DC executives. They thought it was too sweet, too innocent, too anodyne, and not the kind of Superman stories they wanted to tell. The kitten up a tree image symbolised for them what was wrong with the Superman books. It became totemic in the office, standing for far more than it could possibly symbolise. It had to go.

There is so much wrong with that paragraph, I just went cross-eyed.

[Stavros]

[KnightWing]

That sounds like a very Dan Didio thing to do, and the kind of thing that Jim Lee would go along with. Geoff Johns must be one of the ones having kittens.

[Koete]

Clearly Rich trolling.