Should DC have done a TOTAL REBOOT with DCnU?

[dcdrew]

DC did a TOTAL REBOOT with Justice League, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. and SOFT reboot of Batman and Green Lantern, but I think DC should have done a TOTAL REBOOT of ENTIRE DCnU and followed characters from ORIGIN on like Robinson is doing with NEW JSA! I do NOT like the 5 YEARS MISSING GAP. What do you think?

[Harial]

As a total newbie to comic books, I wish they would. I'm having to go back and cross reference three or four different comic series and read multiple mini series just to to figure out what is going on with the few characters that I'm interested in.

[Ebon]

I think all in all that would have been the best bet. I think it would have gone much further towards bringing in new readers, or existing readers from other comics genres. I think they also could have reclaimed many lapsed fans by using the opportunity to change the tone and style of many books (even if they had to create a seperate 'division' ala Vertigo to do it). Redo everyone. First issues are origin issues, just like nothing had ever gone before and they were starting new from Day One. Just like someone yesterday said 'Hey, gang! Let's form a comics company!'

[DaronK]

As a long time DC fan I would have preferred a total reboot. It would make things like missing characters much more bearable (Wally, Donna, etc...)

Plus they wouldn't have all the continuity issues they keep running into. However, this is what we have, so there's not much we can do about it...until the next reboot anyway.

[ShaggyB]

part of me thinks so.... but the GL and Batman fan in me is cool with that not being rebooted totally. Id just like a definition of what counted and what didnt for the characters.

[Buried Alien]

I wouldn't have minded a total reboot, but would it really be TOTAL...as in Batman starts off as a solo hero, eventually recruits Dick Grayson as Robin, etc.?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Jadenewt]

DC did a TOTAL REBOOT with Justice League, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. and SOFT reboot of Batman and Green Lantern, but I think DC should have done a TOTAL REBOOT of ENTIRE DCnU and followed characters from ORIGIN on like Robinson is doing with NEW JSA! I do NOT like the 5 YEARS MISSING GAP. What do you think?

I think the big problem with a total reboot is that instead of the New 52 you would have been looking at the new 3 or 7 as when Heroes first emerged there were only a few like Supes, Bats, and Wonder Woman then it would have been literally years before you would have seen characters like Blue Beetle and Kyle appear. I don't see that would have been a sustainable model and would have lost more readers than it would have gained.

[Wolf_Leader]

I wouldn't have minded a total reboot, but would it really be TOTAL...as in Batman starts off as a solo hero, eventually recruits Dick Grayson as Robin, etc.?

Similar to this, If they started with Batman, then there wouldn't be much else, and everyone would be complaining about a real lack of favourite characters, unless the idea of 50 people all becoming superheroes at the exact same time as Batman is somehow better than getting a range of characters just starting out to having a few years experience. I don't recall all of the old comics starting off with origin stories or at the very beginning of the characters' superheroing careers. That stuff was often filled in much later.

[ArnoldoAAD]

its pointless to think what should had happen at this point but i think some properties deserved a full reboot more than others

like Hawkman, it didnt needed a full reboot
Static did
and so forth

[Mr. Holmes]

No because the first few years would just be used to be retelling the same stories again.

[doordoor123]

It pretty much WAS a full reboot other than Green Lantern (yes, even Batman was pretty much fully rebooted)... If you mean erase every characters history and start with all origins, then that is a different story.

[shark]

Yes, they should have.

The universe will get "complicated" again in less than two years.

[Zak213]

I would rather prefer them moving forward and let the sidekicks take over but that's just me. I thought it would be a better way for DC to gain one on Marvel as they would have actually moved forward rather than staying in the same place.

Their soft reboot would have worked better had they used a longer measurement of time than cramming 20 years of events into 5. 10 years would have worked better even thought it would have taken away from the young and inexperienced image they are going for.

Either way you cant have both.

But my forward relaunch would have worked better as even thought some of the heroes like Dick or Donna would have had experiences as superheroes but taking over for their mentors would have been a new and different ball game. Plus you would have to come upp with new challenges with your characters as the sidekicks are affected by different things than their mentor.

[LoneNecromancer]

No.

Between the huge amount of characters that they'd have to wait years before they could re-introduce (yes, there are missing characters right now but there'd be so many more if otherwise), they'd have to spend every single issue of the first few years being compared to the originals, it honestly wouldn't have appealed to as many, and would've also pissed off some of their biggest writers (Johns, Morrison) who'd be unable to finish the stories they'd been working on before the reboot.

[Jon Clark]

I think the big problem with a total reboot is that instead of the New 52 you would have been looking at the new 3 or 7 as when Heroes first emerged there were only a few like Supes, Bats, and Wonder Woman then it would have been literally years before you would have seen characters like Blue Beetle and Kyle appear. I don't see that would have been a sustainable model and would have lost more readers than it would have gained.

I prefer the idea of it being Day Zero in the DCnU and for solo heroes I think it could have worked. If you look at it as a truly new beginning and not a slightly reworked version of the past, the intros of the characters aren't hard. Establish Jaime as Blue Beetle without all the Dan Garrett/Ted Kord stuff and he can debut whenever you want. Don't be bound by what we "know" about the Guardians and the Corps- maybe there is a reason that Hal and Kyle (or Guy, John ...) exist simultaneously from the start. Basically introduce the characters you want to tell stories about and leave the ones you don't on the scrap heap of history.

And keep the first year or so of the books vague in relation to each other. Using real time just for illustration: Superman debuts in early 2010, Batman is revealed to the public a few months later, Wonder Woman appears January 2011 with Flash and GL within a few weeks of that, Blue Beetle may be almost a year after that. But all these books launch in September 2011 so issue 1 of Action may be set almost a year before Flash and two years before Beetle but since the stories aren't tied together there is no reason a reader has to know much more than that Action is set a bit earlier than Flash and both a little earlier than Beetle and then only if you have to reference other heroes.


The problem would be crossovers, team books, etc. You need a little lead time from the solo books before introducing a Justice League or a Teen Titans if you plan on not introducing teams of characters without "home" titles, but that is what editors are for. Same thing with crossovers, you'd have to be coordinate so the first wave of heroes isn't meeting the second wave too early. If the Bat Books wait to introduce Robin until a year in, don't have both appear in a Superman story set a few weeks into the Superman and batmans's public careers.