Why did Geoff Johns systematically retcon everything that Gerard Jones ever wrote?

[GlennSimpson]

Why does anybody retcon anything?

Probably because he sincerely believes his version will be an "improvement" over the old version.

Then, years later, somebody comes along and retcons that version further, because he sincerely believes his version will be an "improvement" over the last guy's version.

Then, years later, somebody comes along and does his best to retcon it all back to something very close to where it was to begin with, because he sincerely believes the original version was the best and should be respected!

Then an editor gets tired of trying to keep track, and says: "Heck with it -- we're going to reboot those characters!" He sincerely believes that at this point, that's what it will take to make those superheroes' continuity become "simpler" and "more user-friendly" for new readers who don't want to be bothered with all the baggage associated with several previous "retcons" and "revelations" and "deaths and resurrections" and so on and so forth. And if the old readers who endured all those previous retcons, revelations, etc., don't like having it all get rebooted now -- so what? Who cares what they think?

And on and on it goes . . .

Actually, I agreed completely with you until the implications at the end of the last paragraph.

Why should a modern writer be held hostage by outdated ideas?

After all, a some writer thought it would be a good idea for Barry Allen to have gotten his powers from an imp named Mopee. So everybody afterwards should have stuck with that, right?

[Raker616]

He didn't, did you forget Zero Hour?. The DCU is routinely retconned every couple of year at this point, what Johns did was bring GL back to it's roots and i'm thankful he did.

[Lorendiac]

Actually, I agreed completely with you until the implications at the end of the last paragraph.

That confuses me. The last paragraph of my previous post was simply the words: "And on and on it goes . . ."

I didn't think those words were full of controversial "implications." Is it possible that you mean the later part of the next-to-last paragraph? The bit where I suggested that if an editor gives the go-ahead for a reboot, he's probably just shrugging off the feelings of some of the longtime readers who already knew all the messy little details of how the old continuity had developed and mutated across the last umpteen years, and who probably had hoped all those old stories (or most of them) would continue to be "respected" in the future?

If that was what you were referring to, then you may have misunderstood me. I didn't say that the editor is necessarily wrong to take that attitude of "who cares what the old-timers think?"; I merely suggested that this is, in fact, his attitude!

I believe that when I typed out that previous post, I was thinking of something I said a week or so again, in another thread on these forums. Someone else had suggested that when rebooting a character or set of characters, it is very important to avoid upsetting the existing fanbase with too many drastic changes all at once. I saw that comment, and I took an opposite position: If the editors have decided to do a real reboot of a long-running character, it probably means they are desperate to do something new and different that will lure in lots and lots of new fans (they hope), and they are already mentally "writing off" a significant portion of the old fanbase because the old fanbase (people who liked the stories the way they were being done in the last few years) just isn't large enough to generate great sales figures. If the sales were satisfactory, there wouldn't be any need to even think about doing a big reboot, would there?

Why should a modern writer be held hostage by outdated ideas?

After all, a some writer thought it would be a good idea for Barry Allen to have gotten his powers from an imp named Mopee. So everybody afterwards should have stuck with that, right?

Huh? It sounds as if you think you're disagreeing with me when you ask those questions, but I can't figure out why you'd think that. When did I say that a modern writer should be held hostage by every detail of a bunch of old stories from decades ago?