|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 1, 2019 22:01:58 GMT -5
And I think we lost that after COIE. The post-COIE Superman could never have flown about Metropolis while thinking about his fight with Muhammad Ali; pocket universes aside, the post-COIE Superman could never refer to the time he, as Superboy, took down Lex Luthor in Smallville; the post-COIE Superman could never refer to the time he faced Mister Miracle for bragging rights. And that's something DC and its characters haven't had for 33 years now - a legacy. Spawn has a richer history than Superman and if you're a new reader who wants to delve into everything going on with one of today's characters, is a far better choice than anything being published at DC where anything published five or so years ago is already past its due date. Besides, if a company has so many insecurities about its characters and so little confidence in its storytelling abilities that they have a panic attack over what it was doing just a few short months ago, why on Earth would anyone think they have anything of lasting value to offer with the next reboot? I can't think of any other medium which works in this way - are there TV shows out there for instance, where the producer comes right out and says, "Look, we're in Season Three and we really have no idea where this show is going, who the characters are, or how to write this stuff, so next year, we're going to just start from scratch like we did after Season One"? Well, rebooting after three years would be silly. But occasionally shows last for ten or twenty years and do hope for a reboot opportunity. Having just read a couple dozen recent Action Comics, I saw many references to Silver and Bronze Age continuity in the form of allusions, if not straightjacket history. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 1, 2019 22:09:12 GMT -5
And I think we lost that after COIE. The post-COIE Superman could never have flown about Metropolis while thinking about his fight with Muhammad Ali; pocket universes aside, the post-COIE Superman could never refer to the time he, as Superboy, took down Lex Luthor in Smallville; the post-COIE Superman could never refer to the time he faced Mister Miracle for bragging rights. And that's something DC and its characters haven't had for 33 years now - a legacy. Spawn has a richer history than Superman and if you're a new reader who wants to delve into everything going on with one of today's characters, is a far better choice than anything being published at DC where anything published five or so years ago is already past its due date. Besides, if a company has so many insecurities about its characters and so little confidence in its storytelling abilities that they have a panic attack over what it was doing just a few short months ago, why on Earth would anyone think they have anything of lasting value to offer with the next reboot? I can't think of any other medium which works in this way - are there TV shows out there for instance, where the producer comes right out and says, "Look, we're in Season Three and we really have no idea where this show is going, who the characters are, or how to write this stuff, so next year, we're going to just start from scratch like we did after Season One"? You put what I've been feeling about The rapid fire reboots perfectly. Zero Hour/Flashpoint/NU52/Rebirth. Ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Feb 1, 2019 23:14:34 GMT -5
For me, a set canon would seemingly work only if the characters in question were allowed to quit, age, retire, die or some combination therein. New characters, legacy characters would then become the focus and enhance the overall canon (one reason why I loved DC of the late 90s/00s) They expected their readership to change but never their characters. So they painted themselves into a static corner where reboots and relaunches have become the needed norm in order to sell books and make a profit. Who are they? You're right...there were certainly legacy characters in that time period (Wally/Flash, Kyle Raynor/GL, Conor Hawke/GA). But why were they scrapped and the SA versions brought back? Was it tanking sales? Was it editorial (though that seems more likely to be driven by sales) or was it because fan-boy writers wanted to play with the toys they grew up with instead of the then-current toys? One assumes that if the fans weren't on board with bringing back the old characters the Afterbirth mini's wouldn't have been successful. But I gather that they were. Though I don't know. We know that DC isn't going to let Superman not be Clark Kent and Batman be Bruce Wayne because...everyone knows those characters and their secret identities. With most of the rest of them, they're largely unknown to the man on the street. To me, this is another matter of comic book buyers getting what they pay for. The company reboots. Sales go up. Sales then level and start to fall. So the company reboots. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I was referring to the publishers in general but I can see your point about fanboy writers wanting to play with their favorite toys. In fact, I see that as one of the ongoing problems that continually plagues the X-franchise, new writers wanting to use their favorite X-characters regardless of actual age. By all rights, the New Mutants of the 80s should be the senior X-Men by this point except it's the classic characters Claremont made famous that is mostly used in some roster order to this day. Thus most of the new younger mutants that have cropped up over the last few decades can't acquire any real traction. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 2, 2019 1:18:31 GMT -5
Counterpoint: In order to survive long term, characters must be rebooted. Characters that aren't re-formated to fit the times periodically die off.
Keep in mind that Superman (And Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc...) had already been soft-rebooted multiple times before DC Comics Presents 11? 12?* came out, and plenty of canon was discarded.**
* I need to spend more time with my team-up books. That might even be issue 13.
** Especially with Bats and Supes plenty of the pre-crisis published stories don't jibe with either earth-one or earth-two continuity.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Feb 2, 2019 1:42:52 GMT -5
Having just read a couple dozen recent Action Comics, I saw many references to Silver and Bronze Age continuity in the form of allusions, if not straightjacket history. As a big fan of the Jack Schiff era of Batman (and I truly love a lot of these stories - I'm not one of those 'This is so bad it's good" type of readers) I took a look at Grant Morrison's run as it referenced several tales from the period. Although some people applauded the way he incorporated Robin Dies at Dawn, the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh, Bat-Mite, etc into the current guy's history, I thought it was a sad illustration of how easy it is to corrupt the essence of a character by perverting his history. Stories which once highlighted Batman's heroic, selfless nature were twisted to establish that no, no, Batman's actually just a crazy, angry sociopath. This  Becomes this for example  I suppose you could argue that as styles and interests change, so too will the way comics are written and therefore this isn't a continuity issue so much as it's a 'We're not living in 1958 anymore' matter. However, there's something rotten about rewriting stories so that they now serve as a black mark on a character's history rather than as a classic to remember. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 5:35:16 GMT -5
I find it hard to emotionally invest in things if I fear there's a reboot on the way. A friend of mine told me I should just enjoy a tale on its own merits - he may be right - but when something risks being scrapped, well...
I am one of five people on earth who likes the Suicide Squad movie (it's not without flaws, of course). Now I hear the sequel will be a soft reboot or whatever the current terminology is. Jeez, at least the Raimi/Webb Spidey films gave us a bit longer than ONE film. Why the hell did I invest emotionally in the first movie if the second movie is going to be a soft reboot with new characters?
I follow wrestling. Has wrestling had reboots? Not really. It is a unique form of entertainment. But it'd be boring if every few years, they stripped each champion of his/her belt and their January PPV event was started afresh with new tournaments, old rivalries forgotten, etc. Wrestling is neither fish nor fowl so I can't really compare it to comics, but I like how it just gets on with things for better or worse.
A friend and I had a bet when New 52 started about how long it would last. I sincerely hope DC stays away from reboots forever now.
I also do have a question: who are these "Crisis" events aimed at? Older readers like myself don't necessarily care or want to revisit the C-word numerous times, but a very young reader, who may not yet have come across COIE and its successors, wouldn't necessarily care, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 2, 2019 7:51:07 GMT -5
Having just read a couple dozen recent Action Comics, I saw many references to Silver and Bronze Age continuity in the form of allusions, if not straightjacket history. As a big fan of the Jack Schiff era of Batman (and I truly love a lot of these stories - I'm not one of those 'This is so bad it's good" type of readers) I took a look at Grant Morrison's run as it referenced several tales from the period. Although some people applauded the way he incorporated Robin Dies at Dawn, the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh, Bat-Mite, etc into the current guy's history, I thought it was a sad illustration of how easy it is to corrupt the essence of a character by perverting his history. Stories which once highlighted Batman's heroic, selfless nature were twisted to establish that no, no, Batman's actually just a crazy, angry sociopath. This Becomes this for example I suppose you could argue that as styles and interests change, so too will the way comics are written and therefore this isn't a continuity issue so much as it's a 'We're not living in 1958 anymore' matter. However, there's something rotten about rewriting stories so that they now serve as a black mark on a character's history rather than as a classic to remember. I just read Morrison's Zur-en-Arrh story for the first time five minutes ago! I haven't read the original, though. I didn't consider the "Batman of Zur-En-Arrh" a black mark; it was more a way of showing how awesome Batman is, that even when his enemies have turned him into a homeless junkie, he has backup plans within his backup plans within his backup plans; he has won before the battle begins due to superior preparation. And then dressing this story in Silver Age allusions to give something to the continuity fans. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 2, 2019 9:28:36 GMT -5
Comics have not been nearly as much fun for me since 1984 when all the first Crisis stuff started. I prefer the pre-Crisis DC Universe. Personally, the pre-Crisis DC Universe worked fine in some ways, and was a mess in others, but with no company-wide way (or desire) to clean up those messes / make sense of anything, I cannot see any other way the universe could have been straightened out other than the way it was handled (brilliantly, I might add) in COIE. As for the other reboots, etc., they were not worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 2, 2019 9:46:12 GMT -5
I find it hard to emotionally invest in things if I fear there's a reboot on the way. A friend of mine told me I should just enjoy a tale on its own merits - he may be right - but when something risks being scrapped, well... I am one of five people on earth who likes the Suicide Squad movie (it's not without flaws, of course). Now I hear the sequel will be a soft reboot or whatever the current terminology is. Jeez, at least the Raimi/Webb Spidey films gave us a bit longer than ONE film. Why the hell did I invest emotionally in the first movie if the second movie is going to be a soft reboot with new characters? I follow wrestling. Has wrestling had reboots? Not really. It is a unique form of entertainment. But it'd be boring if every few years, they stripped each champion of his/her belt and their January PPV event was started afresh with new tournaments, old rivalries forgotten, etc. Wrestling is neither fish nor fowl so I can't really compare it to comics, but I like how it just gets on with things for better or worse. A friend and I had a bet when New 52 started about how long it would last. I sincerely hope DC stays away from reboots forever now. I also do have a question: who are these "Crisis" events aimed at? Older readers like myself don't necessarily care or want to revisit the C-word numerous times, but a very young reader, who may not yet have come across COIE and its successors, wouldn't necessarily care, either. I’m genuinely curious if you have a hard time getting invested in a movie where there’s no chance of sequel? Can you enjoy say, Casablanca, as its own entity, without worrying what the future may bring? Even with a soft reboot, Suicide Squad still remains (more’s the pity), just as Morrison’s story doesn’t mean that the terrible story edited by Jack Sciff isn’t still there in the funnybook. I’m not trying to be difficult or snarky. I’m genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 2, 2019 9:52:27 GMT -5
I am one of five people on earth who likes the Suicide Squad movie (it's not without flaws, of course). Now I hear the sequel will be a soft reboot or whatever the current terminology is. Jeez, at least the Raimi/Webb Spidey films gave us a bit longer than ONE film. Why the hell did I invest emotionally in the first movie if the second movie is going to be a soft reboot with new characters? I don't know why you emotionally invested in that terrible movie, but I am glad to hear the next try will be from scratch. Join the rest of us in clamoring for a better approach that sets up the characters properly before throwing them together in another CGI fight cartoon that nobody cares about. DC's superhero comic books (crisis or otherwise) are aimed at the 50-60 year old male who's been reading them since he was a kid. They are created by writers in the same demographic who grew up reading silver age "Crisis" stories in JLA and want to carry the banner forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 10:03:03 GMT -5
The CGI battle in Suicide Squad was one of the flaws of the film.
To answer Slam's question, the difference nowadays is that even before a first movie is released, there's all this news, talking and green-lighting of sequels. So before the first film in some franchises has even been released, you know there'll be a 2nd, 3rd, etc. We are living in the age of the sequel.
I enjoyed 2001's The Fast and The Furious on its own merits. I was emotionally invested in it. I wasn't reading movie magazines or whatever at the time, so all I knew was that that was a film to be enjoyed. Of course, in 2019, I know it's a long-running franchise with many more instalments and spin-offs to come. So I am emotionally invested in it - and glad they aren't rebooting every five minutes.
Superhero films are neither fish nor fowl. Chances are that 99% of superhero films, if not 100%, are produced with the intention (even if not realised) of creating a franchise. I've read of how there were plans for sequels to 1984's Supergirl, 2003's Hulk, etc, etc. So it always feels like a superhero film is never going to be a standalone entity.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 2, 2019 10:05:10 GMT -5
I also do have a question: who are these "Crisis" events aimed at? Older readers like myself don't necessarily care or want to revisit the C-word numerous times, but a very young reader, who may not yet have come across COIE and its successors, wouldn't necessarily care, either. I read COIE in the 90's, probably a decade after it came out and I had absolutely no effing idea what was going on. But I enjoyed the story the same as Cosmic Odyssey or Infinity Gauntlet. To me, as a new reader, even if it were a decade late, I read it for the story it was. Not recognizing half the characters and not knowing there were multiple Earths in DC continuity. But the impact of the death of Supergirl, even though I hadn't read anything on the character, still impacted me. The story was well done, whether I understood the intent of it. Outside of more recent reboots changing things I personally read in time, I can usually enjoy a reboot for the story itself. COIE was one of those. It was just a good entertaining story to me. Heroes Reborn not so much because it almost immediately erased the changes Marvel agreed to do letting the four flagship titles go to Imagine writers and artists. So it much stunk of a publicity stunt than it did an actual attempt at "fixing" things. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 2, 2019 10:45:46 GMT -5
I am one of five people on earth who likes the Suicide Squad movie (it's not without flaws, of course). Now I hear the sequel will be a soft reboot or whatever the current terminology is. Jeez, at least the Raimi/Webb Spidey films gave us a bit longer than ONE film. Why the hell did I invest emotionally in the first movie if the second movie is going to be a soft reboot with new characters? I don't know why you emotionally invested in that terrible movie, but I am glad to hear the next try will be from scratch. Join the rest of us in clamoring for a better approach that sets up the characters properly before throwing them together in another CGI fight cartoon that nobody cares about. Well, yeah. GOOD. A soft approach to canon means that the creative team can potentially start telling worthwhile stories, rather than be constrained by the terrible, awful, very bad, no good, poop-from-a-butt-ish set-up of the first movie, and don't have to waste their precious run-time explaining why they are discarding the terrible, awful, very bad, no good set of storytelling non-decisions and character non-relationships. Making a new movie which distances itself from material I am emotionally invested in hating makes me give it more of a chance. As a long time comics fan I enjoy the process of reinterpretation. German experssionist dark-noir '40s Batman turning into surrealist '50s giant-prop Batman being rebooted into Jack Schiff science fiction Batman turning into Carmine Infantino's sleek, detective/mystery-based New Look '60s Batman which gave way to the '70s Neal Adams world travelling only-seen-at-night-Batman.... that is fascinating to me. Every creator brings new ideas to a property, and with them keeps some old ideas and discards others. Ditko's objectivist, horror tinged crime stories about how hard it is to be a moral human in society change into John Romita's frotheier Archie-esque hard-luck-everyman soap operas, and both are really good. It was also a complete conceptual reboot, despite being - technically - in the same "canon." I'd go so far as to say that canon actively makes stories worse. Telling a story without knowing how long it's going to be or what the ending is or who is going to be working on the story in the future makes for, obviously, a bad story. The top-tier talents (Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman) are not going to want to play in other people's canon, and don't want to be constrained by the idiotic storytelling decisions that Geoff Johns or Judd Winnick made this week. So the top tier writers avoid writing in canon stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 10:57:55 GMT -5
I don't know why you emotionally invested in that terrible movie, but I am glad to hear the next try will be from scratch. Join the rest of us in clamoring for a better approach that sets up the characters properly before throwing them together in another CGI fight cartoon that nobody cares about. Well, yeah. GOOD. A soft approach to canon means that the creative team can potentially start telling worthwhile stories, rather than be constrained by the terrible, awful, very bad, no good, poop-from-a-butt-ish set-up of the first movie, and don't have to waste their precious run-time explaining why they are discarding the terrible, awful, very bad, no good set of storytelling non-decisions and character non-relationships. Making a new movie which distances itself from material I am emotionally invested in hating makes me give it more of a chance. As a long time comics fan I enjoy the process of reinterpretation. German experssionist dark-noir '40s Batman turning into surrealist '50s giant-prop Batman being rebooted into Jack Schiff science fiction Batman turning into Carmine Infantino's sleek, detective/mystery-based New Look '60s Batman which gave way to the '70s Neal Adams world travelling only-seen-at-night-Batman.... that is fascinating to me. Every creator brings new ideas to a property, and with them keeps some old ideas and discards others. Ditko's objectivist, horror tinged crime stories about how hard it is to be a moral human in society change into John Romita's frotheier Archie-esque hard-luck-everyman soap operas, and both are really good. It was also a complete conceptual reboot, despite being - technically - in the same "canon." I'd go so far as to say that canon actively makes stories worse. Telling a story without knowing how long it's going to be or what the ending is or who is going to be working on the story in the future makes for, obviously, a bad story. The top-tier talents (Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman) are not going to want to play in other people's canon, and don't want to be constrained by the idiotic storytelling decisions that Geoff Johns or Judd Winnick made this week. So the top tier writers avoid writing in canon stories. The reinvention of Batman over many decades is a good point, and one worthy of a topic of its own, I feel. It has been satisfying how Bats has been reinvented over many decades. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 2, 2019 12:27:19 GMT -5
Myself, I'm not a big fan of reboots in comics. Vast amounts of past continuity is one of the things particular to comics as a medium, and as far as I'm concerned, it's one of comics' biggest strengths.
With comics generally being published 12 times a year (or more if it's a weekly series like 2000 AD) one of the things that comic book series can do in a way that no other medium can, is build a LOT of continuity. I mean, with film series, you might have 4 or 5 movies a decade at best; with books it's probably about the same; with TV shows you might get a few seasons with, say, a dozen episodes each; but with comics -- especially long-lived comic characters like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, whose adventures span decades -- you have the potential for a level of continuity that is unrivaled in any other field of fiction that I can think of. When people say that they don't care for continuity in comics, that's perfectly fine, but I always feel like they're maybe missing a trick.
I'm kinda the same way about films too. I loved, for instance, that Brian Singer's Superman Returns was a continuation of the same Superman that Christopher Reeve played. That was a major selling point for me ahead of the film's release. Conversely, even before it became apparent that it was tonally all wrong, one of the things that put me off of Man of Steel was that it was a reboot. I just wasn't interested anymore.
Similarly, cinematic remakes, from Planet of the Apes to The Italian Job, or TV show reboots or re-imaginings like Battlestar Galactica or the Starsky & Hutch movie turn me off.
So yeah, personally, I don't like reboots. One of the things I come to comics for is continuity. If that's erased, so too is part of my interest.
|
|
