Timeline of the New 52 reality's creation

[Yoda]

I think you've done a great job presenting what might have happened!

Though I'm a little unsure of certain things, like Jon existing before any of Manhattan's tampering.

Even if we were to assume that Pre Flashpoint Lois and Clark would have had Jon eventually, chronologically it wouldn't line up at all with the Rebirth version. They would have had Jon roughly a decade later in their lives than they did in the Rebirth timeline.

We saw the Pre Flashpoint reality playing out and we know that Lois and Clark didn't have a kid. Whereas in the Rebirth timeline, logically, they've had a kid for the past decade!

The true story of Jon's birth is that the Collector reached out into the Pre Flashpoint reality and extracted Lois and Clark from there. This version of Lois and Clark gave birth to Jon in one of the bottled cities. They eventually ended up in the New 52 reality, spent about a decade there, and their histories were finally merged with the New 52 versions, with Jon's birth and upbringing being incorporated into the timeline of Superman's career as we know it.

Now we know that Manhattan's tampering led the Pre Flashpoint reality to become the New 52, and by extension, Pre Flashpoint Superman to become New 52 Superman. But we haven't been shown any 'split' that occurred. The continued existence of Pre Flashpoint Superman is due to the Collector extracting him from a dead timeline/world. Yet Mxy claims that Superman was 'split' in two deliberately.

If you check out the Timeline thread it looks like they are indeed placing Jon’s birth sometime around the mid-2000’s with Identity Crisis, President Luthor, and Public Enemies storylines. This new Timeline is doing what I theorized more or less - that there’s going to be a continuity that is established going backwards into what we actually read. Manhattan messed up our comics!

And I think Convergence is completely out at this point.

[Sacred Knight]

You seem to be forgetting that DCYou was part of the New 52 line. But, regardless, you can say "look at the sales" until the cows come home, but ONLY looking at sales numbers without taking into account the larger context is so incredibly short-sighted. One of the reasons that these fan-sites like IGN and Screenrant and CBR and Polygon and Newsarama and even Buzzfeed all exist is that they reflect and serve as a barometer for the general opinion of the fan community. Even if you don't personally pay much attention to them, they give insight into the trends among the fanbase. So, when you have almost every review site, blog, etc. coming out with articles like "15 Things the New 52 Got Wrong," "The Worst of the DC Reboot," and "DC Confirms the New 52 Was Doomed to Fail," its a sign that a majority of people didn't like the New 52. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the opinions expressed in those (and I admit, some of them aren't the most cogently argued), but they are indicators of where people were at with the New 52.

Not forgetting that at all. But it was a differnt type of initiative that changed things up in ways differing from the original New 52 initiative. It was within that timeline but its own, failed alteration of things. And I fail to see how looking at sales is short-sighted. Unless you buy into the idea of hate-buying, reading just to read, wasting money on stuff you don't really want, its the best barometer we have. And I don't buy into any of those things. In general, if people are buying books is because they want those books. So yeah, I put that stuff over internet critical analysis any day. I don't disregard it as not being what the authors felt, of course it is what they really felt. But its those people. And it obviously didn't make up a majority feeling if it didn't reflect in what was being bought. You can see when things are largely rejected via fall off in books moved not related to normal ebb and flow, like you could with the DCYou movement.

Yeah, that wouldn't have been any better.

The point is it would have omitted all that wasted time and effort that went into a completely unnecessary plot-point, that ended up with an unsatisfying and unclear ending. They could have just gotten to the point, but this bad green-light prevented that.

Yeah, they did. You can not like the explanation they provided, but they still gave a reasoning: Superman was split into two separate people prior to the reboot and one was spared of the continuity-altering effects of the New 52, while the other wasn't.

That's not confirmed in the story. Only half was, that Convergence Superman was off-planet and thus spared change. How the New 52 version came about then was never touched on. Was he a separate creation entirely? Doomsday Clock doesn't really support that. So he was split? Okay, but how did that split occur if he was off-planet and spared from changes in the first place? These are inconsistencies with the general idea that was never addressed. The how is never detailed. Explanations beyond that are fan-made at this point. And there's fine explanations out there but it wasn't anything Reborn ever confirmed. Its like the Electric Superman thing. We never did find out what caused that. And the books have not ever concretely explained the dual Superman thing. We have, as fans, with what makes the most possible sense. But when we have to do a story's job for it, then its not a well-written story.

[Last Son of Krypton]

If you check out the Timeline thread it looks like they are indeed placing Jon’s birth sometime around the mid-2000’s with Identity Crisis, President Luthor, and Public Enemies storylines. This new Timeline is doing what I theorized more or less - that there’s going to be a continuity that is established going backwards into what we actually read. Manhattan messed up our comics!.

That would be weird if it'll be confirmed. I mean Jon's being born during Identity Crisis means his birth happened a few years before Damian debuts as a 10 years old. More continuity headaches.

[Zaresh]

That would be weird if it'll be confirmed. I mean Jon's being born during Identity Crisis means his birth happened a few years before Damian debuts as a 10 years old. More continuity headaches.

Keep in mind that Damian debuts in year Gen 3, Year 14, but not as Robin. He becomes Robin in Gen 4, Year 1, two years afterwards. If memory serves me right, he was first introduced to the main continuity as a 9 year* old, just before Bruce disappeared, and wasn't 10 until he became his Robin. So it could be that, in this new timeline, he is known to the bats when he's 8yo, but doesn't become Robin under Dick until he's 10yo. Which makes me wonder why they made him appear so soon* and not the last year of that very same Gen, just before his debut as Robin. Same for Tim becoming Red Robin. There's something else working here that we don't know about.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Keep in mind that Damian debuts in year Gen 3, Year 14, but not as Robin. He becomes Robin in Gen 4, Year 1, two years afterwards. If memory serves me right, he was first introduced to the main continuity as a 9 years old, just before Bruce disappeared, and wasn't 10 until he become his Robin. So it could be that, in this new timeline, he is known to the bats when he's 8yo, but doesn't become Robin under Dick until he's 10yo. Which makes me wonder why they made him appear so son and not the last year of that very same Gen, just before his debut as Robin. Same for Tim becoming Red Robin. There's something else working here that we don't know about.

Jon would still be a baby when Damian debuts.

I also assume that the 35 years timeline of Gen 2/4 will be compressed in 10/15 in-story years.

[Mr.B]

Is Alexander Luthor , Superboy Prime, Kal L mentioned near Infinte Crisis?

[Zaresh]

Jon would still be a baby when Damian debuts.

I also assume that the 35 years timeline of Gen 2/4 will be compressed in 10/15 in-story years.

Well, he's 3 years younger. Of course he will.
They don't meet until Damian is way into Robin.

I don't think we're seeing 1:1 year in this timeline. Just think of them as "each year is actually loosely a year and half or two depending on how much we need it to be": it works better. At least for gen* 2, even if for the characters themselves it does pass a year. It's a bit abstract, but it's the only way it would work, unless they mention the lost years. Or even when they mention that still.

Is Alexander Luthor , Superboy Prime, Kal L mentioned near Infinte Crisis?

Not anywhere that I can read.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Those are largely talking about new52 as a whole. Not New52 superman. I don't have a skin in this. Morrison's superman is safe. He is out there doing what he does. Thanks to didio and sideways.

They even complain about lack red underoos. I don't understand the logic of these people. The strongman aspect has been missing from the guy since age they don't care about that. But, they will complain if underwear is gone?

Newsrama idiots haven't read anything other the boyscout crap that is plaguing superman. Superman used to bully and intimidate the corrupt for the sake of the little guy. That doesn't make him a anti hero. They just want the monotonous stuff that is:
batman = badass, dark
Superman =naive, light
It sucks. Even, jon has more backbone than the current superman.atleast, He didn't take **** from damian.Morrison's superman is the best superman this decade. He had his arc and even starts mellow down a little. A superman that is for the status quo is pretty boring.where is the damn struggle?superdad is good only, if jon is around. Otherwise, he sucks. Its blah! There is nothing atleast entertaining . And to top it all off his fights are boring. There isn't dynamic movements from him or great hand to hand conflicts.

Did you...read much Superman before the New 52? Because light does not mean naïve. Superman was NOT naïve.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Not forgetting that at all. But it was a differnt type of initiative that changed things up in ways differing from the original New 52 initiative. It was within that timeline but its own, failed alteration of things. And I fail to see how looking at sales is short-sighted. Unless you buy into the idea of hate-buying, reading just to read, wasting money on stuff you don't really want, its the best barometer we have. And I don't buy into any of those things. In general, if people are buying books is because they want those books. So yeah, I put that stuff over internet critical analysis any day. I don't disregard it as not being what the authors felt, of course it is what they really felt. But its those people. And it obviously didn't make up a majority feeling if it didn't reflect in what was being bought. You can see when things are largely rejected via fall off in books moved not related to normal ebb and flow, like you could with the DCYou movement.

As I said: Only looking at the sales and not looking at what people actually are saying about the comics you're selling means you miss out on the larger context. That context would come in handy if, say, sales were to suddenly take a nose-dive like they did during the DCYou era. And you can not buy into the idea of hate buying or reading just to read...but they're a thing. They happen. How many stories that are now considered anathema by the fanbase and the like were best-sellers when they were being published? Spider-Man's One More Day is considered one of the worst stories that Marvel ever put out. It was still one of the highest selling comics when it was coming out. The same thing applies for Civil War, Civil War II, All-Star Batman and Robin, etc. You may not want to admit it, but habit-buying is a thing in this industry. It takes a lot for fans to break away from their favorite character or franchise, especially when those characters are widely popular ones with large fanbases.

And "those people" shared what they felt because they were the mouthpieces of a larger sentiment. If it was just them that felt that way, and they actually sensed that the New 52 was widely popular, they probably would have kept it to themselves. The reason the internet is literally littered with articles like this is because most people didn't like the New 52. DC themselves admitted that when they launched Rebirth. They had to literally create a new explanation for what happened during the New 52 era for the fans to want to come back on board.

The point is it would have omitted all that wasted time and effort that went into a completely unnecessary plot-point, that ended up with an unsatisfying and unclear ending. They could have just gotten to the point, but this bad green-light prevented that.

But they still offered it as an explanation. And it would have taken significantly more time to transform New 52 Superman into how he was before Flashpoint. And bad pitch? As I recall, the Lois and Clark series was actually very well-liked and lauded by the fanbase. You can't blame him for fans liking his Superman more than they did the "main" Superman at that point.

That's not confirmed in the story. Only half was, that Convergence Superman was off-planet and thus spared change.

Its kind of what the story is about. There's a line in there when Clark literally says to Mxy "Are you telling me I was split in two?"

So he was split? Okay, but how did that split occur if he was off-planet and spared from changes in the first place? These are inconsistencies with the general idea that was never addressed. The how is never detailed. Explanations beyond that are fan-made at this point. And there's fine explanations out there but it wasn't anything Reborn ever confirmed. Its like the Electric Superman thing. We never did find out what caused that. And the books have not ever concretely explained the dual Superman thing. We have, as fans, with what makes the most possible sense. But when we have to do a story's job for it, then its not a well-written story.

One would think that those plans were what were in place before some sort of internal struggle at DC derailed them.

[Sacred Knight]

At this point I just agree to disagree. Because we obviously disagree on absolutely everything we're talking about. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. You're selling something to me I'm not buying, and vice versa. I think we can call it a discussion and move on.

By the way I'm sorry I broke my promise about not drifting the thread anymore...it seemed like it was dying down altogether so I came back to the discussion we were having, but I reacted way too soon on that assumption.

[manwhohaseverything]

Did you...read much Superman before the New 52? Because light does not mean naïve. Superman was NOT naïve.

Yeah, i have. He is most of the time portrayed as this naive guy who can't "prepare" to save his life.A guy who never experienced loss or pain. A guy who has everything. When superman should be the opposite. And batman feels like the guy who lives in hell. When in fact, the only thing he ever lost was his parents.He has always had people around him that loves him especially alfred. It is basically the same reason i have come to hate superman/batman team ups.those version of superman feels like a torch light on a bright day.


The above was good when it was done for the first time and in moderation . But, now its monotonous.
A man who smiles when things are hard. He is the real light. Like superman used to be.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yeah, i have. He is most of the time portrayed as this naive guy who can't "prepare" to save his life.A guy who never experienced loss or pain. A guy who has everything. When superman should be the opposite. And batman feels like the guy who lives in hell. When in fact, the only thing he ever lost was his parents.He has always had people around him that loves him especially alfred. It is basically the same reason i have come to hate superman/batman team ups.those version of superman feels like a torch light on a bright day.

1) No, he wasn't portrayed as "naïve" (and honestly, you aren't really using the word correctly). I don't really know what you're referring to in regards to his apparent failure to "prepare to save his own life" when there are countless examples of Clark, well, saving his own life and the lives of others. He's regularly portrayed as someone who is not only incredibly powerful, but also incredibly smart. He's outsmarted his enemies countless times and proven himself a very shrewd tactician. Look at things like Action 775, his wrestling Asmodel in the street, his taking on Hank Henshaw and Mongul when he hadn't even regained his full power, etc. In other words, Superman didn't need the New 52 to make him into a badass. Are you sure you read Superman before 2011?

2) Superman was also surrounded by people who loved and cared for him: the Kents, Lana Lang, Pete Ross, etc. By your own logic, if Batman doesn't have anything to really mourn, neither does Superman. But of course, both of them do have a lot to mourn.

3) Bruce losing his parents is kind of a big deal. But its not just their deaths that is the issue for Bruce. Its that he witnessed their murders. They were killed right in front of him. If he had been at home when they'd been mugged, its plausible he would have turned out differently.

4) There's a difference between being naïve and being optimistic. And there is nothing wrong with Superman being optimistic. That's the point of him. He's a beacon of hope in a dark, bleak world. It doesn't mean he can't comment on the world's darkness. Quite the opposite, he acknowledges it by fighting against it. He does not, however, let it drag him down into those depths and that is am internal struggle that's been showcased in a lot of his stories. For example, Action 775, which delivered this moment, something that is quintessentially Superman:



And that is why Pre-Flashpoint Superman was better than New 52 Superman. Pre-Flashpoint Superman fought for your hopes and dreams. New 52 Superman fought out of anger.

You haven't established how any of that paints him as "naïve"

A man who smiles when things are hard. He is the real light. Like superman used to be.

Okay, and Pre-Flashpoint Superman did that. A lot.

[manwhohaseverything]

1) No, he wasn't portrayed as "naïve" (and honestly, you aren't really using the word correctly). I don't really know what you're referring to in regards to his apparent failure to "prepare to save his own life" when there are countless examples of Clark, well, saving his own life and the lives of others. He's regularly portrayed as someone who is not only incredibly powerful, but also incredibly smart. He's outsmarted his enemies countless times and proven himself a very shrewd tactician. Look at things like Action 775, his wrestling Asmodel in the street, his taking on Hank Henshaw and Mongul when he hadn't even regained his full power, etc. In other words, Superman didn't need the New 52 to make him into a badass. Are you sure you read Superman before 2011?

2) Superman was also surrounded by people who loved and cared for him: the Kents, Lana Lang, Pete Ross, etc. By your own logic, if Batman doesn't have anything to really mourn, neither does Superman. But of course, both of them do have a lot to mourn.

3) Bruce losing his parents is kind of a big deal. But its not just their deaths that is the issue for Bruce. Its that he witnessed their murders. They were killed right in front of him. If he had been at home when they'd been mugged, its plausible he would have turned out differently.

4) There's a difference between being naïve and being optimistic. And there is nothing wrong with Superman being optimistic. That's the point of him. He's a beacon of hope in a dark, bleak world. It doesn't mean he can't comment on the world's darkness. Quite the opposite, he acknowledges it by fighting against it. He does not, however, let it drag him down into those depths and that is am internal struggle that's been showcased in a lot of his stories. For example, Action 775, which delivered this moment, something that is quintessentially Superman:



And that is why Pre-Flashpoint Superman was better than New 52 Superman. Pre-Flashpoint Superman fought for your hopes and dreams. New 52 Superman fought out of anger.



You haven't established how any of that paints him as "naïve"



Okay, and Pre-Flashpoint Superman did that. A lot.

No, he didn't do it alot. Not with enough meaning behind it.

No, Morrison's superman fought to protect the weak not because of sense of anger. but, because it was the right thing to do. If the soceity is corrupt and laws oppress people and structures become shackle that hurt the little guy. You are damn right, superman will break those laws.

1)dude. mongol, cyborg superman and asmodel.. Etc aren't exactly known for their great intellectual prowess. Especially, this mongol who is what an assistant of cyborg superman? That's pathetic. Mongol can be a better than that. Get me a book where out maneuvers someone with pedigree. In his book, sure he is able to look good. But in teamup books connected to larger dcu. He isn't. Especially, when batman is around. As far as, Batman/superman book is concerned he is treated as naive guy who just "believes" in good. Just believing in good is naivety. Believing in good while the bad is not only possible but hard and real is optimism. Understanding(keyword)/experiencing harshness of the world and still saving the day with a smile on the face optimism.


These kind of nonsense is what i am talking about.
2) and 3)no,i said. Making it center piece of batman existence is nonsense regarding batman. He is still loved and has things going for him.bruce had people in his life. Trauma doesn't justify this nonsense of always saying bruce's life is hell. He has all the resources and luxuries anyone could ever ask for. His life is far from hell.

Clark has lost people too. He lost his freaking planet. If this was silverage guy he remembered his world, his birth culture and everything about it.(for most of his publishing history) He lost his adopted parents as well. He has to live among people that will never be able to understand him fully. He has to act like an idiot just to so that he can help people to his full potential . He thought for a time that he might not be able To have a family or kids because of his secret(telling lois was big decision in every version) and his biology(jon is still made into miracle baby) . Still, he would never dwell on these things but forge onwards. His life has darkness. But because he is the light, he seems like " the man who has everything". This white washing always makes it seem like superman has no darkness in his life.

Bruce isn't fully darkness nor is clark fully light. Nuanced position needs to be there more. That is what i am advocating for.

4)there is. But, many writers think and portray optimism as naivety. Which is what i am against.it's easy for preflashpoint superman to be not dragged down by loss. Because he doesn't understand what he lost(keyword "understand". Understanding and knowing are different. Understanding requires emotion and personal involvement) . He doesn't remember his world. He doesn't know what he lost. Only that he knows he lost something and its monumental. His ma, pa,friends.. Etc are all alive and kicking(in goldenage and in silverage they weren't. Heck! Even in donner movie had a lose) . His understanding of any loss is negligible.

His dreams speech is quintessential superman. Does it have the same impact from this superman , though? My answer is no. Here is why,. from a guy with high paying job (and without the whole village idiot act. Preflashpoint superman hid in plain sight. Whatever that means ) ,one of the most talented and beautiful woman as wife and mainly from a well of happy family/background. It doesn't mean much or have have the same impact . His story isn't rags to richess or orphan to family man. His dreams are never challenged or crushed by harsh realities of the world.

This was something substantial.This was the only time clark had been challenged, personally. their(clois) struggle for the kid and with kids is exactly the reason the kid's(jon or Chris) addition had impact. Even though lack of kids thing affected lois more. One more thing, Clark's ship landed in america not in a war torn nation or something .he is freaking blessed. Especially, now. That's why his speeches come across naive. Because he doesn't have it hard enough.atleast not in my book.

Now, if i read goldenage guy or silverage guy(especially with stories like "for the man who has everything") and then have a read of that speech. It hits you like a brick(impact) and you know dreams matter.you know perseverance and work gets you something.because,they basically had nothing except for superpowers. Heck! Morrison's supes had it rough. I would have loved for that guy to deliver that speech with meaning and real optimism. But, he doesn't need to. He is "the man of action". His actions speak Louder and inspire more.

His actions allowed the initially weak and scared to get the strength to fight for even him. Source, of the speech matters a great deal.

[boltmonster]

Let's get back on track guys...


DC has shown that Doctor Manhattan fiddled with the DCU to help create the New 52.

But when did he show up?

Before or after Flashpoint 5?
Did he create Pandora and tell her to tell Barry that three timelines needed to be combined?

Did he show up during DC Universe: Rebirth and decided to start there?

Doomy Clock 10 gives us DC history from outside DC reality. Does that mean Doctor Manhattan is between our reality and DC reality?

What is your theory?

[Mr.B]

They already said 1938 and after Watchmen. Didn't start mucking around until he decided to.