Feels like the New 52 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater so far...

[Mat001]

It's the other way around. You sustain the market so that you can have sales in the first place.

PS:The idea that DC is altruistic and doesn't care about the money is just strawman on your part.

Exactly. I never said or implied such.

[PennyDreadful]

I don't think it's too complicated either, but I do think the Flash title right now is stronger for Wally's absence (and I say that as someone for whom Wally was "my" Flash). The reboot of Barry Allen has succeeded in part because it's stripped him of all the baggage that had grown up around him. There's no longer any need for the book to justify why Barry is the lead instead of Wally or whoever - he's just "The Flash" and that's the setup and you go from there.

Actually, I think it hurt the book. Part of the appeal of the Flashverse was its sense of family, which is now gone. DC's leadership forgets that sometimes, the relationships and supporting cast can make for a stronger book. You can offer different takes on Alfred Pennyworth and Lois Lane, but in the end, they're integral to the Batman and Superman mythos. Same with Barry Allen. He had friendships and alliances with other heroes in the Silver Age. So did Wally later on. The Rogues, meanwhile, were a dysfunctional family themselves. There's just no sense of Barry being part of a community. It's just bizarre that a character's history is seen as a hindrance to good storytelling. Especially since this isn't really a total reboot, comic-wise.

I suppose Iris could have a nephew or they could have used Wally as Kid Flash, but to me that would be the character in name only. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wally will be back at some point, but for now I totally get why they want him out of the way.

I just don't believe that the current DC leadership likes Wally West. Period. That's why he's "off the table." It sounds petty, but I think that the handling of Wally over the past few years speaks for itself. And Didio's "jokes" about Wally ("Which one is he again?).

The DC brain trust grew up with Barry on TV and in comics. They see him as Flash. They do not see Wally as a legitimate Flash. I'm actually surprised that Wally is benched and not retconned out of existence. It doesn't matter that Wally wore the scarlet uniform and is quite popular. To them, Barry is "iconic." Obviously, DC's animation wing is not influenced by DC's editorial edicts, and, needless to say, it has a larger audience than the comics. Once they're gone and a new editorial team is in charge, there will probably be more flexibility regarding characters. They may even realize we can have Barbara, Cass, and Steph! (I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but my gut feeling tells me favoritism is a factor.)

I still think that the multiverse is the best way to go. Make a home for different legacies on one of the 52 earths.

Meanwhile, I also find it telling that DC apparently got few new readers. This gets back to my theory about this "reboot": They wanted to win back lapsed readers (who are the ones most enthusiastic about it). The lapsed readers remember pre-COIE contunity and are happy to have the heroes they remember return. It sounds weird, but think about it: DC has very few kid-friendly titles. They have stated blatantly that they're going for male readers 18-34. The newer, younger readers have much less money to burn than, say, old-school DC fans from the pre-COIE era. I really believe that this reboot was designed largely with readers of a certain age/demographic, not new ones.

So they've disposed of assorted post-COIE interlopers to get their "iconic" heroes back. Yes, they tossed babies out with the bathwater. Yes, they fixed a lot of things that weren't broken. But this is a marketing tool, basically, one that energized current and former readers and clearly didn't bring in many new ones.

I do think DC succeeded its goals, but when the novelty of the new 52 wears off, then we can judge if it was a success. What will sales be a year or two from now? Will those lapsed readers stay or drift away again? And will it make up for the readers who dropped DC after the "reboot"?

[Fate's Faith]

This is a gimmick to boost sales.

There is nothing wrong with gimmicks as long as its a well done gimmick. I consider the first Crisis a gimmick. Bringing in old Silver Age elements to Superman a gimmick. This relaunch a gimmick. And certainly #0 are a gimmick. Gimmicks aren't created equally. People keep saying this sales spike could have been achieved without trashing the history of the DCU but it wasn't. So I do wonder if people were that displeased with what DC was doing before the relaunch then why would any care if they did relaunch. You've listed what they could have done to continue getting your business, exactly how could they have known that since they never lost it before? You kept reading without new titles and number 1 issues along with better marketing. What they did have at stake was all the people that had stopped reading and, it might be hard to accept, without DC personally coming to my house to hand me a bag of cash, I never would have paid attention to any gimmick except... relaunching. So, it worked for me. They lost you, gained me. Along with an 5% increase which is actually pretty good when compared to a 0% increase.

[Fate's Faith]

I do think DC succeeded its goals, but when the novelty of the new 52 wears off, then we can judge if it was a success. What will sales be a year or two from now? Will those lapsed readers stay or drift away again? And will it make up for the readers who dropped DC after the "reboot"?

I think much of the rest of your post sounded a bit like jealousy. They like lapse readers better or something. Maybe yes, maybe no. But the fact remains that you (and I'm using that pronoun for readers pre-relaunch not you specifically) were dropping books. While us lapse readers have left in the past, it was a good few years ago for me at least. I think this shows you were were just as much a goal of getting back as I was. After all, I may as well been dead and buried as far as DC was concerned I had been gone so long. The relaunch was designed to appeal to those who had left long ago, those who had never read and to stop those currently leaving. It may have been more successful in some areas more than others but still, it remains true their current readership base was not sticking around. So don't go counting us out just yet since we've not Because the old DCU had shown itself to be a loss. It wasn't gaining new readers nor long lapse readers and its current readers weren't staying around either. How do you arrive at the conclusion the old fans they lost in this relaunch were worth letting go of all those other potential replacements? Just asking because you seem to indicate that to settle for that level of readership will eventually be worth that cost.

[Master X]

^I wasn't dropping books, I was adding books! Every event/crossover that occurred got me interested in more titles. Of course NOW I've dropped books, I'll be barely getting any compared to what I used to. Compare 7-8 now to 50+ then.

[timeismoney]

This is why i always find the Marvel VS DC thing funny because when you look at the they really not that different and they can't pleas everyone.

[PennyDreadful]

I think much of the rest of your post sounded a bit like jealousy. They like lapse readers better or something. Maybe yes, maybe no. But the fact remains that you (and I'm using that pronoun for readers pre-relaunch not you specifically) were dropping books.

Actually, this is just my example: I was getting back into comics shortly before the finish of Blackest Night. I've drifted in and out of comics over the years. I was curious about Brightest Day and looking forward to GJ's plans for the Flash. Neither title was terribly exciting, and the Flash book didn't even publish on time. I was also looking forward to the return of Birds of Prey. Again, it was a lackluster title.

I just find that DC never sticks with its canon for very long these days. They finished up some (admittedly boring) story arcs in Brightest Day and even started a new one starring Ronnie Raymond and Jason Rauch. Then they rebooted everything, which means that it's one of many plotlines left dangling. IMO, it's just a sloppy way to do things.

It may have been more successful in some areas more than others but still, it remains true their current readership base was not sticking around.

And why do you think that is? Maybe instead of rebooting and having crisis crossovers every 3-5 years, they should publish stronger titles? DC is doing the same thing Marvel did in the 1990s--relying on gimmicks to carry the day. Gimmicks can't guarantee long-term readers.

TBH, almost none of the rebooted books I read were that great. For most, I lost interest after one or two issues. The few I stuck with were disappointing because the story lines just dragged. After a while, I realized that the same frustration and boredom from before the reboot was still there and dropped whatever DC titles I was reading.

I think the new DC has many of the same problems as the old DC. And this reboot doesn't solve the long-term issue of expanding beyond their current demographic. I just find that this reboot offers more of the same, and it's possible DC will find itself in the same position 2-5 years from now that it was pre-reboot, continuity snarls and all.

[maximiliani]

Actually, I think it hurt the book. Part of the appeal of the Flashverse was its sense of family, which is now gone. DC's leadership forgets that sometimes, the relationships and supporting cast can make for a stronger book. You can offer different takes on Alfred Pennyworth and Lois Lane, but in the end, they're integral to the Batman and Superman mythos. Same with Barry Allen. He had friendships and alliances with other heroes in the Silver Age. So did Wally later on. The Rogues, meanwhile, were a dysfunctional family themselves. There's just no sense of Barry being part of a community. It's just bizarre that a character's history is seen as a hindrance to good storytelling. Especially since this isn't really a total reboot, comic-wise.



I just don't believe that the current DC leadership likes Wally West. Period. That's why he's "off the table." It sounds petty, but I think that the handling of Wally over the past few years speaks for itself. And Didio's "jokes" about Wally ("Which one is he again?).

The DC brain trust grew up with Barry on TV and in comics. They see him as Flash. They do not see Wally as a legitimate Flash. I'm actually surprised that Wally is benched and not retconned out of existence. It doesn't matter that Wally wore the scarlet uniform and is quite popular. To them, Barry is "iconic." Obviously, DC's animation wing is not influenced by DC's editorial edicts, and, needless to say, it has a larger audience than the comics. Once they're gone and a new editorial team is in charge, there will probably be more flexibility regarding characters. They may even realize we can have Barbara, Cass, and Steph! (I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but my gut feeling tells me favoritism is a factor.)

I still think that the multiverse is the best way to go. Make a home for different legacies on one of the 52 earths.

Meanwhile, I also find it telling that DC apparently got few new readers. This gets back to my theory about this "reboot": They wanted to win back lapsed readers (who are the ones most enthusiastic about it). The lapsed readers remember pre-COIE contunity and are happy to have the heroes they remember return. It sounds weird, but think about it: DC has very few kid-friendly titles. They have stated blatantly that they're going for male readers 18-34. The newer, younger readers have much less money to burn than, say, old-school DC fans from the pre-COIE era. I really believe that this reboot was designed largely with readers of a certain age/demographic, not new ones.

So they've disposed of assorted post-COIE interlopers to get their "iconic" heroes back. Yes, they tossed babies out with the bathwater. Yes, they fixed a lot of things that weren't broken. But this is a marketing tool, basically, one that energized current and former readers and clearly didn't bring in many new ones.

I do think DC succeeded its goals, but when the novelty of the new 52 wears off, then we can judge if it was a success. What will sales be a year or two from now? Will those lapsed readers stay or drift away again? And will it make up for the readers who dropped DC after the "reboot"?

^ Attacting lapsed readers was the goal, not new. It is a terrible idea because they ignoring the cash cow market that are TWEENS. And Teens.

18-34 more like 35-55. Seriously. None of the Barbara Gordon idol worshipers are under 25 I swear.

[Fate's Faith]

And why do you think that is? Maybe instead of rebooting and having crisis crossovers every 3-5 years, they should publish stronger titles? DC is doing the same thing Marvel did in the 1990s--relying on gimmicks to carry the day. Gimmicks can't guarantee long-term readers.

You know, I have heard of this was THE issue to start some title or another for years before I left. I know what that means. They were actually going to have to show me that was absolutely true in some manner. Thus, the gimmick of the relaunch. Like I said, without coming to my house to hand me a bag of cash, there was never a chance of getting me back. I didn't like what Superman was turning into. I had long ago lost my fascination with Wonder Woman the ambassador. Without doing away with what I had grown to dislike about the old DCU I can't imagine how anything but a relaunch of the line was going to be enough. Except some type of retcon which would put you folks right in the same boat you are now. I think they need stonger titles also but presenting them in the old DCU wasn't going to make the splash this relaunch did. I read Spider-Man back when he first got married. I heard the news the marriage was undone. It still wasn't enough to get me to see how the title reads today. I hear its really good. I'm glad for its fans. But I'm not interested. I know all books will have their good runs and bad. I expect readership to drop at times and how they regain that remains to be seen. So far, the solution seems to be get rid of the titles that are dropping and change creative teams on those that need adjustments. I think that's a real positive followup to the relaunch. Is that what was happening before the reboot? Or was it just more of this is THE issue to start reading which usually wasn't? Honestly, I still fail to see if you yourself wasn't that happy with what DC was doing pre-relaunch, what does it matter now? You were dropping titles before and are still dropping titles. Apparently, you weren't getting what you're looking for with either version so you think its a better idea for DC to lose you as well as never regain me?

[Fate's Faith]

^ Attacting lapsed readers was the goal, not new. It is a terrible idea because they ignoring the cash cow market that are TWEENS. And Teens.

18-34 more like 35-55. Seriously. None of the Barbara Gordon idol worshipers are under 25 I swear.

And that's probably true. But when beginning a new universe, do you really think its simpler to start with the first or start with the second or third that requires you to address the first in some manner in either case?

[PennyDreadful]

You know, I have heard of this was THE issue to start some title or another for years before I left. I know what that means. They were actually going to have to show me that was absolutely true in some manner. Thus, the gimmick of the relaunch. Like I said, without coming to my house to hand me a bag of cash, there was never a chance of getting me back. I didn't like what Superman was turning into. I had long ago lost my fascination with Wonder Woman the ambassador.

I'm not a reader of Supes or Wondy, so I can't comment on this. If you didn't care for those books, that's fair enough. Me, I'm a fan of the B- and C-listers. Love Black Canary, Wally, Barry, Flash Rogues, Green Lanterns. Some of the changes done there were, IMO, unnecessary.

Honestly, I still fail to see if you yourself wasn't that happy with what DC was doing pre-relaunch, what does it matter now? You were dropping titles before and are still dropping titles. Apparently, you weren't getting what you're looking for with either version so you think its a better idea for DC to lose you as well as never regain me?

I was disappointed because I really loved Blackest Night and enjoyed what Johns had done with the Lanterns. And I'd loved Birds of Prey in the past. But in the year before the reboot, I just grew frustrated with the constant delays on the Flash book and the dullness of Brightest Day. And I was also disappointed by the relaunched BoP before the reboot. Thankfully, books now publish on time, but the glacial pacing, glumness, and generally humorless nature of the books remains. (Don't get me started on the new Blue Beetle comic--poor Jaime!) What I really liked about the pre-reboot DC was the sense of camaraderie among the characters. For me it's really all about characters and their relationships. Now that's been tossed out, and there isn't a sense of new teams coming together. GL: New Guardians is a case in point.

They could've perhaps revamped their line without a reboot. Just my opinion.

[vampiric_cannibal]

And that's probably true. But when beginning a new universe, do you really think its simpler to start with the first or start with the second or third that requires you to address the first in some manner in either case?

Honestly? Legacies are easier to sum up if they are the second and third. Batman's origin requires mentioning that he decided to take on the Bat as his symbol. The first Batgirl requires mention of why she thought Batman would need a teenage girl ally. Subdequent legacies don't have to explain why their concept exists, just establish the character. It is assumed that the idea has already been bought into, and if you're buying a superhero comic then your suspension of disbelief is pretty high anyway.

[Jim Thompson]

There are people that try to dismiss criticism by saying sales are up so it was worth it.

Certainly it's clear you believe that, or just taken some criticism that way. I don't know that is what has actually been done. Hard to say without a specific example where you think what you're talking about has happened.

[Jim Thompson]

And you sustain the market with sales. Do people actually believe DC did this for anything other than money? How naive can you be?

And how cynical does one have to be to believe money was the sole motivation for the decisions that were made?

[allstarmatches]

Actually, I think it hurt the book. Part of the appeal of the Flashverse was its sense of family, which is now gone. DC's leadership forgets that sometimes, the relationships and supporting cast can make for a stronger book. You can offer different takes on Alfred Pennyworth and Lois Lane, but in the end, they're integral to the Batman and Superman mythos. Same with Barry Allen. He had friendships and alliances with other heroes in the Silver Age. So did Wally later on. The Rogues, meanwhile, were a dysfunctional family themselves. There's just no sense of Barry being part of a community. It's just bizarre that a character's history is seen as a hindrance to good storytelling. Especially since this isn't really a total reboot, comic-wise.

I just don't believe that the current DC leadership likes Wally West. Period. That's why he's "off the table." It sounds petty, but I think that the handling of Wally over the past few years speaks for itself. And Didio's "jokes" about Wally ("Which one is he again?).

The DC brain trust grew up with Barry on TV and in comics. They see him as Flash. They do not see Wally as a legitimate Flash. I'm actually surprised that Wally is benched and not retconned out of existence. It doesn't matter that Wally wore the scarlet uniform and is quite popular. To them, Barry is "iconic." Obviously, DC's animation wing is not influenced by DC's editorial edicts, and, needless to say, it has a larger audience than the comics. Once they're gone and a new editorial team is in charge, there will probably be more flexibility regarding characters. They may even realize we can have Barbara, Cass, and Steph! (I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but my gut feeling tells me favoritism is a factor.)

You're doing a huge amount of mind-reading of people you don't know. Presuming to know what's in other people's heads based on statements they make with the end goal of promoting a product is a giant logical fallacy.

You are correct that the "Flash Family" concept was a big part of the Flash book - when Wally was the lead character. It has never been a big part of the book with Barry as the lead. Pre-Crisis there was no "Flash Family" - there was Barry and Wally, and Wally wasn't around all that much. The "Flash Family" grew up around Wally, and was a natural extension of the legacy theme that drove the book for most of the time that Wally was the lead. It doesn't fit anywhere near as well with Barry in the lead, and this was evident during the Johns run, as the rest of the speedsters were shoehorned into supporting roles that they didn't fit.

With the reboot, all that is gone. Proof is in the pudding - pre-Flashpoint the book was mostly terrible. Post-Flashpoint, with the same lead character and same artist, it's one of the best-reviewed books in the line. They're doing something right, even if the book isn't personally to your taste.