The New 52: Is There A Miscommunication Between DC And Old Fans?

[glennsim]

--why did they move heaven and earth to save one concept, while throwing another concept under the bus?

Because they perceive some concepts as being more profitable than others, at any given time.

And/or an influential writer wants to write about a particular character.

[glennsim]

That doesn't explain why they got rid of two Batgirls, then.

Because nobody had anything for the other two to do. All of the Robins have a writer who wants to use them, and they are being used in different ways.

Arguably Flamebird is a Bat-character, and she's still around.

[maximiliani]

The decision to return Babs to being Batgirl could just as easily be aimed at previously non-comic book readers who only know of Batgirl through all the animated TV shows, not just people who use to read comic books in the 1960's - 1980's. If they were aiming specifically at those older readers, why keep portions of The Killing Joke in place?

As for Helena Wayne as Huntress, I also loved that character. But keeping her intact would have just created more confusion and headaches . . . just look at the mess DC created when they kept Power Girl around but tried to remove any trace of her Earth-2 origins. (Or weren't you reading comic books when they changed her into being a relative of Arion from Atlantis?)

I knew that about Powergirl. She and Donna Troy for a while there were very meta in the obscureness of their origins after they tried doing that.

As for Batgirl, I dunno, she's always Batgirl in the tv shows and that never really draws readers into the books. Her Year One had good sales but they weren't mind numbingly great and that was back when comics were selling much higher thresholds. So, really gonna say it was more for the people who read comics in the 60's-80's and or those who knew the history that she had been crippled and was now back, a ploy to lure back lapsed fans regardless of age, I just feel most are older. It was the game of shock and awe, something the book the farther it gets from #1 will have to resort to other means for an entertaining book. When it has to leave the thematics of James Junior, Barbara Sr. and TKJ behind there's really not much there so it needs to shape up quick. However they didn't wipe TKJ completely I think because Gail Simone requested it, DC I think it was rumored that they wanted to just make her Batgirl and had her never shot but Gail refused to take it that far, I think. Both a blessing and a curse.

DC just needs to be more honest about things to fans and not be so cryptic. Brutal honesty though enraging can solve a lot of angst. That is unless they drop the need to be so cryptic and antagonizing their fans over things. Wouldn't that be great? If they were actually entertaining through and through and didn't do things that cause readers to get really upset?

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Because they perceive some concepts as being more profitable than others, at any given time.

And/or an influential writer wants to write about a particular character.

I think it's more likely the latter, at least in regards to the characters I was talking about. Because it's often a case where some character has a proven track record of being profitable, but that character is sacrificed for the sake of a new concept which hasn't been proven yet, so it's impossible to know if it will be profitable.

It might also be that some writers are more willing to give up their power in one area, because they have power in another area. I note that Paul Levitz co-created Huntress and he was writing the LSH, when CoIE happened. He was already in an executive position at DC and I think he was willing to make those sacrifices for what he believed was a greater good. But other writers probably weren't as willing and fought for their concepts to survive.

But I also think that some people believe they can turn anything into gold. They don't care about dumping one profitable concept, because they think they can use their smarts to create another profitable property.

[maximiliani]

Because nobody had anything for the other two to do. All of the Robins have a writer who wants to use them, and they are being used in different ways.

Arguably Flamebird is a Bat-character, and she's still around.

And she was promptly semi-fridged by being literally flayed down the middle. She's alive and around but currently out of commission. I'm sure her return with an awesome new costume will happen eventually and she'll be receiving much needed character growth.

Gail Simone said both Cass and Steph were wanted to be used by a bunch of writers (Snyder etc wanted Cass to be in Batman #1 in the audience with them) but weren't allowed to due to them being locked in still waiting in the cache thing. I believe her on that. Stephanie apparently needed a breather after her Batgirl run, apparently, as Gail said.

Cass was said numerous times that she'll cameo or actually be in INC, and I'd leave it to Morrison to include any patches to the sudden disappearance of Brown and Cass. They recently said I think they're doing it so you can read Batman INC completely through and Flashpoint won't be a problem. We might get a reason for them being gone there.

Anyway the reason they are also not around is that the either the book that they're "attached" to will give them new streamlined origins and thus its impossible to keep them around or relies on a story-set up that is not yet truly in place (I think it might be a variation of Dustin Nguyen's Gotham's Boys and Girls Club idea, which would facilitate the need for Damian to be ready to form a team or falls into a team-like setting. That hasn't happened yet until probably after Owls and a good stretch of INC.

Brown exists and is Spoiler again. Cassandra Cain also exists. That's better than Wally or Donna. It's more WHERE are they and WERE they Batgirl even for 5 minutes. That's what people really wanna know.


A bit dickish for those who enjoy a progressive narrative like Dick mentioning he was Batman over in Nightwing but if she's slated for something that reintroduces her in a better way than what they've done to some characters, then I'm all for it.

[MajorHoy]

But my point about Huntress was that because such characters as hers existed, as CoIE was ongoing, it was impossible for me to envision the post-CoIE universe that we got, because I didn't see how the concept could be accommodated on a single Earth. Therefore I never believed CoIE would go as far as it did until it did go that far--and even then it took months for the penny to drop, because many titles kept hope alive before the sweeping changes of the Crisis were finally felt.

So that proved to me that when DC has decided to do something, they can and will kill off characters and titles despite their popular support.

Huntress was a back-up character in Wonder Woman . . . I'm not sure that really equates with "popular support". You liked her, I liked her, but how much of the general comic buying / reading audience at the time really "supported" her?

And much as I grew up on and loved the pre-CoIE Multiverse, it sounds like you're still nursing a grudge (over 25 years later) that DC didn't cop-out and just revert to the status quo at the end of Crisis on Infinite Earths, which truly would have been a mistake. It would have put CoIE right up there with something like Secret Wars . . . a pure waste. For better or worse, CoIE shook things up and showed DC was willing to make some radical changes. At the time, it succeeeded in luring me back into becoming a regular comic book reader for a while (about ten years).

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Huntress was a back-up character in Wonder Woman . . . I'm not sure that really equates with "popular support". You liked her, I liked her, but how much of the general comic buying / reading audience at the time really "supported" her?

And much as I grew up on and loved the pre-CoIE Multiverse, it sounds like you're still nursing a grudge (over 25 years later) that DC didn't cop-out and just revert to the status quo at the end of Crisis on Infinite Earths, which truly would have been a mistake. It would have put CoIE right up there with something like Secret Wars . . . a pure waste. For better or worse, CoIE shook things up and showed DC was willing to make some radical changes. At the time, it succeeeded in luring me back into becoming a regular comic book reader for a while (about ten years).

I'm using my memories and experiences to draw parallels and examples. I was blinded to the realities of CoIE by my own misperception of what was happening. Whatever conclusions you want to draw from that, be my guest. Yes Huntress was a back-up character at the time, but she was one of the more exciting new concepts coming from DC and if you polled most of the readers at the time, I bet they would say they also bought Wonder Woman mainly for Huntress. If you saw any of the WW stories from that time, you'd know that it was rather shabby and sales would have probably been worse if not for Huntress. At the time, I couldn't believe that DC was willing to sacrifice their new concepts for the sake of the universe that was to come. That might be obvious in hindsight, but it was not obvious to me at the time.

It seems like you want me to alter my memories and talk about CoIE from a position informed by everything that happened after that--rather than from the position of what I knew at the time. But I'm trying to draw parallels between my confusion at the time and the confusion of readers now, who don't have the benefit of looking back on Flashpoint ten years from now.

The point being that what we think should happen and what does happen are two different things. I think if CoIE had been completely uncompromising, then we would be talking about it in very different terms now. The same with Flashpoint. In both instances, DC was uncompromising for some parts of its universe but completely compromising for other parts of its universe. And sometimes the why of that doesn't make sense--especially when we see all these loopholes in the new reality.

[glennsim]

DC just needs to be more honest about things to fans and not be so cryptic. Brutal honesty though enraging can solve a lot of angst. That is unless they drop the need to be so cryptic and antagonizing their fans over things. Wouldn't that be great? If they were actually entertaining through and through and didn't do things that cause readers to get really upset?

Actually, I believe they think that readers would prefer to have some surprises and have plots develop over time instead of everything being an instant system-dump. Plus, I've read several interviews where writers get frustrated over even the amount of information in the pre-released solicits. They expect you to buy the book because of the creatives and the general quality of the stories, not wait and buy the book only if you like who the surprise villain on the last page turns out to be.

[JasonTodd428]

Actually, I believe they think that readers would prefer to have some surprises and have plots develop over time instead of everything being an instant system-dump.

I know this reader would rather have some surprises and plots that develop over time then to be spoon feed everything about a character, plot or book by either editorial or a writer. I don't enjoy it when authors of novels do so and with a single comic being much shorter than even a short story I like it even less when reading a comic. I want to be suprised by who a villain on the last page is or by a twist that happens in the plot or by how a plot point brought up in issue one is connected to several others down the line and is resolved in an issue several months later long after it's been semi-forgotten. I don't want the writer to give away everything about a book from the get go. What's the point in reading or even buying a book if you are going to just be handed all the answers anyway?

Also, there may be some miscommunication between DC and old fans but there is likewise plently of misconceptions on the part of fans as well. It's really a two way street in my opinion anyway.

[Mat001]

It seems to be an unfortunate reality of the market these days . . . comics aren't as readily available in many outlets beyond comic book shops, and even those aren't very accessible in some places. So, if you're not old enough to drive somewhere by yourself, . . .

And since a majority of the readers seem to be older, the comic book companies seem to cater to that market, abandoning a more "family-friendly" format. But then again, TV and movies, among others, also seem to offer less family-friendly, all-ages accessible alternatives than they did when I was younger.

Look at the live action Batman films. A lot of kids were there for a PG-13 film series. Six films and only two of which were pretty violent, but they still did big numbers. And cartoon wise, they're far more mature than "Scooby Doo Meets Batman & Robin", that's for damn sure. "The Brave & The Bold" was the only Batman series to be more kid friendly than the rest.

Actually, I believe they think that readers would prefer to have some surprises and have plots develop over time instead of everything being an instant system-dump.

In today's fast paced world, this is probably correct. No one wants to wait, they want it now and not later.

[PennyDreadful]

Gail Simone said both Cass and Steph were wanted to be used by a bunch of writers (Snyder etc wanted Cass to be in Batman #1 in the audience with them) but weren't allowed to due to them being locked in still waiting in the cache thing. I believe her on that. Stephanie apparently needed a breather after her Batgirl run, apparently, as Gail said.

But apparently Tim, Dick, and Damian don't need breathers.

Brown exists and is Spoiler again. Cassandra Cain also exists. That's better than Wally or Donna. It's more WHERE are they and WERE they Batgirl even for 5 minutes. That's what people really wanna know.

However, at a con, a fan asked if Stephanie would reappear any time soon. And the editor's reply: "Nope." I think Cass and Steph exist in the same way Donna, Wally, and plenty of others exist: the characters can be used when the day comes when the folks in charge think these are worthy characters and thus give the go-ahead to use them. This will probably happen when the current leadership leaves DC and new editors who grew up with these characters take charge.

[Buried Alien]

This will probably happen when the current leadership leaves DC and new editors who grew up with these characters take charge.

I don't think we'll need to wait that long. I seriously cannot wrap my head around the idea that DC's leadership rubs their hands in glee at the thought of shelving certain characters. These people are adults and businessmen, not children or supervillains.

When the time is right (narrative-wise) for these characters to come back into play, they will, and I would not be surprised if their reintroduction is handled by the same folks who supervised their shelving.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[PennyDreadful]

DC just needs to be more honest about things to fans and not be so cryptic. Brutal honesty though enraging can solve a lot of angst. That is unless they drop the need to be so cryptic and antagonizing their fans over things. Wouldn't that be great? If they were actually entertaining through and through and didn't do things that cause readers to get really upset?

They should also stop with false promises and the obnoxious jokes about characters at cons. And they can answer questions about characters they don't want to use with some class. Obviously, they can't say, "We're not using this character because we can't stand her." Just say, "We know you love [name of character] and our writers do, too. We hope to have an amazing new universe in place, and right now, we are focusing on that. You haven't seen the last of [name of character]. We can't say right now when [name of character] will return, but our writers definitely like her and we hope to find a place for her."

And keep Didio away from conventions.

Problem. Solved.

[PennyDreadful]

I don't think we'll need to wait that long. I seriously cannot wrap my head around the idea that DC's leadership rubs their hands in glee at the thought of shelving certain characters. These people are adults and businessmen, not children or supervillains.

When the time is right (narrative-wise) for these characters to come back into play, they will, and I would not be surprised if their reintroduction is handled by the same folks who supervised their shelving.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I wish I could believe you (and I don't believe DC's brain trust are immature or spiteful). But they clearly have fond memories of certain characters and the ones who came later have been shelved.

And yeah, I do believe that they had a conscious plan all along to take certain characters off the table who might detract from the characters they wanted to return or bring back to their roots. This was probably the case before the reboot.

Seriously, Stephanie Brown had her own book for two years, and now the editors admit the fans won't be seeing her again any time soon.

I just wish they would've shelved the Flash rogues and given him new villains. A super-powered Captain Cold just seems...redundant.

[ShaggyB]

I just wish they would've shelved the Flash rogues and given him new villains. A super-powered Captain Cold just seems...redundant.

Id rather have a super powered one than no captain cold at all.... but thats just me. (dont take that as a me liking him with super powers.... but if the choice is that or no CC ill take what we got.)