Did DC really needed a reboot?

[mattymoron]

Really? Where? Because I don't see them anywhere.

In the Earth-2 book?

[tony ingram]

In the Earth-2 book?

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the Jay Garrick and Alan Scott I've been following since 1976, not two random guys using their names.

[Sacred Knight]

I'm sure that comes as a huge consolation to everyone who has just lost the characters they've been following for decades. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia, by the way?

I'm sure he doesn't care. He was making a comment on his personal experience, not trying to appease grumpy old men who attack people on sight just because they voice a positive experience with the New 52.

[Gymer]

Of course they did. Comics as an industry are going to die without a steady stream of new fans. They're too convoluted for most newer fans, which is why they keep trying to do these reboots. In this case, it happened to be pretty successful.

It was? I thought DC lost most of it's new readers a few months after the initial reboot.

[neverender]

Yes, I believe DC needed to reboot, but it could have been executed so much better.

/agree about that it could of been executed much better. I can't really answer if DC really needed a reboot, since I only started reading DC 4 months before the reboot.

[Zeeguy91]

And the old fans? The ones who've kept them afloat for decades? Yeah, screw them, right?

*Facepalm* You do know that older readers can still enjoy newer versions of the characters, right? Nobody's telling you to go screw yourself. Although, you really seem to get a kick out of saying that to people who have any sort of positive experience reading New 52 books.

[Zeeguy91]

It was? I thought DC lost most of it's new readers a few months after the initial reboot.

That's actually not true. People who didn't support the reboot said that it was hemorrhaging a massive amount of readers because they wanted it to. But then, the numbers came out and told a completely different story: that the New 52 was just stabilizing.

[Zeeguy91]

I'm sure that comes as a huge consolation to everyone who has just lost the characters they've been following for decades. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia, by the way?

Really? Because...I don't think I lost that many of my characters.

Is Superman now not from Krypton? Oh, no...he still is
Is Batman not an orphan anymore? Oh wait, no....he still is, too.
Was Jason Todd not killed by Joker and then brought back to life? No...he still was.
Was Barbara not shot by Joker and paralyzed for a while? Nope. She was.
Did Green Lantern not pick up EXACTLY where it left off from before Flashpoint? Actually...it did.
It was actually also alluded to in Swamp Thing #1 that Superman still went through his whole "Death and Return" Saga

A wise man (Dennis Calero) actually put this pretty well for me. I can't give you a direct quote or anything, but it went something along the lines of: "As long as they keep the defining elements and moments that define these characters, and I mean the really important ones, like the Death of Gwen Stacy for Spider-Man or Death in the Family for Batman/Jason Todd, is it really important that they keep this story that happened in issue #579 of Batman where he meets a new villainess named Orca, or any stories like it that most fans forget?"

[the goddamn batman]

Financially, yes, DC needed something. A reboot, a .1 initiative or whatever. I'm glad it's worked out for them.

I don't care for how the reboot was executed, the creative teams, choices or line wide direction. The few books I was reading were either ditched, or turned into something I wasn't interested in reading, created by people who's work I am not a fan of. But I bet DC gained enough readers they don't really need to care if I kept reading or not.

[tony ingram]

Really? Because...I don't think I lost that many of my characters.

Is Superman now not from Krypton? Oh, no...he still is
Is Batman not an orphan anymore? Oh wait, no....he still is, too.
Was Jason Todd not killed by Joker and then brought back to life? No...he still was.
Was Barbara not shot by Joker and paralyzed for a while? Nope. She was.
Did Green Lantern not pick up EXACTLY where it left off from before Flashpoint? Actually...it did.
It was actually also alluded to in Swamp Thing #1 that Superman still went through his whole "Death and Return" Saga

A wise man (Dennis Calero) actually put this pretty well for me. I can't give you a direct quote or anything, but it went something along the lines of: "As long as they keep the defining elements and moments that define these characters, and I mean the really important ones, like the Death of Gwen Stacy for Spider-Man or Death in the Family for Batman/Jason Todd, is it really important that they keep this story that happened in issue #579 of Batman where he meets a new villainess named Orca, or any stories like it that most fans forget?"

Fine. So explain to me how the "defining elements" of the JSA are still there-because to me, a character is defined by their history and character development, not by superficial characteristics like name and powers and as far as I can see, the JSA have lost all of theirs.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Well, given the way the DC universe is structured and the way the stories had gone, I would say they needed a reboot. That being said, the concept of the hard reboot isn't something that I generally advocate.

Generally, I don't believe for one second that re-boots are necessary to re-invigorate a line. That sort of thinking will simply lead to reboots every 5 years or so, thus creating further problems. I also don't know when so much hand holding was required in comics. When we were young, we got into comics around issue 200 of something and started from there. That was before there was an Internet or Wikipedia and the whole idea of jumping into this rich mythology made comics even more attractive to us.

I think DC's original idea of restarting their line but keeping parts of continuity that worked and ignoring parts that didn't would have been better. Continuity isnt a problem, its the way its handled thats a problem. I'm sure most long term DC fans werent complaining about continuity before the new 52 as it wasn't what affected story telling.

[sunofdarkchild]

Really? Because...I don't think I lost that many of my characters.

Is Superman now not from Krypton? Oh, no...he still is
Is Batman not an orphan anymore? Oh wait, no....he still is, too.
Was Jason Todd not killed by Joker and then brought back to life? No...he still was.
Was Barbara not shot by Joker and paralyzed for a while? Nope. She was.
Did Green Lantern not pick up EXACTLY where it left off from before Flashpoint? Actually...it did.
It was actually also alluded to in Swamp Thing #1 that Superman still went through his whole "Death and Return" Saga

A wise man (Dennis Calero) actually put this pretty well for me. I can't give you a direct quote or anything, but it went something along the lines of: "As long as they keep the defining elements and moments that define these characters, and I mean the really important ones, like the Death of Gwen Stacy for Spider-Man or Death in the Family for Batman/Jason Todd, is it really important that they keep this story that happened in issue #579 of Batman where he meets a new villainess named Orca, or any stories like it that most fans forget?"

These are the things that define the characters? So Zod is the same as Superman because they are both from Krypton, Lex Luthor the same as Batman because they were both orphans? Events are not characters. Personalities are characters. This Barbara Gordon may have been shot by the Joker, but that does not make her similar in any way to the older versions of Barbara Gordon. This one's life is defined by TKJ. Oracle's was not.

[Master X]

That's actually not true. People who didn't support the reboot said that it was hemorrhaging a massive amount of readers because they wanted it to. But then, the numbers came out and told a completely different story: that the New 52 was just stabilizing.

...and still stabilizing 14 issues later? <_<

And of course some fans quit; is that REALLY up for discussion? Have fans quit since? OF COURSE. Are things still dropping and dropping? OF COURSE. Is everything but those top lot doing average or lower? OF COURSE. Will this top lot be average this time next year? MOST LIKELY.

I know DC cancelled titles all the time BEFORE, but they're going crazy this time. Those top titles keep dropping and dropping and all that's being added to bump sales is titles they have ABSOLUTELY NO FAITH IN. People are realizing these new wave titles have nearly no chance of sticking; so much has been thrown at the wall, the wall has crumbled and crashed. Even family titles that aren't the main title are doing average (how are Green Lantern ones doing worse? ON LESS ISSUES? NOTE: not talking about main title, family tie-ins I'm on about).

Most titles are still riding off their "advertised relaunch 1s". That's fine, but it's artificial and not stable. And replacement titles are being shown to not be "sticking". I'd say Threshold may stick (GL-related), but what hope even in that context does it have when other GL family is falling? JLA will be hit and miss. Could go big or could tank. Wave before, Batman INC was the only sticker, but even though that did good sales, it didn't do what it should have due to obvious reasons.

They're still in the same situation as they were pre-reboot. Just they're slightly ahead in sales (on SOME comics), which isn't staying. They did nothing to stabilize their business longterm, just give it a boost by buzz, while ultimately destabilizing their in-comic story structure and fan base. Face it; the in-comic universe structure was finally stable. Now it's balls to the wall all over the place again. There were bad issues/stories, but there are now. there were bad selling series, but there are now. All easily correctible. Look at them now; a story is bad they simply bring new writers in. Why did that not occur to them before...? Bad selling titles with no hope get cancelled. They were given more chance before. Why? To finish a story off and show faith to the customer/fan. Do we get that courtesy now? Not as much, it's not treating well for the fan base.

^Face it, the real seller of the NU52 was advertising and the buzz/relaunched number 1s and new fresh story arcs. The reboot history nuke barely even factors in. The amount of readers the history nuke added probably accounts to less new customers than the history nuke caused it to lose. Marvel is proving this. DC cut it's arms off to stop the infection spreading, but then forgot to patch the stubs up and is now slowly bleeding to death.

[tony ingram]

These are the things that define the characters? So Zod is the same as Superman because they are both from Krypton, Lex Luthor the same as Batman because they were both orphans? Events are not characters. Personalities are characters. This Barbara Gordon may have been shot by the Joker, but that does not make her similar in any way to the older versions of Barbara Gordon. This one's life is defined by TKJ. Oracle's was not.

Personality and history, I'd say. And a person's experiences and how they react to them shape their personality.

[Zeeguy91]

These are the things that define the characters? So Zod is the same as Superman because they are both from Krypton, Lex Luthor the same as Batman because they were both orphans? Events are not characters. Personalities are characters. This Barbara Gordon may have been shot by the Joker, but that does not make her similar in any way to the older versions of Barbara Gordon. This one's life is defined by TKJ. Oracle's was not.

Actually, I'd say that a lot of people would believe that the fact that Superman and Zod are both from Krypton would be a defining attribute for both. It makes Zod into a menacing villain because he has all of Superman's powers. Zod's origin of being a Kryptonian general also defines his personality. The character is defined as being a military general of Krypton who had dictatorial aspirations and was, in some way, shape, or form, stopped by Superman's father, Jor-El. Therefore, he has a grudge against the House of El.

And you're right. Personality does define a character more than history, but their origin or at least the super important events in their lives define how they act. Jason still has a grudge against Batman because of the aftermath of what happened in Death in the Family and Under the Hood. Likewise, a character like Barry Allen as Flash is defined by being struck by that lightning bolt in his laboratory and being doused with chemicals. That's just as important as his personality of being a meticulous, dedicated cop. As long as some of those essential characteristics make it through, then the core of the characters stay intact