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

[Bored at 3:00AM]

To me the characters will always be an accumulation of their histories and interactions which made the character they were and the stories they were in. They are no longer that.

This is sort of my problem with what they've done here. By removing so much of their past, the characters are fundamentally different people. Which can work in some cases, like Superman, whose prior history had pushed the character so far away from what originally appealed to readers. Wiping out things like marrying Lois and having Ma & Pa Kent to run back to anytime he needed someone to talk to weren't helping the character be more interesting or make writing new stories about Superman easier or more exciting. They were a stumbling block.

But how does removing Dick Grayson's time with the Teen Titans make him more interesting? If Batman having 4 different Robins in 5 years isn't too complicated for new readers, why would the idea of an original Teen Titans team that predated the current version be too much for new readers to understand? How does removing Oracle from Batgirl's history make her more interesting or appealing to new readers?

Like I said, I have no problem with change. If these characters don't evolve and change to suit the times, they are dead in the water. However, these characters are more than just names, costumes & powers. If you strip them down too far, they lose what made them such enduring characters to begin with.

[Earmites]

Couldn't disagree more. Laying a concise foundation is exactly what the the post-Crisis universe lacked, and why ultimately it just created new continuity issues altogether or made old ones even worse. Why make that same mistake twice? I can't fathom how it could be considered wasting pages to clear up critical questions that are still unknown or muddled at best in this 5 year window. The clearer the universe, the more engaging the immersion for the reader, and that goes for not only the second year but well beyond. Well worth a month's devotion of time, in my opinion.

But it sounds like you will have them perpetually answering to the old universe vesus building the new.

The point of the reboot was to wipe the slate clean. You are learning about ALL of these characters as new comers are learning about them.

It sounds like you are wanting to grasp onto the old ways instead of embracing the fact that...This journey is starting again. You say "The clearer the universe, the more engaging the immersion for the reader" But you are not taking into consideration...They are building up a NEW clearer universe. You have to give it time.

I have the luxury of beginning again with DC with the new 52. Before this...I rarely bought a DC comic for over 2 decades. I would pick up a few here and there, but did not consistently follow DC. So this reboot is just fine by me because I am not attaching the old universe/lore/character development to the new issues...You are not suppose to.

I can understand how long time fans would do that, but they need to keep in mind that there was a massive reboot and what you see is what you get...until further developments occur in THIS universe.

[JasonTodd428]

Yeah exactly. The problem with COIE is that a lot of the new establishing of history/continuity was contradictory. At least with unknown, I can fill in the blanks with my own imagination.

Or a person can fill in the blanks with their favorite stories and/or important bits of a character's history until it becomes clear that a particular story or some part of a character's history never occurred or occurred in a different manner. That's what I do anyway and it seems to work out pretty well for me. Then again I'm not someone who is hung up on continuity issues either.

[glennsim]

This is sort of my problem with what they've done here. By removing so much of their past, the characters are fundamentally different people. Which can work in some cases, like Superman, whose prior history had pushed the character so far away from what originally appealed to readers. Wiping out things like marrying Lois and having Ma & Pa Kent to run back to anytime he needed someone to talk to weren't helping the character be more interesting or make writing new stories about Superman easier or more exciting. They were a stumbling block.

But how does removing Dick Grayson's time with the Teen Titans make him more interesting? If Batman having 4 different Robins in 5 years isn't too complicated for new readers, why would the idea of an original Teen Titans team that predated the current version be too much for new readers to understand? How does removing Oracle from Batgirl's history make her more interesting or appealing to new readers?

Like I said, I have no problem with change. If these characters don't evolve and change to suit the times, they are dead in the water. However, these characters are more than just names, costumes & powers. If you strip them down too far, they lose what made them such enduring characters to begin with.

How does keeping Dick Grayson's time with the Teen Titans make him more interesting, if you have no writers who want to write anything that has anything to do with that part of his life? And you can make Batman more complicated because people have proven they liked Batman they way he was - the same can't be held true for the recent editions of the Teen Titans. Why does Barbara Gordon have to have spent time as the super-hero community's data jock in order to now tell stories about her having recovered from a disability and getting back on the streets.

You acknowledge that characters need to change over time. I think where there's disagreement is in what elements of their past are fundamental to them. Some people would argue that Clark's marriage was as important to Superman as Barbara's time as Oracle would be to Batgirl.

[Mr. Holmes]

How does keeping Dick Grayson's time with the Teen Titans make him more interesting, if you have no writers who want to write anything that has anything to do with that part of his life?

To be fair, I can answer this one. NTT is where Dick Grayson had most of his growth that led to the transition to Nightwing. BUT - although it was still in canon ten years ago, it was already being ignored when Chuck Dixon wrote Nightwing Year One.

[glennsim]

To be fair, I can answer this one. NTT is where Dick Grayson had most of his growth that led to the transition to Nightwing. BUT - although it was still in canon ten years ago, it was already being ignored when Chuck Dixon wrote Nightwing Year One.

Exactly. Growing up and deciding to get out from under the control of a guardian doesn't actually require a major explanation.

[Shellhead]

I like what Marv Wolfman said about this in his introduction to collected edition of Crisis On Infinite Earths:



B.J. Oropeza, author of The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Pop Culture added this:



DC's relaunch seems to be keeping both these thoughts in mind as they move forward -- and that, I think, is a good thing.

New generations should be getting new characters, not rehashed versions of characters that have been around for several decades. Might as well make today's teenagers listen to cover versions of jazz standards instead of new pop music. DC (and Marvel) could let their characters age normally, and gradually replace them with new characters or even legacy characters as the years go by. That may sound outrageous and unrealistic, but that's just what DC was trying to do in the late '80s through the early '90s. They even had a system set up for aging the characters for a while there. Kid heroes could be in Young Justice, then join Teen Titans as they got older. Eventually, they might get a shot at the big time in Justice League, or otherwise end up in Outsiders or somewhere else. And the former Earth-2 heroes showed that aging heroes could still be popular, in the pages of JSA.

The problem is Batman. He is one of the two most popular superheroes of all time, and he is only human. So there is no credible way for him to keep fighting crime by the time he hits 50, at least not without getting away from that concept that restricts him to being just human. So eventually no other DC heroes can age much without drawing attention to Batman's age, forcing either reboots or a timeless stasis, or some of both. That gets to be a real problem with the young heroes, who end up seeming retarded due to their inability to mature.

But there are solutions for the Batman problem. It would not be unbelievable for him to get access to a Lazarus Pit from time to time. Alternatively, Morrison gave us a great year of Batman stories without Bruce Wayne, in the pages of Batman and Robin. With all of his history, Dick Grayson made for a very credible replacement for Batman, and his origin story is at least as good as Bruce Wayne's.

Or DC can continue on their current course, periodically alienating chunks of the fanbase with desperate attempts to win new readers. I agree that DC needs to continue to reach out to new readers, but they could do that more naturally by allowing their characters to age and gradually replacing them with new characters for the new fans.

[allstarmatches]

How does keeping Dick Grayson's time with the Teen Titans make him more interesting, if you have no writers who want to write anything that has anything to do with that part of his life?

It doesn't. But having the current version of the Teen Titans be the "first" one gives people an entry point into their story. Having Tim Drake organizing the teen hero community is, whatever one may think of the execution, a pretty decent concept - and one which loses its gravitas if there have been a bunch of previous versions of the same team.

Also re: Nightwing, if you're going to reference him having been on his own team of Titans, you're only a step away from needing to establish who else was on the team, and given the absence of Donna Troy and Wally West, you can't do that without completely re-writing all that backstory. Since that backstory has nothing to do with what's happening now, it's easier to jettison it.

[Jim Thompson]

New generations should be getting new characters, not rehashed versions of characters that have been around for several decades. Might as well make today's teenagers listen to cover versions of jazz standards instead of new pop music. DC (and Marvel) could let their characters age normally, and gradually replace them with new characters or even legacy characters as the years go by. That may sound outrageous and unrealistic, but that's just what DC was trying to do in the late '80s through the early '90s. They even had a system set up for aging the characters for a while there. Kid heroes could be in Young Justice, then join Teen Titans as they got older. Eventually, they might get a shot at the big time in Justice League, or otherwise end up in Outsiders or somewhere else. And the former Earth-2 heroes showed that aging heroes could still be popular, in the pages of JSA.

The problem is Batman. He is one of the two most popular superheroes of all time, and he is only human. So there is no credible way for him to keep fighting crime by the time he hits 50, at least not without getting away from that concept that restricts him to being just human. So eventually no other DC heroes can age much without drawing attention to Batman's age, forcing either reboots or a timeless stasis, or some of both. That gets to be a real problem with the young heroes, who end up seeming retarded due to their inability to mature.

But there are solutions for the Batman problem. It would not be unbelievable for him to get access to a Lazarus Pit from time to time. Alternatively, Morrison gave us a great year of Batman stories without Bruce Wayne, in the pages of Batman and Robin. With all of his history, Dick Grayson made for a very credible replacement for Batman, and his origin story is at least as good as Bruce Wayne's.

Or DC can continue on their current course, periodically alienating chunks of the fanbase with desperate attempts to win new readers. I agree that DC needs to continue to reach out to new readers, but they could do that more naturally by allowing their characters to age and gradually replacing them with new characters for the new fans.

I've nothing against the stuff you're proposing. I actually am quite a big advocate for generational characters (e.g. Batman is someone new ever 20 to 40 years, etc.). And some characters don't need that: Superman, Thor, Wonder Woman, and Wolverine, for example, are basically immortals.

[allstarmatches]

I've nothing against the stuff you're proposing. I actually am quite a big advocate for generational characters (e.g. Batman is someone new ever 20 to 40 years, etc.). And some characters don't need that: Superman, Thor, Wonder Woman, and Wolverine, for example, are basically immortals.

Yeah but Lois Lane isn't. Neither are Alfred Pennyworth, Jim Gordon, or the majority of Batman's villains. You can't age those characters, even through some sort of artificial plot device like a Lazarus Pit, without divorcing them from many of the resonant elements of their respective mythos (mythoses?).

[Jim Thompson]

Yeah but Lois Lane isn't. Neither are Alfred Pennyworth, Jim Gordon, or the majority of Batman's villains. You can't age those characters, even through some sort of artificial plot device like a Lazarus Pit, without divorcing them from many of the resonant elements of their respective mythos (mythoses?).

True, but I wouldn't have any trouble losing the members of the supporting cast you're talking about and introducing new ones. Alfred might go away, but his family has been serving the manor for some time; I don't see why that wouldn't continue. Gordon retires, but perhaps Barbara has been brought along to take over -- or heck, a brand new commissioner (Yendel, maybe).

And Batman's villains could be generational in a lot of ways, too.

As for Lois, yes, she'd eventually go away -- giving Superman another bit of nuance to deal with.

[allstarmatches]

True, but I wouldn't have any trouble losing the members of the supporting cast you're talking about and introducing new ones. Alfred might go away, but his family has been serving the manor for some time; I don't see why that wouldn't continue. Gordon retires, but perhaps Barbara has been brought along to take over -- or heck, a brand new commissioner (Yendel, maybe).

And Batman's villains could be generational in a lot of ways, too.

As for Lois, yes, she'd eventually go away -- giving Superman another bit of nuance to deal with.

That seems, to borrow from the thread title, a case of tossing out that proverbial baby as well. If you're going to have Joker II, Riddler III, Mr. Freeze II and so on, you might as well just have the originals.

I think Superman's mythos would be dramatically lessened by the loss of Lois. She's not an element that can be replaced.

[Jim Thompson]

That seems, to borrow from the thread title, a case of tossing out that proverbial baby as well. If you're going to have Joker II, Riddler III, Mr. Freeze II and so on, you might as well just have the originals.

Not sure it'd have to be that blatant. Some new villains could show up on the scene, simply having been inspired by one of Batman's rogues, but come up with their own derivative persona. Others, like Black Mask, could simply assume the persona of the original character.

I think Superman's mythos would be dramatically lessened by the loss of Lois. She's not an element that can be replaced.

I disagree. While I think Lois is important, I don't know as she's critical to be able to tell entertaining, engaging Superman stories.

[shark]

Which is a rather silly question because while DC has rebooted twice in their 70+ year history, that does not equate to rebooting every time sales drop.

People are excusing the reboot by saying that sales are now better. That's why I'm asking if they are going to reboot every time sales go down.

[glennsim]

People are excusing the reboot by saying that sales are now better. That's why I'm asking if they are going to reboot every time sales go down.

No, rebooting is only one of several things they can do to attempt to improve sales. That doesn't make in an invalid method of doing so.