February 2019 sales

[Sacred Knight]

The mission statement is the same thing it's always been since Identity Crisis. It is Didio's mission statement. He literally has said he doesn't want or like happy heroes. I just don't get how you read things like Superboy, Teen Titans, New 52 superman, Azzarello Wonder Woman and think "oh yes this is modernized!" Nothing was modern about it, not any more modern than it was the year prior. It was just grimmer with darker themes, moodier and angrier characters, and a general harkening back to the 90s but with more focus on "maturity" and I say maturity in the most sarcastic and mocking way possible.

Rebirth tried to be different because, at the outset, it was headed by someone with different line running opinions than Didio. It was fairly obvious. Then Johns lost his power, Didio gained it back, and things went immediately back to the same stuff we've been getting since 2005.

The New 52's DNA is fundamentally the same thing as it was late into Post-Crisis because everything runs through Didio's opinions. New 52 was just what he was trying to do post-Identity Crisis without any of the years of history making it a transition. It just all happened at once, suddenly, and incredibly grimly.

Like seriously, you say the word "modernization." Tell me what that means. I'd be happy to tell you what dark and edgy and mature examples I have. I just want to know what about The New 52 launch was modern where the line wasn't a couple years prior.

You and I just see things very differently then. I see a stark difference in tone from 2004-2011 and 2011-2016. I wasn't seeing rapes nor many incidences of established heroes going evil and killing other characters and the like. Not to say it was bereft of "dark" moments but no era is, even Rebirth had some. If you felt absolutely no differences, then that pretty much is that. What will my examples matter then? I'd be happy to provide them too but it's not going to change anything, we'll just be going back and forth in a monotonous circle that changes neither of our minds.

[Dred]

You and I just see things very differently then. I see a stark difference in tone from 2004-2011 and 2011-2016. I wasn't seeing rapes nor many incidences of established heroes going evil and killing other characters and the like. Not to say it was bereft of "dark" moments but no era is, even Rebirth had some. If you felt absolutely no differences, then that pretty much is that. What will my examples matter then? I'd be happy to provide them too but it's not going to change anything, we'll just be going back and forth in a monotonous circle that changes neither of our minds.

You weren't seeing rapes? Aside from, you know, Wonder Woman's entire backstory and history being a rape society of career rapists? You didn't see Bart Allen get turned into a religious space terrorist and mass murderer? You didn't see Superboy become a murderous monster?

It's not just that stuff, mind you. Stuff like retconning Superman into his parents being dead his entire career, or changing Barry Allen such that central city hated The Flash instead of building a Museum to him. Or, everyone's favorite criticism, Starfire in Red Hood. Just generally more edgy, dark nonsense across the board. The only major title I can say bucked that trend, amusingly, was Aquaman. Got better and more fun than it's previous incarnations. One of the few titles that demonstrably got better in the transition. Funnily enough, written by Johns. And obviously some stuff just stayed the same because it didn't get really rebooted, like Batman and GL, so I don't know how they got modernized either. With the exception of Tim Drake because lol, they did everything they could to edge him up. I just don't see how you can see the transition and think nah, The New 52 didn't try to go full faux mature edgelord.

"What will my examples matter?" I don't know man, give me some. I'm willing to hear you out. I'm just wondering why you think 2011 was more modern than 2009 aside from the date in the corner. I'm happy to give you examples a plenty. I said a thing, and gave examples of the thing. You said a thing and went "It doesn't matter if I show you anything!" If something is so obvious it'd be real easy to scrounge up some proof. The only example I can think of is maybe, kind of, JSA but then they just made a bunch of new characters who weren't the JSA and took out the thing that made them the JSA so even that's a bit messy.

[leo619]

I wouldn't mind Jon Kent gone. I mean, I've accepted him, but I wouldn't cry if he disappeared tomorrow. And in the beginning yeah it was because of the New 52 because I in general liked that Superman and was sad to see him go. In that vein, you could substitute any new character in for Jon and I would have held something against that character intrinsically just because of the representation of the ending of an era I didn't want to end. With time its morphed into more than just a "not my preferred era" anymore. Mainly its just I don't like Superman as a biological father in a main canon and likely never will at this point. Its just something to accept as a reality and endure, really. I mean, I'm somewhat enjoying what Bendis is doing with him right now for instance. It still doesn't make me like the concept, but I can follow it.

That's just one window into one mind of a person who doesn't like a certain thing though. Its certainly not necessarily indicative of anyone else but me.

Jon was a controversial decisions among Superman fans in general, but New 52 Superman were the most angry about, at least that was the case a year ago, especially because Tomasi put too much focus on him during his run. That probably changed (last time that i checked fans were enjoying Bendis run, but i haven't read anything Superman related since AC 1000), but it definetly was a thing for a while.

But that's the difference I'm referring to. There's a difference between not caring if a character is gone, or disliking a character, and actually advocating for a character to be removed. I'm was not surprised at all that Jon was a controversial decision, especially since new 52 superman was essentially removed and this is the only superman we have currently on this earth. But while there was definitely backlash to the character, I didn't see a thread with multitude of pages saying Jon needs to be sent to limbo, killed, whatever. And that's the difference.

For example, I dislike current Thor as I much preferred Jane Foster as Thor. If current Thor was killed to bring Jane Foster back, I wouldn't mind at all. But I'm not going to go multiple different threads, begging for Thor to get killed in front of all of these current Thor fans, because that's selfish and unnecessary when it's clearly obvious current Thor has his own set of fans.

[Sacred Knight]

You weren't seeing rapes? Aside from, you know, Wonder Woman's entire backstory and history being a rape society of career rapists? You didn't see Bart Allen get turned into a religious space terrorist and mass murderer? You didn't see Superboy become a murderous monster?

It's not just that stuff, mind you. Stuff like retconning Superman into his parents being dead his entire career, or changing Barry Allen such that central city hated The Flash instead of building a Museum to him. Or, everyone's favorite criticism, Starfire in Red Hood. Just generally more edgy, dark nonsense across the board. The only major title I can say bucked that trend, amusingly, was Aquaman. Got better and more fun than it's previous incarnations. One of the few titles that demonstrably got better in the transition. Funnily enough, written by Johns. And obviously some stuff just stayed the same because it didn't get really rebooted, like Batman and GL, so I don't know how they got modernized either. With the exception of Tim Drake because lol, they did everything they could to edge him up. I just don't see how you can see the transition and think nah, The New 52 didn't try to go full faux mature edgelord.

"What will my examples matter?" I don't know man, give me some. I'm willing to hear you out. I'm just wondering why you think 2011 was more modern than 2009 aside from the date in the corner. I'm happy to give you examples a plenty. I said a thing, and gave examples of the thing. You said a thing and went "It doesn't matter if I show you anything!" If something is so obvious it'd be real easy to scrounge up some proof. The only example I can think of is maybe, kind of, JSA but then they just made a bunch of new characters who weren't the JSA and took out the thing that made them the JSA so even that's a bit messy.

K, I'll offer some rebutes.

Wonder Woman's society had nothing to do with rape. Their deal was consensual sex with sailors to conceive and then they were murdered. I mean, is murder bad? Yes. Were these Amazons distasteful? Yes. But they weren't rapists. That's revisionist history to try and place an extra crime on them that they did not commit. They weren't good people, they were killers, but just because they were one bad thing doesn't make them another bad thing.

I dropped TT early on, but I hated the Bart Allen fiasco too. Bear in mind I never said New 52 never had foul ups.

Superboy didn't become a murderous monster, an alternate version of him did.

Superman's parents being dead his entire career is classic Superman. There's nothing inherently dark about that. Classically Superman always lost his parents early on and they provided inspiration to him in spirit. That's not a New 52 idea, that's a pre-Crisis idea.

Some examples of things being less dark: Arsenal no longer lost an arm and swung dead cats around. The Dibneys weren't dead, Sue having never been brutally raped then later killed by an insane old friend. Jason Todd all around was much less dark, going into anti-hero territory as opposed to anti-villain. Superman and Batman were genuine best friends again, none of that post-Crisis frenemy crap.

[Frontier]

Disagree entirely, the differences between power girl and supergirl is no greater than the differences between Earth 2 and classic JSA. You only need to read Earth 2 to see how drastically different that world is
in comparison to the JSA. Hell, Pre-52 Wally West/New-52 Wally West is less different than either two scenario's, and they exist on the exact same earth.

I mean, I think any argument over distinctions is moot since it's not like DC gave fans options between Earth-2 and the classic JSA or allowed them to co-exist like Supergirl and Power Girl do.

Disagree, the relationship started to expand after new wally got his powers. Though I will agree the first instance of it going down was when Barry knew Daniel West was his dad, but they rebuilt a bit until essentially the flash war arc.

Yeah, during the Rebirth run.

Wallace was pretty consistently featured in the book right up until Flash War, as you said.

I'd say he got a lot more panel time and focus then OG!Wally did until Perfect Storm going into Flash War.

Definitely not, it happened again during the new 52 for sure, but that's definitely not the only time.

But it was a main sticking point of the New 52 roster.

I mean, even the Rebirth standing roster was more diverse by comparison...

And what, Classic Fans are the ultimate judge in determining if a certain concept or character is problematic? Give me a break...

I mean, no fans can really be the ultimate judge of whether something is good or not or whether it's problematic...but that's what debate is for.

Wait what? I'm not sure what you're eluding to here.

Just from what I've seen people who talk about Cyborg only care about the New 52 in regards to realizing this potential with Cyborg that never actually happened.

The New 52 Teen Titans, nope.

I don't think many people were actually a fans of the New 52 Teen Titans. Lobdell's tenure on the book is almost universally seen as a huge low point for the franchise aside from, like, one character (Bunker).

So Much Mythos and history taken away? Nope, again, classic fan talk.

Again, there are many different shades of "classic fans."

But I don't think there were very many characters, including minority characters, who benefited from being rebooted back to scratch.

And again, we circle back to my original statement of concept vs execution. Just because New 52 as a concept was partially designed to increase diversity, does not mean the execution performed guaranteed them to be successful.
It's as I stated during the entire thread, but that doesn't change the intent and concepts behind the implementation of the new 52. Concepts =/= execution.

It's hard to disassociate the two. Good or interesting ideas on paper are often reviled if they fall improper or bad execution and degrade the value of the concepts.

People were super excited about Mr.Terrific having his own book, especially since this coming off of the goodwill Geoff Johns did to Mr.Terrific from JSA. And then the execution was delivered that left.... a lot to be desired. There's a reason the writer almost never had a DC project after his Mr. Terrific stint.

And it's too bad we lost that Mr. Terrific thanks to the New 52 reboot.

DC has specifically stated part of the new 52 initiative was to advance diversity. So I'm not sure why you're refusing to accept this fact.

http://sequart.org/magazine/1324/the...y-the-numbers/

I'm not refusing to accept the fact, I just don't think this is something that required the New 52 to happen...I mean, most of these are books for characters who already had solo's during the Post-Crisis era, and even in the New 52 I don't think DC supported them that much.

Please indicate links indicating where new 52 fans specifically want jon kent gone. I have not seen that, nor steve trevor.

Most of the review threads for Peter J. Tomasi's Superman run, or even some of Jurgens' Action run.

The threads discussing Rucka's Rebirth run in the Wonder Woman threads.

Superman's parents being dead his entire career is classic Superman. There's nothing inherently dark about that. Classically Superman always lost his parents early on and they provided inspiration to him in spirit. That's not a New 52 idea, that's a pre-Crisis idea.

I'd say the way the deaths happened was pretty dark, as well as how their deaths were implented as far as effecting New 52 Supes' personality.

Superman and Batman were genuine best friends again, none of that post-Crisis frenemy crap.

I honestly thought they came off more as genuine friends over time in Post-Crisis then they did in the New 52.

They honestly felt more like frenemies initially in JL and in Pak's Batman/Superman run then they did genuine best friends.

I don't think the best friends label fit until much later in the New 52.

[Dred]

K, I'll offer some rebutes.

Wonder Woman's society had nothing to do with rape. Their deal was consensual sex with sailors to conceive and then they were murdered. I mean, is murder bad? Yes. Were these Amazons distasteful? Yes. But they weren't rapists. That's revisionist history to try and place an extra crime on them that they did not commit. They weren't good people, they were killers, but just because they were one bad thing doesn't make them another bad thing.

I dropped TT early on, but I hated the Bart Allen fiasco too. Bear in mind I never said New 52 never had foul ups.

Superboy didn't become a murderous monster, an alternate version of him did.

Superman's parents being dead his entire career is classic Superman. There's nothing inherently dark about that. Classically Superman always lost his parents early on and they provided inspiration to him in spirit. That's not a New 52 idea, that's a pre-Crisis idea.

Some examples of things being less dark: Arsenal no longer lost an arm and swung dead cats around. The Dibneys weren't dead, Sue having never been brutally raped then later killed by an insane old friend. Jason Todd all around was much less dark, going into anti-hero territory as opposed to anti-villain. Superman and Batman were genuine best friends again, none of that post-Crisis frenemy crap.

I was talking about examples of being more modern, but I'll bite.

Bart is just one particular section of the Teen Titans itself being a giant edgelord mess. They somehow made Raven darker than normal and her schtick is already being super dark.

Sorry, yes, Superboy wasn't a murderous monster, he was just a mind controlled weapon or something.

Superman's parents went from alive and wholesome to dead and broody Clark. Classic comics weren't really worried about tone or message outside of silly story arcs. You can't conflate the two and say they're exactly the same. And if your argument is New 52 Superman is totally just classic Superman then there goes your modernity.

I'll give you Arsenal and the Dibnys, though that is because the reboot reverted back to a time before those things happened, it didn't lose the tone. A bad thing not happening yet isn't the same, especially considering they were the world's happiest couple before Identity Crisis and Secret Six didn't really bring that back, just made them fucked up in a different way. Roy was still going down the same path. I don't get how half your examples are literally Red Hood and the Outlaws, the biggest eyesore in the New 52 when it comes to faux maturity nonsense.

Superman and Batman had, like, best friend comics post crisis. Literally called Batman/Superman. Batman sniping at people angrily happens in all post-miller incarnations regardless.

[Frontier]

I'll give you Arsenal and the Dibnys, though that is because the reboot reverted back to a time before those things happened, it didn't lose the tone. A bad thing not happening yet isn't the same, especially considering they were the world's happiest couple before Identity Crisis and Secret Six didn't really bring that back, just made them fucked up in a different way. Roy was still going down the same path. I don't get how half your examples are literally Red Hood and the Outlaws, the biggest eyesore in the New 52 when it comes to faux maturity nonsense.

This article goes into detail about the problems with New 52 Roy.

[Sacred Knight]

Sorry, yes, Superboy wasn't a murderous monster, he was just a mind controlled weapon or something.

Incorrect. That's what he was created for, but he never did it. Only the Jon Lane Kent alternate Superboy was a murderer and put that into practice. The actual New 52 Conner was never that. It wasn't a particularly good comic, at least not after the initial origin arc; it ended up doing a lot of stupid convoluted things, but the main Kon-El was no darker than he was when Johns turned him into an emo mope designed to be controlled by Lex.

Superman's parents went from alive and wholesome to dead and broody Clark. Classic comics weren't really worried about tone or message outside of silly story arcs. You can't conflate the two and say they're exactly the same. And if your argument is New 52 Superman is totally just classic Superman then there goes your modernity.

New 52 Superman wasn't broody. He had some bite, but he didn't brood. He missed his parents, yes, but missing your parents isn't automatically being dark. Rebirth Superman's parents are still dead too, and he misses them in the same way. No one accuses him of being broody because of it. And yes I can conflate the two times because they did the exact same thing. The Kents died to serve Superman's growth as a character in the old days, and in the New 52. And it was done in both times to not create a dark character, but to create the a positive character. That can't just be dismissed as incomparable because old comics didn't worry so much about continuity. They still reflected characterization. And no, I never said he was just classic Superman, but you keep mistaking "being modern" as being my argument for what the New 52 actually was. I never said that. I said starting over and trying to be more modern was their mission statement. Theirs, not necessarily what I took from the era. Speaking of...

When you say you want examples of being more modern, I can only give you certain reflections on what I think they felt was more modern, and as a result to try and tap into a younger audience. My argument was only that it wasn't as dark and that darkness wasn't inherently nor specifically a focus. Hell I don't even think they totally succeeded in the execution of capturing that often. More than not I feel it was more on a superficial level, visual practices like the new costumes. Only occasionally did I see actual "modern" ideas in regards to plotlines, like ideas like Clark Kent joining forces with Cat Grant to do their journalism online on a blog. But that was what they were trying to do if they didn't always succeed. I brought it up only because I see that as a focus not being something necessarily steeped in darkness. Not to say we didn't get some dark stuff. But you always get some dark stuff. Rebirth had Lois Lane get a leg torn off. Ended up not being real but it was portrayed and visualized and thought real for a few issues. But compared to the tone of constant darkness, from what I read, the New 52 moved away from it to a degree. Rebirth did further. But neither were as bad.

[Dred]

Are you just a super big Lobdell fan? That seems to be your avenue of defense. Lobdell is like, the most obvious examples of everything I'm talking about but you're acting like everything he was writing was somehow not what everyone acknowledges it as.

I don't know what classic values you think New 52 Superman was bringing into modernity but what I saw was a jackass, punch first, wannabe Mr. Majestic who failed to embody most of Superman's most superlative traits that make him stand out as the quintessential hero in favor of being more morose.

[Sacred Knight]

Huh? I mentioned two plot points the guy wrote. It happened to be relevant to the discussion, and a coincidence. How do you take that and dumb it down to I'm just a big Lobdell fan? In point of fact I'm actually not. I think he's wrote a couple decent DC books, but that's about it and entirely neither here nor there. And likewise I don't and never will see the point of view of anyone who only saw a jackass, punch first wannabe Mr. Majestic (Mr. Majestic is a wannabe Superman). He embodied all the most meaningful traits of Superman to my eyes. Just like all other main incarnations of Superman did to a large degree beforehand and since. And obviously we're in disagreement in all that. Which is more than fine by me. I respect your differing opinion but will never share it.

[Dred]

Never once saw a New 52 Superman comic that inspired any hope or humility or significant love for humanity. Half the time he hated his lot in life when he wasn't smooching Wonder Woman or showing off. Just don't get how that's Superman.

[Sacred Knight]

I saw plenty.


Just one example, there's heaps more, no different than any other incarnation of the character.

[Frontier]

Pak was the only one who consistently wrote a really good New 52 Superman after Morrison left but even he could only salvage so much out of Truth.

But I don't think his work is honestly all that much of an overall reflection of the New 52 stuff as a whole.

[Sacred Knight]

I think it most certainly is. What Morrison and then Pak did was the backbone from where pretty much everyone else worked except the Superman title. But Action was always steady, and Soule's SM/WW and Batman/Superman co-existed well with what Action was doing. It was really just one title that was all over the map.

[Frontier]

I think its a strong reflection of the New 52 Superman, considering the length of time he worked on him, and how well he went off of the platform Morrison created. Action was always steady. So was Soule's SM/WW and Batman/Superman which co-existed well with what Action was doing. It was the Superman title that was the mess, mainly because of just way too much turnover.

That was probably the strongest era of the New 52 Superman books pre-Truth.