Wishes for a Reboot..

[Vakanai]

It's not a deal breaker for me necessarily but if they're going to do it I would prefer the Chris Kent method where he more or less stays out of the way rather than follow his dad on adventures. Let Superman be Superman. I don't think I've bought a mainstream Superman comic in something like two years. I thought about picking up the Lois book when it comes out but I also don't want to reward behavior I don't agree with either. I'm still mad about the whole New 52 thing not working out.

Meh, mainstream books are overrated. I prefer many of the non-continuity stories myself, or stuff that's not in continuity any longer, or...
Yeah, still plenty of new-to-newish Superman content that avoids going all in on the superson. The recent Man and Superman was a great read.
(It helps I don't feel the need to read what's going on every month, and just focus and collecting the stories that interest me.)

[scary harpy]

You might be able to if you clearly define for EVERYBODY (including the readers!) what is and what isn't still considered "canon" for any past continuity.

Hell, one of DC's biggest screw-ups with the New52 was the loosey-goosey, undefined "five year" bit where nobody knew what was and what wasn't still in continuity or not. (The most obvious example of that was the mess regarding whether there had been or hadn't been any previous versions of the "Teen Titans" in that five year window, something that wasn't clarified until after a few issues were already published referring to past groups before anybody clearly said they hadn't existed!)

You are absolutely correct.

But they don't do that.

[Vakanai]

Many more than you think.

The way DC treated Barbara was disgraceful.

I don't find Oracle more interesting than Batgirl; I also didn't grow up with her as Oracle...or Jason dead. Both a huge GrimDark mistake.

My point exactly, not everyone agrees on what is necessary or important to the continuity. Whether you reboot, hard reboot, or noboot (noboot is a word now, I made it, accept it), it's still all going to be individual preferences. My preference just so happens to be either hard reboot or giving up on the forever going shared continuity altogether (unpopular preference, but I'm chill with that).

[MajorHoy]

You are absolutely correct.

But they don't do that.

I agree completely about DC not doing that.
But if DC had done it, the "soft-reboot" approach might have worked, meaning "Soft reboots don't work" hasn't been proven to be always true.

[Vakanai]

I agree completely about DC not doing that.
But if DC had done it, the "soft-reboot" approach might have worked, meaning "Soft reboots don't work" hasn't been proven to be always true.

Agreed. I hate people using New52 as an example of "They tried that, it didn't work" when New52 is a clear example of "They didn't try it very well." New52 was poorly executed, mishandled, and bungled in many ways, so using it as an example of why certain things don't work is a flawed argument. All it proves is that doing something poorly doesn't work, and we all should already know that.

[scary harpy]

I agree completely about DC not doing that.
But if DC had done it, the "soft-reboot" approach might have worked, meaning "Soft reboots don't work" hasn't been proven to be always true.

Agreed. I hate people using New52 as an example of "They tried that, it didn't work" when New52 is a clear example of "They didn't try it very well." New52 was poorly executed, mishandled, and bungled in many ways, so using it as an example of why certain things don't work is a flawed argument. All it proves is that doing something poorly doesn't work, and we all should already know that.

I'm pretty sure if DC could have done that - or done it well - then they would have.

DC has repeatedly proven themselves as incapable in many, many ways; soft reboots are a prime example of their incompetence.

The past supports that DC cannot work soft reboots...and everything I see makes me doubt DC will become any more competent in the future.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

It draws in some, it intimidates others, and it doesn't even register for some. Don't act like an 80+ history is a net good. It's a mixed bag, and whether you feel it's a draw or a (whatever the opposite of a draw is...A repulsion? A push? A shove? I don't know) depends on you and your personal bias and preference. Not everyone wants to try and play catch up to know what's going on, and other's love the challenge. So your argument isn't really an absolute here. Some people look at the long history of comics, shrugs, and says they missed too much to try and start now.

I'm sorry but that is a huge, huge fallacy. There really is no concrete evidence that backs up the theory that continuity is a bad thing for comics. If reboots are such a great thing and encourage readers to come on, then how come the New 52 sales bump dissipated so quickly? Why did DC even feel the need to launch Rebirth in response to what they saw as decreased enthusiasm to their product? And how come Marvel, a company that boasted that they weren't doing a reboot still was able to remain predominant during the height of the New 52?

And that's exactly, you don't have to play catch up. Don't confuse a jumping on point (what people looking to get into comics actually want) with a completely clean slate (which almost nobody wants). As long as you provide people with periodic jumping points, which happens pretty much every time a new creative team comes onto a title or a title is relaunched, you can attract new readers. That in no way necessitates the complete rebooting of continuity. A new reader can jump onto a new title and, with Wikipedia and pretty much unlimited fan websites out there, if there is truly some reference to obscure continuity they don't get, they can always look it up if they're curious about it.

Yeah, that's why people want to read the famous stories. Not all comics are the big important stories that get fans into comics, and some of those big stories aren't in continuity, and a reboot isn't going to make those stories disappear to never be read again. The big classics that draw people into comics will still be around to draw people into comics, and you can tell new stories in a new continuity and make new classics. Look at Batman, The Dark Knight Returns was never in continuity, the hugely popular White Knight isn't in continuity, nor is Gotham by Gaslight, Red Rain, Batman vs Predator, the ones with the Ninja Turtles, and while they are in continuity arguably Killing Joke and Long Halloween weren't intended to be in continuity (or so I heard). It doesn't matter if the book that gets new readers are in continuity or not, as long as the heroes are recognizable and the stories good, the new reader will be happy that book got them in comics, continuity or not.

Except some of those stories lose their gravitas when not in continuity (not to mention that the mythology of the hero themselves loses out). I mean, for proof of that, look at the amount of people who were infuriated that the Wolfman/Perez New Teen Titans run was discounted or that Wally West was straight up erased from the DC Universe canon during the New 52. Comics, by their nature, ask people to invest in these characters and their stories. Fans (of any fiction really) expect the stories they consume to matter, meaning the ramifications of important stories are felt in that character's world. Do you expect season 4 of your favorite TV show to completely retcon out of existence the events of season 2 or 3? No, obviously you don't. So, obviously, rebooting to a clean slate would mean that you alienate everyone who connected to those stories.

And, yeah, there are some popular stories that originated out of continuity, but that is largely the exception, not the rule. More often than not, what makes a story important in the eyes of the audience is the fact that its effects can be felt on the character sometimes years or even decades after the fact. For every Dark Knight Returns or All Star Superman, there are few or so Knightfalls, or Death of Supermans, or Terminal Velocitys, etc.

And what's more, a lot of the time, those big important stories are propped up by the events of the less important ones. Blackest Night, for example, wouldn't have been possible without the events of at least a dozen other stories before it: Final Crisis, Identity Crisis, Cosmic Odyssey, Green Lantern: Rebirth, the Death of Superman, Wonder Woman #124, Infinite Crisis, etc.

[Vakanai]

I'm pretty sure if DC could have done that - or done it well - then they would have.

You know DC isn't some unanimous thing right? Individuals dropped the ball here. Replaceable individuals. What DC is incapable of doing now, they could do brilliantly tomorrow. It all depends on who makes up DC on that fateful tomorrow.

[Vakanai]

I'm sorry but that is a huge, huge fallacy. There really is no concrete evidence that backs up the theory that continuity is a bad thing for comics. If reboots are such a great thing and encourage readers to come on, then how come the New 52 sales bump dissipated so quickly? Why did DC even feel the need to launch Rebirth in response to what they saw as decreased enthusiasm to their product? And how come Marvel, a company that boasted that they weren't doing a reboot still was able to remain predominant during the height of the New 52?

And that's exactly, you don't have to play catch up. Don't confuse a jumping on point (what people looking to get into comics actually want) with a completely clean slate (which almost nobody wants). As long as you provide people with periodic jumping points, which happens pretty much every time a new creative team comes onto a title or a title is relaunched, you can attract new readers. That in no way necessitates the complete rebooting of continuity. A new reader can jump onto a new title and, with Wikipedia and pretty much unlimited fan websites out there, if there is truly some reference to obscure continuity they don't get, they can always look it up if they're curious about it.



Except some of those stories lose their gravitas when not in continuity (not to mention that the mythology of the hero themselves loses out). I mean, for proof of that, look at the amount of people who were infuriated that the Wolfman/Perez New Teen Titans run was discounted or that Wally West was straight up erased from the DC Universe canon during the New 52. Comics, by their nature, ask people to invest in these characters and their stories. Fans (of any fiction really) expect the stories they consume to matter, meaning the ramifications of important stories are felt in that character's world. Do you expect season 4 of your favorite TV show to completely retcon out of existence the events of season 2 or 3? No, obviously you don't. So, obviously, rebooting to a clean slate would mean that you alienate everyone who connected to those stories.

And, yeah, there are some popular stories that originated out of continuity, but that is largely the exception, not the rule. More often than not, what makes a story important in the eyes of the audience is the fact that its effects can be felt on the character sometimes years or even decades after the fact. For every Dark Knight Returns or All Star Superman, there are few or so Knightfalls, or Death of Supermans, or Terminal Velocitys, etc.

And what's more, a lot of the time, those big important stories are propped up by the events of the less important ones. Blackest Night, for example, wouldn't have been possible without the events of at least a dozen other stories before it: Final Crisis, Identity Crisis, Cosmic Odyssey, Green Lantern: Rebirth, the Death of Superman, Wonder Woman #124, Infinite Crisis, etc.

I'm sorry but...this is too honking long for me to read, and I'm pretty sure it's probably just going to be you arguing points you've already made to which I make the same responses I've already made, and we'll probably wind p in circles (not trying to sound mean here, just noticing that most debates I get into follow that pattern, and since asking forgiveness is better than permission I'm just going to assume it's the same here - plus I'm tired). Can we agree that neither of us believes the other is right, that I think continuity can often be a shackle and you think it's the best thing written history has written and part amicably? I've been responding to different threads for hours now and just cant get into anything that causes that sort of text wall until, I don't know, like a good 12 hours from now...

Edit - Or we could keep this going if we both agree to keep it short and simple (and easy on the eyes).

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Actually, many of those people still hate TKJ and want to ignore it, they just like the Oracle character development. If you could reboot in such a way to retcon TKJ from happening and still give them Babs as Oracle many of them would be ecstatic.

Yeah, but the Oracle character development isn't possible without TKJ.

That's not why New52 failed (as much as some of my fellow Tim fans would have you believe).

Oh there were many reasons. That was just one of them compounded with the complete disregard for legacy characters in general.

Not really a convincing argument on any of those particular points being required portions of the so called milestones here...

Whaaa?

Yeah, but which "first time he faced Batman" is the milestone here? Joker's had a number of first appearances over the continuities.

Most of the other "first appearances" are out of canon. The ones that are "in canon", I believe, are Batman #1 (1940), TKJ, and Man Who Laughs, and an off-handed mention in Year One. TKJ is actually pretty consistent with most of of his previous appearances because, well, Batman never meets him as Joker in that story. Plus, he even says in that story that "if he's going to have an origin, he'd rather it be multiple choice."

I'm just saying you can't get everyone to agree on what the milestones should be. There's no reboot that's going to make everybody happy, no matter which stories you choose to keep, and no way the current continuity is going to be satisfying for all. We are a hectic, opinionated bunch, so soft reboot, hard reboot, no reboot, there's no pleasing answer for everybody because we're so different, and the character's histories are so different. We've each latched onto our preferred takes, our preferred eras, our favorite stories, and shit we wish would end and never be referenced again, and it's different for every single one of us. There will be no consensus, only differing opinions.

Yeah, then so why do it if its going to make almost nobody happy??

[lemonpeace]

We do not need another reboot. I'm so tired of the idea that rebooting everything to return to whatever decade made x person more comfortable is some magic key. It's not the key to "fixing" whatever problems DC's got going on nor is it anything close to good storytelling half of the time. Isn't that what people complained about Flashpoint/the New 52? It particularly gets on my nerves because as a person of color, despite how often they fumble the ball narratively, this is the best DC's done in terms of demographic representation and all a reboot would do is either wipe them out or have fans whining about "forced diversity" because they need to inject more women and POC into the old school narratives. Plus, I'm tired of regressing character's development just to appeal to the Golden-Aged Thinking of certain fans, editorial or some creators. If people want a better DC universe, respect the past but get over it and tell actually good stories that moves the needle forward. Otherwise, they'll always be playing catch up and/or damage control.

[Buried Alien]

Pick things up from just before when Dick Grayson switched from Robin to Nightwing in 1983 and we're good.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Vakanai]

Yeah, but the Oracle character development isn't possible without TKJ.

Lots of ways to cripple her without making her the Joker's victim. And even if you did, a lot of ways you could handle that story so she feel's like a character in that story and not a tool to make Batman angsty. I love it, but it's not a good story for Babs, and if the goal is to get to Oracle, you could always get here behind the computer another way.

Oh there were many reasons. That was just one of them compounded with the complete disregard for legacy characters in general.

I'd say the real reasons were the same things people are complaining about now (dark/bleak/making characters like Wally suffer/insufferable/not fun), Didio alienating people, and being a confusing hot mess. Again, a lot of what people are complaining about going on RIGHT NOW is the reason New52 failed. Just repeating mistakes here.

Whaaa?

I'ma stand by it.

Most of the other "first appearances" are out of canon. The ones that are "in canon", I believe, are Batman #1 (1940), TKJ, and Man Who Laughs, and an off-handed mention in Year One. TKJ is actually pretty consistent with most of of his previous appearances because, well, Batman never meets him as Joker in that story. Plus, he even says in that story that "if he's going to have an origin, he'd rather it be multiple choice."

Again, technically more than one, and continuity is iffy (Zero Year was the only one "in canon" for a few years, how long till MWL is out of continuity a second time?).

Yeah, then so why do it if its going to make almost nobody happy??

I only said you can't please everyone, I never said almost nobody will be happy. Ultimately I don't think noboots or soft or hard boiled reboots matter in the long run for reader satisfaction and happiness, only good stories do. Whatever continuity may or may not be, tell good stories. Good stories make people a lot more happy than wondering if this or that is in canon.

[Vakanai]

We do not need another reboot. I'm so tired of the idea that rebooting everything to return to whatever decade made x person more comfortable is some magic key. It's not the key to "fixing" whatever problems DC's got going on nor is it anything close to good storytelling half of the time. Isn't that what people complained about Flashpoint/the New 52? It particularly gets on my nerves because as a person of color, despite how often they fumble the ball narratively, this is the best DC's done in terms of demographic representation and all a reboot would do is either wipe them out or have fans whining about "forced diversity" because they need to inject more women and POC into the old school narratives. Plus, I'm tired of regressing character's development just to appeal to the Golden-Aged Thinking of certain fans, editorial or some creators. If people want a better DC universe, respect the past but get over it and tell actually good stories that moves the needle forward. Otherwise, they'll always be playing catch up and/or damage control.

What if we're not rebooting to set things back to a particular decade, but starting from scratch all over again? Not returning to anything or beholden to anything beyond the most iconic early elements (aka Batman still wears a mask with little pointy ears on it). No reason it has to conform with the original decade these characters appeared. We could skip Dick and go right to Jason or Damian this time, or have someone else be the new Robin. Black Lightning could be a founding member of the JL (he's a better pick for it than Cyborg). Donna Troy could come to Man's World along with Diana and we'd have Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl in the same book for a few years. Wouldn't that be something?

[Shadowedeyes]

I gotta agree with the idea that reboots are problematic, no matter how they are done(full, partial, hard, soft, etc). There hasn't been a reboot that DC has done that hasn't had it's issues, and I don't see how one could do it without some form of problems. I'd rather they simply work on making good stories.