I have no issue with Gordon-bat, we know it's only one storyline. Some change and experimentation is always healthy. That one seems at first like a huge deal, then again, why no, if the story is fun and furthers what has come before since Snyder's debut.

I've always maintained that DC should essentially function under two imprints:

Continuity Driven: Have one imprint that is essentially like what DC is doing now -- things change, stuff happens, the status quo gets shaken to boost sales and generate hype.

Legacy Driven: Have one imprint that keeps the classic spirit of the characters intact. We've seen this tried intermittently with things like Legends of the Dark Knight, the All-Star titles, the Confidential titles, and even Wonder Woman '77, but do it more deliberately with the intent of pumping out monthly stories where characters and the status quo DO NOT change. Instead of being a simple retro stunt, this is where writers can thrive who want to tell GOOD stories without the shock and awe. A Paul Dini type writer, for example, could positively thrive here.


I think the readers would support this if it were done more deliberately and with more commitment behind it. Don't throw the D listers on the Legacy titles or (worse yet) give complete control of them to one A lister; don't make those titles pander to kids, mature readers, or any one small demographic. They should be all-ages awesomeness.


Thus, if you don't like the continuity-driven stuff, quit complaining. The Legacy titles are there for you. And if you crave change and progression in your titles, quit complaining; the Continuity driven titles are there for you.

Fans could have their cake and eat it too.

I actually really like what they're doing with Superman and Action, depowering him has made physical confrontations interesting and what they end up doing with his identity being revealed is pretty compelling.

As for Robobats, I'm contemplating dropping Batman but I've really enjoying the focus on Bullock in Detective with Robobat as more of a supporting character.

I was a faithful reader of Superman and Action Comics before the New 52. I read Superboy and Supergirl as well. After the new 52 started, those characters became very unlikable and unfamiliar to me.
Granted I am over 40 and it seems DC is aiming for the younger audience, but as a long-time DC reader, I feel very alienated from their current publications and the current take on these characters. I guess I am a grumpy old man, haha! I only read Grayson now, mainly because it is a fun, well written, and beautifully drawn book. I am also picking up the new Lois and Clark series and Titans Hunt.

The only problem is that in the current marketplace the only books that sell are books that "matter" hence the event driven tentpole strategy both the big 2 use. Books like Shax would be great, but their is nothing in current buying trends to indicate that the current crop of comic buyers would buy them and there is no infrastructure in place to bring them to a different audience that might support them, so it would take a huge capital investment by both publishers to build such an infrastructure, and we all know that is not going to happen under Didio/Alonso, or under anyone who has to show certain levels of profit margin to corporate accountants in quarterly reports after their tenures.

Until their is a different zeitgeist among the audience, that kind of publishing plan would never get off the ground. The 18-34 demographic drives media revenue and the audience that would support the types of books Shax proposes is typically beyond that demo now.
I'd love to see them, won't happen in my lifetime I'd bet, and not just because of Didio, but because of the choices audiences make as to what to support. Comic audiences over the last decade plus have shown given a choice between a book that matters and one that doesn't regardless of creative team, the one that "matters" will sell and the one that doesn't won't. Creating a whole line of books that don't "matter" the way the current audience defines it, is not a recipe for success in the current market, and there's not really a way to change their minds or reach a different market that works for what each publisher is willing to do.

As for the current direction of DC, I sampled a lot of books in the first 18 months of the new52, but dropped my last book after Villains month interrupted the few stories I was actually interested in. I tried a few of the "Batgirled" titles (Batgirl, Gotham Academy, & Gotham by Midnight) and enjoyed what I sampled from the library, but not enough to follow the books in any way except checking out stuff from the library if/when they get it. I may check out the new Dr. Fate and Omega Men-and possibly the Canary book) in trade, but nothing else in the Johns/Lee guided Didio supervised DC paradigm interests me and hasn't for a long time. Neither has the Earth One attempts to do something different because they fall squarely into the Johns/Lee/Didio paradigm, there are cosmetic differences but the underlying tone and theme of those books is the same as the "mainstream" DCU under their supervision. Their new direction is same as it ever was under that trio.

-M

Huh. I just read a BUNCH of Superman Post-52 stuff and it all felt very on-point with the depiction of Superman. (Not particularly GOOD, all of it, but it definitely felt like Superman to me.)

Still, it's always nice to hear that DC is aiming at a younger audience. It is pretty ridiculous to make superhero comics for dudes my age.