At this point, "New 52" isn't that bad at all.

[leapyear baby]

So, yeah, you can call this current iteration of the DCU whatever. You can say it's confusing, you can say that everything happened, but...not everything did. New 52 Superman never existed. The New 52 Amazons never existed. Most of the retcons from the New 52 continuity have been completely reversed and overwritten. Those are just the facts as they currently stand.

There isn't a single linear timeline. That may be where your misunderstanding is originating. The statements I bolded are blatantly false and DC would not stand by them. To quote DC "it all matters" Infinite frontiers embodies that theme. Theyre done forcing their stories to adhere to a single history, everything thats been written is fair game depending on the writer at the time their story is written. DC stated many times every story is being carried forward and is in continuity now... you're adhering to the old single timeline that DC now rejects and its so deaf to reality that one almost has to say themselves "Wow, how do you still not understand what Infinite Frontiers even is?" The truth is probably much simpler; you know what infinite frontiers is and you dislike certain aspects of it. You hate appearing as if you don't like it though, so youd rather present Infinite frontiers falsely in a way that that appears youre more okay with it. Its very palpable in the things you keep insisting are true when, deep down inside, you know they arent.

I believe I know whats fueling your denial though...Some people need above all else to have a single, linear timeline they can refer to. it simplifies things for them and and not having such an orderly chronology runs counter to the crystallized logic in their brain that demands a single, fixed history they can consistently refer to in their current reading. this is especially true for aged print fans who collected and need a cut and dry "history of DC organized" they can reference. I don't know if that is you but in that vein, my sense is your resistance (and maybe that of others) to accepting the omniverse stems from your dislike of its apparent contradictions. The idea that new52 superman existed and was involved with WW yet also married lois and had a son seems incompatible to you, correct? Thats only true in a linear timeline though. To someone stuck in the mentality of theres still only the one linear timeline where events/chars can only be cut out and supplanted/replaced instead of coexisting in apparent contradiction, the superman conundrum drives them crazy even in spite of their fusion during rebirth. But actually, it does make sense in the omniverse where no single timeline is prevailing. Theres not even a main earth anymore; theyve said this. A characters given past will always change depending on the individual story at the time it is written: thats what infinite frontiers is about.... Infinite. Frontiers. Get it? DC has stated in clear terms that that is the new way of things. And it doesn't surprise me given how unpopular much of the pre52 continuity was in comparison to the new 52 continuity.

You can say it's confusing, you can say that everything happened, but...not everything did.

Everything did because every continuity is carried forward. try scraping the idea of a single orderly timeline from your head. It really is not a thing anymore. The only one at least in the last couple pages whos writing in such a way that they are confused or not comprehending the omniverse has been you. Dont misattribute it.

[Menacer]

There isn't a single linear timeline. That may be where your misunderstanding is originating. The statements I bolded are blatantly false and DC would not stand by them. To quote DC "it all matters" Infinite frontiers embodies that theme. Theyre done forcing their stories to adhere to a single history, everything thats been written is fair game depending on the writer at the time their story is written. DC stated many times every story is being carried forward and is in continuity now... you're adhering to the old single timeline that DC now rejects and its so deaf to reality that one almost has to say themselves "Wow, how do you still not understand what Infinite Frontiers even is?" The truth is probably much simpler; you know what IF is and aren't 100% liking it... so you hate appearing to not like it, so youre going on as if IF is something that it is not.

I believe I know whats fueling your denial though...Some people need above all else to have a single, linear timeline they can refer to; it simplifies things for them and it sort of runs counter to the crystallized logic in their brain that asks for a timeline with a chronology that is easily referenced in a cut and dry way. this is especially true for aged print fans who collected and like having a "history of DC organized." I don't know if that is you but in that vein, my sense is your resistance (and maybe that of others) to accepting the omniverse stems from your dislike of its apparent contradictions. The idea that new52 superman existed and was involved with WW yet also married lois and had a son seems incompatible to you, correct? Thats only true in a linear timeline though. To someone stuck in the mentality of there still only the one linear timeline where events/chars can only be cut out and supplanted/replaced instead of coexisting in apparent contradiction, the superman conundrum drives them crazy even in spite of their fusion during rebirth. But actually, it does make sense in the omniverse where no single timeline is prevailing. Theres not even a main earth anymore; theyve said this. A characters given past will always change depending on the individual story at the time it is written; thats what infinite frontiers is about. DC has stated in clear terms that that is the new way of things. And it doesn't surprise me given how unpopular much of the pre52 continuity was in comparison to the new 52 continuity.

Everything did because every continuity is carried forward; try scraping the idea of a single orderly timeline from your head. Its not a thing anymore. The only one at least in the last couple pages whos writing in such a way that they are confused or not comprehending the omniverse has been you. Don't misattribute it.

Yup this is is where I'm coming from too.
You definitely get it, IMO.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

There isn't a single linear timeline. That may be where your misunderstanding is originating. The statements I bolded are blatantly false and DC would not stand by them. To quote DC "it all matters" Infinite frontiers embodies that theme. Theyre done forcing their stories to adhere to a single history, everything thats been written is fair game depending on the writer at the time their story is written. DC stated many times every story is being carried forward and is in continuity now... you're adhering to the old single timeline that DC now rejects and its so deaf to reality that one almost has to say themselves "Wow, how do you still not understand what Infinite Frontiers even is?" The truth is probably much simpler; you know what infinite frontiers is and you dislike certain aspects of it. You hate appearing as if you don't like it though, so youd rather present Infinite frontiers falsely in a way that that appears youre more okay with it. Its very palpable in the things you keep insisting are true when, deep down inside, you know they arent.

I believe I know whats fueling your denial though...Some people need above all else to have a single, linear timeline they can refer to. it simplifies things for them and and not having such an orderly chronology runs counter to the crystallized logic in their brain that demands a single, fixed history they can consistently refer to in their current reading. this is especially true for aged print fans who collected and need a cut and dry "history of DC organized" they can reference. I don't know if that is you but in that vein, my sense is your resistance (and maybe that of others) to accepting the omniverse stems from your dislike of its apparent contradictions. The idea that new52 superman existed and was involved with WW yet also married lois and had a son seems incompatible to you, correct? Thats only true in a linear timeline though. To someone stuck in the mentality of theres still only the one linear timeline where events/chars can only be cut out and supplanted/replaced instead of coexisting in apparent contradiction, the superman conundrum drives them crazy even in spite of their fusion during rebirth. But actually, it does make sense in the omniverse where no single timeline is prevailing. Theres not even a main earth anymore; theyve said this. A characters given past will always change depending on the individual story at the time it is written: thats what infinite frontiers is about.... Infinite. Frontiers. Get it? DC has stated in clear terms that that is the new way of things. And it doesn't surprise me given how unpopular much of the pre52 continuity was in comparison to the new 52 continuity.


Everything did because every continuity is carried forward. try scraping the idea of a single orderly timeline from your head. It really is not a thing anymore. The only one at least in the last couple pages whos writing in such a way that they are confused or not comprehending the omniverse has been you. Dont misattribute it.

Lol. Dude. I'm not the one in denial. If you think what I said was "blatantly false" then give me the answer to these questions:

How could it be that Superman and Diana were involved in a several-year relationship (one where he was apparently ready to propose to her) but at the same time Superman was married to Lois with a child at home? Are you positing that Clark and Diana had an affair behind Lois's back?? Cuz...that would be an issue among the fandom to say the least.

Also, how would it be possible that New 52 Superman's origin with his parents dead is still intact when we see, quite clearly, that his parents are still alive currently?

Also also, how could the New 52 storyline "Truth" still have happened? In that story, Lois Lane revealed to the entire world that Clark Kent was Superman, but...after Superman Reborn, nobody knew that Clark Kent was Superman and it was only recently that Superman himself again revealed to the world that he was Clark Kent in Bendis's run. If the New 52 Superman had still existed in this timeline, then when Bendis had Superman tell the world he was Clark, the reporters would have said: "Yeah, we know that already. This isn't news."

Also also also, if the New 52 Amazons still existed in this timeline, then why do we have a Hippolyta who is definitely NOT the New 52 Hippolyta serving on the JLA right now? For reference, this is New 52 Hippolyta:



This is the Hippolyta who is currently appearing in Justice League:



Completely different in terms of character design and appearance and much more in line with her Pre-Flashpoint status quo. Also, how can it be that the Amazons of Bana Mighdall are back when they were erased by Flashpoint? Also, then what was the whole Greg Rucka Rebirth run about, with the whole "Lies" storyline?

So, yeah, we can say that "everything happened" buuuuuut logically, that's not always gonna shake out. Some things from the New 52 are fundamentally contradictory to how they were prior to Flashpoint. And for certain (most) characters, they've chosen to supplant those New 52 elements with Pre-FP canon and continuity. Sorry, but that's just the truth.

Oh, and also, if the Pre-FP continuity was so "unpopular" compared to the New 52, then why was so much of the fanbase clamoring to get it back? And why did DC decide it was in their best interest to give the fans exactly that?

[Menacer]

Lol. Dude. I'm not the one in denial. If you think what I said was "blatantly false" then give me the answer to these questions:

How could it be that Superman and Diana were involved in a several-year relationship (one where he was apparently ready to propose to her) but at the same time Superman was married to Lois with a child at home? Are you positing that Clark and Diana had an affair behind Lois's back?? Cuz...that would be an issue among the fandom to say the least.

Also, how would it be possible that New 52 Superman's origin with his parents dead is still intact when we see, quite clearly, that his parents are still alive currently?

Also also, how could the New 52 storyline "Truth" still have happened? In that story, Lois Lane revealed to the entire world that Clark Kent was Superman, but...after Superman Reborn, nobody knew that Clark Kent was Superman and it was only recently that Superman himself again revealed to the world that he was Clark Kent in Bendis's run. If the New 52 Superman had still existed in this timeline, then when Bendis had Superman tell the world he was Clark, the reporters would have said: "Yeah, we know that already. This isn't news."

Also also also, if the New 52 Amazons still existed in this timeline, then why do we have a Hippolyta who is definitely NOT the New 52 Hippolyta serving on the JLA right now? For reference, this is New 52 Hippolyta:



This is the Hippolyta who is currently appearing in Justice League:



Completely different in terms of character design and appearance and much more in line with her Pre-Flashpoint status quo. Also, how can it be that the Amazons of Bana Mighdall are back when they were erased by Flashpoint? Also, then what was the whole Greg Rucka Rebirth run about, with the whole "Lies" storyline?

So, yeah, we can say that "everything happened" buuuuuut logically, that's not always gonna shake out. Some things from the New 52 are fundamentally contradictory to how they were prior to Flashpoint. And for certain (most) characters, they've chosen to supplant those New 52 elements with Pre-FP canon and continuity. Sorry, but that's just the truth.

Oh, and also, if the Pre-FP continuity was so "unpopular" compared to the New 52, then why was so much of the fanbase clamoring to get it back? And why did DC decide it was in their best interest to give the fans exactly that?

Honestly there probably arent any easy answer to this.

But one way to view it is the parallel but different time lines of the Back to the Future

Marty lives with his disfunction family. His parents are losers. Biff is a jerk.

But once the actions of BttF 1 are done.

Marty has cool parents. A functional family. Biff is a whipped loser.

Yes and we lead off into the events of BttF 2

But just cause Marty changed both his past and future.

Doesnt change that his original reality didnt matter or didnt make him who he was.

Yah not the perfect analogy but the comics are using these types of paradoxal reality shifts.

Of course Doc eventually explains divergent time lines in BttF 2...

In any case not the exact analogy.

But yes New52 superman and Wonder woman had a relationship.

And as explained in Convergence and road to Rebirth lois and clark. The lois and clark from the pocket universe, who were saved from Dr Manhattan's time removal....

Well that pre flash point Clark never dated superman.

When the universes were merged in Reborn competing components or paradoxs and such were merged into a totally new timeline, built primarly on the surviving pre Flashpoint supermans history. Cause new52 superman was dead as seen in the final days of superman.

All a bit complicated but to summarize. We mostly have a preflash continuity. But ultimately its merged.

Just like Doc and Marty are the original characters from the start of the movie. Nearly everything changes around them. But nuggets of their original timeline still influence everything.

This is exactly what the Infinite Frontier is about. Merged and competing histories.

Preflashpoint > new52, but still influenced by New52

[TiaraPenny]

And, no, user reviews do not debunk critic reviews. There's a reason why people only pay attention to the critic score on Rotten Tomatoes for movies and TV. It's because the critic scores are, ya know, actually verified. The sites make sure that the critics posting reviews have actually seen or consumed the content they're reviewing. I could go post a "user review" right now for a movie or TV show or play or comic that I've never seen or read. Should my review of that be trusted?

Again, remember when fans tried review-bombing Captain Marvel or, more recently, The Suicide Squad? Yeah, "user reviews" don't really debunk critical consensus. And I have a feeling that there wouldn't be an attempt to otherize critics in this manner if they actually agreed with you.

AHHHHHHHH!!!

I have to stop you! I am sorry to interject but the comparison you make between film critics and comic critics just slays my journalistic soul. I’m a copy editor for two fairly well-known comic “review” sites, I know many others, and the comics media landscape is a subject I am highly familiarized with (and can be referred to in my earlier posts here). I feel it is prudent to elucidate some very important things about the people who “review comics professionally" and what goes into their content, as I have the impression that few people here have a very sophisticated understanding.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of what are you referring to as "professionally written comic reviews" are not written by “professionals” in the sense one commonly thinks. Allow me to explain by way of contrast: film critics who write for noteworthy publications have certain expertise in film production and especially the history of filmmaking. They draw from a significant body of knowledge and regularly reference both contemporary and older, obscure films. Sometimes their work is informed through academia. The majority are college-educated and earnest in the opinions they publish. They are given wide latitude in their work. They maintain a strong presence in print media and often work in benefitted positions and earn a salary.

By contrast, the majority of comic book review sites including CBR, The Beat, denofgeeks, Multiversity, Bleeding cool, set a very low bar for those who wish to contribute. Sites have over a thousand people on their contributor list which is why these sites generate content what seems like 24 hours a day. Often the minimum requirement is that you have decent writing skill and possess a “working knowledge” of the genre. Contributors are not paid salaries, and there is no experience or even expertise required in most cases. Take Multiversity or AIPT for an example: you can literally go to their site right now, fill out a short webform including a 500 word writing sample of your choosing, and boom – after a few days you’re on the contributor list. You can now truthfully call yourself a “professional comic critic” and “journalist.” On some sites, the writing sample is not even required.

So that’s what it takes to become a “professional reviewer.” Now I will explain how you operate as one. CBR and most other sites have a pretty standard process: content managers devise “pitches” which you can think of as suggestions for articles and reviews. These range from “10 reasons Batman is Better than Superman” to “A Critical Review of Blue Beetle #13” and are offered to their kennel of contributors through an open pool. Fulfilling these pitches is how you are paid, and they are given to contributors on a first come, first serve basis without respect to subject familiarity. If you take the pitch, you are expected to figure it out on your own. The editors check all references for accuracy, ensure required key topics were touched on, and then send back for revisions. Multiple back-and-forth rounds with your editor is frowned upon. That is the standard model. On it’s own, you may not think it is very problematic. However, you would be wrong.

Here is the first problem: there are so many contributors that pitches are taken as quickly as they are dropped by people who watch the pool like a hawk. As a result, contributors are desperate to take any pitch they can get before the vultures swoop in. Critics routinely take review pitches for comics they know nothing about or are have no interest in. In their eyes, it is better get the pitch now and research it later. Very often, people take pitches while even disagreeing with the pitch’s main idea/argument or hating the content.

Here is the second problem: the pay for being a contributor is so dismal that every review you write is motivated by the page views, resulting in a grotesque bias. That is because of the way you are paid. Sites like CBR pay contributors a flat rate for content + “PPV” which is what it sounds like: additional pay based on page views. It is a very, very low amount of money. Last I heard, CBR paid $20 for a single review plus like 50-60 cents for every thousand page views. It’s just dismal pay for hours of time and effort, and this holds true on most every site. Because of this embarrassment of a pay structure, contributors desperate for views mainly express opinions that they believe viewers wish to read rather than objective, honest ones. If a contributor is unsure what is safe to put out there, they will look at slightly older reviews of a title and go with what was popular. The general rule is “go with the flow.” Giving honest, impassioned critical reviews is a luxury almost no one has. Sometimes it’s not even acceptable. Heroes in Crisis is the crowning example. Praising that was a no-no on virtually most sites, regardless of what contributors personally believed. Editorial teams stepped in for that, because they didn’t want to incur the notoriously toxic wrath of Wally West acolytes who for some reason or other tend to write hate mail and threats. That sounds like a pretty awful generalization, but it is one that is steeped in historical truth. Just think about that every time you read an online comic review.

That being said, there are still some high quality comics review sites out there, such as AV club. These sites are fewer in number, existing more on the side of print or paywalled online publications, but some are still free. And while some sites do employ a handful of in-house staff writers, those are not the ones writing single-issue reviews on Tuesdays. That is because they have larger scope projects.

Anyway, that’s the comic books online media landscape in its depressing nutshell. Sadly, some would call it an exploitative and dishonest. Just keeping it real. I don't have any strong opinions on this threads main topic but felt I had to respond to this all this talk of "critical, professional reviews." I don’t want people to harbor illusions about what they are reading and who is writing it. They are not written by "professionals" in the common sense of the word. They are written by people who often have no credentials. They do not "do it for a living" because there isn't enough money to be made. Many end up feeling misled. There is some value in their work: the objective information relating to universe history, character references, timelines tend to be accurate… but the opinions and interpretations in these "critical reviews" are very often predetermined and not earnest in their conviction. They are not written by experts. Often they are not even fans of the material. Sad but true. I personally would not hold their opinions in a special regard over any other rando.

Okay. Carry on.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

AHHHHHHHH!!!

I have to stop you! I am sorry to interject but the comparison you make between film critics and comic critics just slays my journalistic soul. I’m a copy editor for two fairly well-known comic “review” sites, I know many others, and the comics media landscape is a subject I am highly familiarized with (and can be referred to in my earlier posts here). I feel it is prudent to elucidate some very important things about the people who “review comics professionally" and what goes into their content, as I have the impression that few people here have a very sophisticated understanding.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of what are you referring to as "professionally written comic reviews" are not written by “professionals” in the sense one commonly thinks. Allow me to explain by way of contrast: film critics who write for noteworthy publications have certain expertise in film production and especially the history of filmmaking. They draw from a significant body of knowledge and regularly reference both contemporary and older, obscure films. Sometimes their work is informed through academia. The majority are college-educated and earnest in the opinions they publish. They are given wide latitude in their work. They maintain a strong presence in print media and often work in benefitted positions and earn a salary.

By contrast, the majority of comic book review sites including CBR, The Beat, denofgeeks, Multiversity, Bleeding cool, set a very low bar for those who wish to contribute. Sites have over a thousand people on their contributor list which is why these sites generate content what seems like 24 hours a day. Often the minimum requirement is that you have decent writing skill and possess a “working knowledge” of the genre. Contributors are not paid salaries, and there is no experience or even expertise required in most cases. Take Multiversity or AIPT for an example: you can literally go to their site right now, fill out a short webform including a 500 word writing sample of your choosing, and boom – after a few days you’re on the contributor list. You can now truthfully call yourself a “professional comic critic” and “journalist.” On some sites, the writing sample is not even required.

So that’s what it takes to become a “professional reviewer.” Now I will explain how you operate as one. CBR and most other sites have a pretty standard process: content managers devise “pitches” which you can think of as suggestions for articles and reviews. These range from “10 reasons Batman is Better than Superman” to “A Critical Review of Blue Beetle #13” and are offered to their kennel of contributors through an open pool. Fulfilling these pitches is how you are paid, and they are given to contributors on a first come, first serve basis without respect to subject familiarity. If you take the pitch, you are expected to figure it out on your own. The editors check all references for accuracy, ensure required key topics were touched on, and then send back for revisions. Multiple back-and-forth rounds with your editor is frowned upon. That is the standard model. On it’s own, you may not think it is very problematic. However, you would be wrong.

Here is the first problem: there are so many contributors that pitches are taken as quickly as they are dropped by people who watch the pool like a hawk. As a result, contributors are desperate to take any pitch they can get before the vultures swoop in. Critics routinely take review pitches for comics they know nothing about or are have no interest in. In their eyes, it is better get the pitch now and research it later. Very often, people take pitches while even disagreeing with the pitch’s main idea/argument or hating the content.

Here is the second problem: the pay for being a contributor is so dismal that every review you write is motivated by the page views, resulting in a grotesque bias. That is because of the way you are paid. Sites like CBR pay contributors a flat rate for content + “PPV” which is what it sounds like: additional pay based on page views. It is a very, very low amount of money. Last I heard, CBR paid $20 for a single review plus like 50-60 cents for every thousand page views. It’s just dismal pay for hours of time and effort, and this holds true on most every site. Because of this embarrassment of a pay structure, contributors desperate for views mainly express opinions that they believe viewers wish to read rather than objective, honest ones. If a contributor is unsure what is safe to put out there, they will look at slightly older reviews of a title and go with what was popular. The general rule is “go with the flow.” Giving honest, impassioned critical reviews is a luxury almost no one has. Sometimes it’s not even acceptable. Heroes in Crisis is the crowning example. Praising that was a no-no on virtually most sites, regardless of what contributors personally believed. Editorial teams stepped in for that, because they didn’t want to incur the notoriously toxic wrath of Wally West acolytes who for some reason or other tend to write hate mail and threats. That sounds like a pretty awful generalization, but it is one that is steeped in historical truth. Just think about that every time you read an online comic review.

That being said, there are still some high quality comics review sites out there, such as AV club. These sites are fewer in number, existing more on the side of print or paywalled online publications, but some are still free. And while some sites do employ a handful of in-house staff writers, those are not the ones writing single-issue reviews on Tuesdays. That is because they have larger scope projects.

Anyway, that’s the comic books online media landscape in its depressing nutshell. Sadly, some would call it an exploitative and dishonest. Just keeping it real. I don't have any strong opinions on this threads main topic but felt I had to respond to this all this talk of "critical, professional reviews." I don’t want people to harbor illusions about what they are reading and who is writing it. They are not written by "professionals" in the common sense of the word. They are written by people who often have no credentials. They do not "do it for a living" because there isn't enough money to be made. Many end up feeling misled. There is some value in their work: the objective information relating to universe history, character references, timelines tend to be accurate… but the opinions and interpretations in these "critical reviews" are very often predetermined and not earnest in their conviction. They are not written by experts. Often they are not even fans of the material. Sad but true. I personally would not hold their opinions in a special regard over any other rando.

Okay. Carry on.

I wasn't saying that comic book critics are more "sophisticated" or in a better position to judge than everyday fans. I actually did say to someone earlier on in the thread: "What do you think a critic is? They're just a fan."

What I was saying was that when it comes to a critical review, I can at least verify that the reviewer has actually consumed the piece of media in question because there's usually an article containing plot details and explanations of why they felt the way they did about a given piece of media.

A lot of sites, however, don't verify if the people who vote on user ratings have actually consumed the piece of media in question. And that actually happens quite a lot, whether it's with Rotten Tomatoes or any other review aggregator site.

I never implied that critics are somehow "more evolved" human beings who have better taste. I was simply pointing out that I can at least know that critic/reviewer has actually read or seen the thing they're talking about.

[leapyear baby]

How could it be that Superman and Diana were involved in a several-year relationship (one where he was apparently ready to propose to her) but at the same time Superman was married to Lois with a child at home? Are you positing that Clark and Diana had an affair behind Lois's back??

They occurred in different versions of their lives, then both versions merged... That is how they both happened. How did you miss this?

I wasn't saying that comic book critics are more "sophisticated" or in a better position to judge than everyday fans. I actually did say to someone earlier on in the thread: "What do you think a critic is? They're just a fan."

Read her post. she says often these 'critics' arent fans and and sometimes never even read the comic except the single issue theyre 'reviewing.' They use some kind of rubric. Thats the people youre citing? Also says theyre biased due to compensation and don't believe what they write. What a terrible system and shame on how they treat the reviewers.

[wonder39]

Honestly there probably arent any easy answer to this.

But one way to view it is the parallel but different time lines of the Back to the Future

Marty lives with his disfunction family. His parents are losers. Biff is a jerk.

But once the actions of BttF 1 are done.

Marty has cool parents. A functional family. Biff is a whipped loser.

Yes and we lead off into the events of BttF 2

But just cause Marty changed both his past and future.

Doesnt change that his original reality didnt matter or didnt make him who he was.

Yah not the perfect analogy but the comics are using these types of paradoxal reality shifts.

Of course Doc eventually explains divergent time lines in BttF 2...

In any case not the exact analogy.

But yes New52 superman and Wonder woman had a relationship.

And as explained in Convergence and road to Rebirth lois and clark. The lois and clark from the pocket universe, who were saved from Dr Manhattan's time removal....

Well that pre flash point Clark never dated superman.

When the universes were merged in Reborn competing components or paradoxs and such were merged into a totally new timeline, built primarly on the surviving pre Flashpoint supermans history. Cause new52 superman was dead as seen in the final days of superman.

All a bit complicated but to summarize. We mostly have a preflash continuity. But ultimately its merged.

Just like Doc and Marty are the original characters from the start of the movie. Nearly everything changes around them. But nuggets of their original timeline still influence everything.

This is exactly what the Infinite Frontier is about. Merged and competing histories.

Preflashpoint > new52, but still influenced by New52

Sooooooooo this is why a Multiverse makes so much more sense. You get every version ofvevery character on theur own Earth. We can have a Gokden Age WW and a Flashpoint WW ( yuk) etc..... they can all exist because they have their own histories on their own worlds. And even better, they can occassionally inteact with one another.

" everything counts" is a ridiculous and confusing concept. And sort of lazy. You can't have all of WWs various histories, etc all count, unless they all count because they're all on their own Earths and not on one.

[Stanlos]

Sooooooooo this is why a Multiverse makes so much more sense. You get every version ofvevery character on theur own Earth. We can have a Gokden Age WW and a Flashpoint WW ( yuk) etc..... they can all exist because they have their own histories on their own worlds. And even better, they can occassionally inteact with one another.

" everything counts" is a ridiculous and confusing concept. And sort of lazy. You can't have all of WWs various histories, etc all count, unless they all count because they're all on their own Earths and not on one.

Isn't that what Hypertime said and what this omniverse repeats? The question I have is how are stories to be launched/managed? Will it be like Big 10? Will all books essentially be anthologies since there isn't a "main" continuity?

[Menacer]

Sooooooooo this is why a Multiverse makes so much more sense. You get every version ofvevery character on theur own Earth. We can have a Gokden Age WW and a Flashpoint WW ( yuk) etc..... they can all exist because they have their own histories on their own worlds. And even better, they can occassionally inteact with one another.

In short: The universe is all of space and time and its contents.

The multiverse is a hypothetical collection of multiple observable universes

The omniverse is a collection of every single universe, multiverse, metaverse. You name it.

" everything counts" is a ridiculous and confusing concept. And sort of lazy. You can't have all of WWs various histories, etc all count, unless they all count because they're all on their own Earths and not on one.

A multiverse is a hypothetical collection of multiple observable universes. ... Thus, different universes within the multiverse are called “alternate universes,” “parallel universes,” “many worlds,” or “other universes.” An omniverse is a collection of every single universe, multiverse, metaverse; you name it

In short: The universe is all of space and time and its contents.

The multiverse is a hypothetical collection of multiple observable universes

The omniverse is a collection of every single universe, multiverse, metaverse. You name it.

[Bruce Wayne]

Sooooooooo this is why a Multiverse makes so much more sense. You get every version ofvevery character on theur own Earth. We can have a Gokden Age WW and a Flashpoint WW ( yuk) etc..... they can all exist because they have their own histories on their own worlds. And even better, they can occassionally inteact with one another.

" everything counts" is a ridiculous and confusing concept. And sort of lazy. You can't have all of WWs various histories, etc all count, unless they all count because they're all on their own Earths and not on one.

It's an interesting exercise for characters like Batman or Superman. But it definitely doesn't work for Wonder Woman where there are more clear delineations and breaks in the various eras of her publishing history.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

They occurred in different versions of their lives, then both versions merged... That is how they both happened. How did you miss this?

Their lives merged in a way where one of those things never happened. If you ask the current Clark or Diana if they ever dated, they'll tell you that they didn't. I mean, seriously, if you have to do mental gymnastics to argue your point, then you'd have to wonder if what you're saying is actually true.

Read her post. she says often these 'critics' arent fans and and sometimes never even read the comic except the single issue theyre 'reviewing.' They use some kind of rubric. Thats the people youre citing? Also says theyre biased due to compensation and don't believe what they write. What a terrible system and shame on how they treat the reviewers.

Well, I think that's actually kind of disparaging to the people who write for those sites: accusing them of only writing for clickbait. I mean, a little bit back you said that I was accusing people of purposefully downvoting the Rebirth series out of their hatred to skew user ratings (which again, I wasn't). So, somehow that's outlandish but saying that the thoughts that a reviewer expresses in their review aren't how they actually feel isn't?

I know how review sites compensate their writers. I also don't know a single reviewer who outright lies about what they think and feel to get clicks.

Maybe the New 52 series faired poorly with many critics overall because the critics and fans just simply didn't like them for the most part. Again, if you liked them, GREAT, that's awesome, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. And assigning motives and bias without actual evidence of such is not constructive.

Not to mention the fact that, even if we did accept that as true, that would mean admitting that hating on the New 52 was at least somewhat popular with the fans.

[SteelisLean]

Here is the second problem: the pay for being a contributor is so dismal that every review you write is motivated by the page views, resulting in a grotesque bias. That is because of the way you are paid. Sites like CBR pay contributors a flat rate for content + “PPV” which is what it sounds like: additional pay based on page views. It is a very, very low amount of money. Last I heard, CBR paid $20 for a single review plus like 50-60 cents for every thousand page views. It’s just dismal pay for hours of time and effort, and this holds true on most every site. Because of this embarrassment of a pay structure, contributors desperate for views mainly express opinions that they believe viewers wish to read rather than objective, honest ones. If a contributor is unsure what is safe to put out there, they will look at slightly older reviews of a title and go with what was popular. The general rule is “go with the flow.” Giving honest, impassioned critical reviews is a luxury almost no one has. Sometimes it’s not even acceptable. Heroes in Crisis is the crowning example. Praising that was a no-no on virtually most sites, regardless of what contributors personally believed. Editorial teams stepped in for that, because they didn’t want to incur the notoriously toxic wrath of Wally West acolytes who for some reason or other tend to write hate mail and threats. That sounds like a pretty awful generalization, but it is one that is steeped in historical truth. Just think about that every time you read an online comic review.

That being said, there are still some high quality comics review sites out there, such as AV club. These sites are fewer in number, existing more on the side of print or paywalled online publications, but some are still free. And while some sites do employ a handful of in-house staff writers, those are not the ones writing single-issue reviews on Tuesdays. That is because they have larger scope projects.

Anyway, that’s the comic books online media landscape in its depressing nutshell. Sadly, some would call it an exploitative and dishonest. Just keeping it real. I don't have any strong opinions on this threads main topic but felt I had to respond to this all this talk of "critical, professional reviews." I don’t want people to harbor illusions about what they are reading and who is writing it. They are not written by "professionals" in the common sense of the word. They are written by people who often have no credentials. They do not "do it for a living" because there isn't enough money to be made. Many end up feeling misled. There is some value in their work: the objective information relating to universe history, character references, timelines tend to be accurate… but the opinions and interpretations in these "critical reviews" are very often predetermined and not earnest in their conviction. They are not written by experts. Often they are not even fans of the material. Sad but true. I personally would not hold their opinions in a special regard over any other rando.

Okay. Carry on.

O.O How is that even legal?

[leapyear baby]

I mean, seriously, if you have to do mental gymnastics to argue your point, then you'd have to wonder if what you're saying is actually true.

Its canon from end of superman reborn and last two death metal issues. Read them instead of using gymnastics to try and escape them.

Their lives merged in a way where one of those things never happened.

Their lives merged in a way where both happened. You picked a worse example for your argument than you know: most characters didn't even know until death metal that theyve lived split lives. Superman and especially his family have been keenly aware since arriving at the start of rebirth.

If you ask the current Clark or Diana if they ever dated, they'll tell you that they didn't.

Death metal - clark: "I remember it all."

EDIT;

Maybe the New 52 series faired poorly with many critics overall because the critics and fans just simply didn't like them for the most part.

It didn't fair poorly with critics. It faired pretty well according to what Ive seen posted. Anywhere from 7-9 on that roundup site seems to be good to great considering current Flash only has a 8 on your site, and is considered to be great by contemporary Flash fans

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Its canon from end of superman reborn and last two death metal issues. Read them instead of using gymnastics to try and escape them.

I've read them. I read all of it. And, sorry, but again, that bit is out of continuity now. I'm not doing any mental gymnastics, man.

Their lives merged in a way where both happened. You picked a worse example for your argument than you know: most characters didn't even know until death metal that theyve lived split lives. Superman and especially his family have been keenly aware since arriving at the start of rebirth.

Are you reading the current books? How could it have both happened when it would mean that Clark was dating Diana and married to Lois at the same time?? Unless we're admitting now that Clark is unfaithful to his wife.

Again, that makes no logical sense. Because, like it or not, there is one timeline. Only ONE version of events can happen in a single continuity. That's just how continuity works. We can say "everything counts" but things that are clearly contradictory of one another cannot exist in the same timeline.

Even when we see in Superman Reborn flashbacks of Superman in the New 52 look, he's still married to Lois (though now we see less and less of the New 52 costume itself). So, again, explain to me how Clark was married to Lois and dating Diana at the same time.

Death metal - clark: "I remember it all."

Lol. Again, it makes no logical sense for it to have happened both ways. If you're clinging to one line that can mean multiple different things instead of what has actually panned out in the books, then your argument is flawed.