Has a full reboot ever been successfully accomplished in the DCU?

[Carabas]

I mean gratuitously screwing around with the fundamentals of the comic. I don't want to rag on specific writers, so I gave the hypothetical example of not telling us that the star has a super-hero brother who we never knew about or that the Joker killed his parents.

That's making the comic about you, because you're hoping that when people talk about the comic 50 years from now, they'll mention that you introduced that stuff.

Writers who want to make a name for themselves know better than to try and do that at DC or Marvel.

Also, one of the all-time most popular versions of Batman had his parents killed by the Joker.

[Trey Strain]

Writers who want to make a name for themselves know better than to try and do that at DC or Marvel.

Also, one of the all-time most popular versions of Batman had his parents killed by the Joker.

Maybe you can do that in Batman, because it's hard to make people stop buying that property. Keep it out of everything else.

Why keep revising the origin? It's only because a writer has no stories to write. It's the same thing with killing off a character.

The New 52 was not a "debacle," but in general, the way DC did the reboots in the New 52 didn't click. And the slow-motion Geoffcon style of reboot that Geoff Johns did in Green Lantern didn't click either.

Reboots need to be dome with a scalpel, not a machete.

[Anthony Shaw]

Mostly, yes. But what they need to focus on is taking out the rubbish that has accumulated over the years.

For example,. if I were to reboot Green Lantern, I'd have the four Earth Lanterns get their rings at the same time and call them equals, and I'd leave it for someone else to deal with Baz and Cruz. And I'd firmly establish Sinestro as the piece's primal villain because I hate the effort to turn him into a hero.

That's not gratuitous. It's designed to generate better stories and to sell more comics. That's what the writer needs to do.

I honestly think the attempts to make Sinestro a hero, or anti-hero (given his flat out evil history) is an example of Geoff making the GL run about him.

I enjoy his shamelessly evil history. However, Johns' attempts to make him cool/heroic/misunderstood/noble to the detriment of Hal (and even Kyle) was a bad decision for the franchise.

Johns did that with Black Adam, seemingly making him more relevant than Shazam.

[CaptCleghorn]

I honestly think the attempts to make Sinestro a hero, or anti-hero (given his flat out evil history) is an example of Geoff making the GL run about him.

I enjoy his shamelessly evil history. However, Johns' attempts to make him cool/heroic/misunderstood/noble to the detriment of Hal (and even Kyle) was a bad decision for the franchise.

Johns did that with Black Adam, seemingly making him more relevant than Shazam.

Now, I'm not as into the Green Lantern mythos as many of you, but wasn't Sinestro once a Green Lantern, called the "greatest of them all" before he went over the edge? No retcons there, that was all Silver Age material. Sinestro's quest for redemption and Hal's concern that as a current "greatest of them all" he might fall down the same path seem like very obvious story ideas to me.

And the villains are quite often more interesting than the heroes. They draw our interest and inspire actors to play them.

[Anthony Shaw]

Now, I'm not as into the Green Lantern mythos as many of you, but wasn't Sinestro once a Green Lantern, called the "greatest of them all" before he went over the edge? No retcons there, that was all Silver Age material. Sinestro's quest for redemption and Hal's concern that as a current "greatest of them all" he might fall down the same path seem like very obvious story ideas to me.

And the villains are quite often more interesting than the heroes. They draw our interest and inspire actors to play them.

You are right about the silver age stuff. The thing is, Sinestro was never really a good guy. He was always corrupt, even as the GOAT Green Lantern. He was just good at keeping his dirt on the down low. After he was exposed, Sinestro did a lot of wicked stuff in the 1980s.

It was Geoff that made Sinestro responsible for Hal's fall from grace. All that cosic madness Hal did as Parallax was the result of Sinestro's petty revenge. As Parallax, Hal almost warped reality completely. All that because Hal blew the whistle on Sinestro being a dirty cop. Sinestro was also responsible for the murder of Kyle's mom during the SCW.

Some characters are just rotten to the core. Trying to make Sinestro sympathetic is more a reflection of the writer than progressing the franchise.

Geoff wrote Zoom killing Barry Allen's mom as an unnecessary means to give the hero angst (and show how evil Thawne is). Geoff also wrote Sinestro being behind the death of Kyle's mom, yet that was kinda swept under the rug.

He sure likes to kill mothers.

Perhaps Kyle should counsel Bruce on how to get over stuff.

How much evil can one perpetrate, face zero repercussions from it, and then decide he's not all that bad?

I understand what you mean about the villains, but the hoops writers go through to make them cool should not be done at the expense of the heroes looking underdeveloped, or passive.

This stuff is part of the reason why I gave up on the X-Men.

[Daniel22]

Mostly, yes. But what they need to focus on is taking out the rubbish that has accumulated over the years.

For example,. if I were to reboot Green Lantern, I'd have the four Earth Lanterns get their rings at the same time and call them equals, and I'd leave it for someone else to deal with Baz and Cruz. And I'd firmly establish Sinestro as the piece's primal villain because I hate the effort to turn him into a hero.

That's not gratuitous. It's designed to generate better stories and to sell more comics. That's what the writer needs to do.

I don't see the difference between that and the examples you listed... In both cases the author is changing the history and mythos in a way they think is creatively interesting and fertile.
I think it's presumptuous to assume writers motives without any evidence to back it up. Do you really think authors at DC and Marvel don't have a major interest in selling more comics and telling better stories also?

[SixSpeedSamurai]

I honestly still think there was nothing wrong with CoIE and ZH that needed further rebooting. It was undone because of nostalgia for the Silver Age by Johns and Didio. We certainly didn't need New 52.

[Daniel22]

Now, I'm not as into the Green Lantern mythos as many of you, but wasn't Sinestro once a Green Lantern, called the "greatest of them all" before he went over the edge? No retcons there, that was all Silver Age material. Sinestro's quest for redemption and Hal's concern that as a current "greatest of them all" he might fall down the same path seem like very obvious story ideas to me.

And the villains are quite often more interesting than the heroes. They draw our interest and inspire actors to play them.

I agree, the villains are more interesting to me also. I also have no interest in reading stories about 100% Good Guys against 100% Bad Guys. I don't want to see a return to the late 80's/early 90's where they were almost indistinguishable, but the idea that the hero has to be pure and the villain has to be completely evil is outdated and boring to me at this point. Sinestro as an evil guy who's evil and does evil things isn't as interesting to me as flawed man who has good motives and questionable means.

[Trey Strain]

I don't see the difference between that and the examples you listed... In both cases the author is changing the history and mythos in a way they think is creatively interesting and fertile.
I think it's presumptuous to assume writers motives without any evidence to back it up. Do you really think authors at DC and Marvel don't have a major interest in selling more comics and telling better stories also?

Let's say I was rebooting Captain America, and I proclaimed that he had always been an agent of Hydra.

Now maybe I did that because I really and truly believed it would improve the property. But I would be a moron to think so.

[Trey Strain]

Sinestro was never "the greatest Green Lantern" until Johns said so.

[Buried Alien]

Sinestro was never "the greatest Green Lantern" until Johns said so.

He did have a very solid claim to "greatest GREEN LANTERN franchise villain," though.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Buried Alien]

I honestly still think there was nothing wrong with CoIE and ZH that needed further rebooting. It was undone because of nostalgia for the Silver Age by Johns and Didio. We certainly didn't need New 52.

Characters getting slaughtered and dismembered is part of no Silver Age of which I'm aware.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Daniel22]

Let's say I was rebooting Captain America, and I proclaimed that he had always been an agent of Hydra.

Now maybe I did that because I really and truly believed it would improve the property. But I would be a moron to think so.

Calling someone a moron because they wrote a story you didn't like doesn't advance the conversation.. I was hoping you could help me understand what you meant when you used the "writers making it about themselves" phrase but I don't think that's going to happen. Thank you for the responses.

[titanfan]

Instead, when many writers and editors hear the word "reboot," they rub their hands with glee and think, "Now I get to prove I'm better than the creator of this property and to leave my mark on it."

I'm super cynical, but I don't think that's what their thinking. Their really thinking about future rights fees. If they change a big part of characters' origin, or introduce a new Wonder Girl/Aqualad/Killer Frost/etc, now they get to pick up residuals every time their version of that character is used in a future cartoon or movie.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Characters getting slaughtered and dismembered is part of no Silver Age of which I'm aware.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Bringing back the multiverse, Barry, etc. The violence is a sign of the times unfortunately.