Nightwing #30 - series conclusion - Preview/Discussion

[byrd156]

Stubborn fans with closed-minds go out of their way to compound their criticisms of these funny books, even if it means ignoring facts to back up their complaints. DC has given no indication that Dick has no relationships. The truth is that they've actually backed up those relationships by showing them in flashbacks. The fans just need something to complain about.

We haven't seen any of these relationships or heard very much about what happened over the 5 years, all we have are assumptions. We don't know if what Dick did when he was Robin or Batman except for some fight scene flashbacks. When Dick was Batman he may have never left Gotham or even spoke to the Justice League.

What flashbacks? The whole 3 of Roy and Starfire, that's only two of his old friends, so he really has none of his old relationships. Where is Donna, Garth, Wally? Yeah I know they are either 12 or don't exist, but the point is that he doesn't and my not get these relationships back or better than before.

[Darkspellmaster]

We haven't seen any of these relationships or heard very much about what happened over the 5 years, all we have are assumptions. We don't know if what Dick did when he was Robin or Batman except for some fight scene flashbacks. When Dick was Batman he may have never left Gotham or even spoke to the Justice League.

What flashbacks? The whole 3 of Roy and Starfire, that's only two of his old friends, so he really has none of his old relationships. Where is Donna, Garth, Wally? Yeah I know they are either 12 or don't exist, but the point is that he doesn't and my not get these relationships back or better than before.

Whole heartedly agreed.

And that's really an issue when you think about serialization. One of the key hinging factors of a serial is the relationships that build over time. When you go and say "Well this all happened even though everything's new" it minimizes the characterizations and bonds that the characters have with one another. As a reader you have to want to come back over and over to see what happens. If Hero A meets Hero B and they become Best friends on screen you get to see reaction and see the bonding happening, thus, you as the viewer get to know and understand the feelings for these two characters. Then when Hero A has something happen to them you immediately wonder how Hero B is going to react because they are friends and you understand the bond these two have. If, on the other hand, Hero A and Hero B meet off screen and (unless the writer is amazing with his scripting and the artist is god like with their visual in the emotions department) you don't have that same connection there as the reader. So if something happens to Hero A you're less likely to go "Oh no what will Hero B do, their best friend is in danger?" and more likely to go, "Oh no Hero A is in danger, what will they do?" which leads to not caring about the relationship with Hero B. If then the writer tries to say "Oh Hero B is worried" you're going to wonder why because, as the saying goes, you've only been told what's happened not shown.

This is something I think DC has lost. Writers and Artist in comics and any visual media need to show (same in novels) not tell what's going on, because Readers want to see these relationships happen and mature. They want to see and understand the feelings. Just because a writer says Dick and Kori were an item, unless we see that happening and see the emotions of that relationship happen, it's meaningless to us as readers. What we see on page is what we believe to be true because this is what the writer and artist says is important enough to show on the page. Thus that makes any other dialogue saying "Oh I really thought he was cool when he was Batman" seem forced because we never saw any of this. Also you have DC saying DCU never existed in this case, which makes it harder when they reference something that happened before in the DCU, because "Technically" that didn't happen because that was the old universe. You see the problem here. You can't say "It didn't happen" then reference it like it did because to the reader, since we didn't see it happen and it was wiped away, it didn't happen because it was never written or drawn, thus in the readers mind it never occurred.

[Neowing]

I remember when DC said this isn't a complete reboot when new52 was about to come out which shows in Batman and Gl etc main titles.

That was their mistake and downfall. You can't half reboot a universe like pre52. New52 is a mess because of that.

[Dzetoun]

I don't know why people keep saying this. Just because we didn't see 5 years of the New 52 continuity doesn't mean those years didn't happen. DG was Robin for a year, where he presumably met a lot of the DCU community through Batman, then he was Batman for a year, where he was presumably a member of the JL. I get that it's hard to swallow that since we didn't see it, but in DC New 52 continuity it happened

On one hand, I can understand why DC doesn't want to go too deep into what happened in the Five Missing Years. If you get into that, you start having to definitively state what did and did not happen, who knows who, and so forth, which greatly restricts your degrees of freedom and flexibility. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for the complaints that we see from Conway, Oasis, and others. Yes, we have been told that certain relationships still exist, that certain things still happened, and so forth, but none of that seems to carry all that much weight. Now, granted, continuity and the past never carried all that much weight. Despite the much vaunted deep history of the DC Universe pre-Flashpoint, the past mostly only existed when the writers really needed it to exist for some specific reason, otherwise it was mostly meaningless. After all, when Batman faces the Joker at the end of No Man's Land, does he really seem to have any sense that this is the man who murdered Jason Todd and crippled Barbra Gordon? Not really, no. But five years later, in Hush, suddenly the death of Jason Todd is a big deal again, only once again not to be a real event by Black Mirror. And that was in the supposed heyday of history and a shared universe.

But, here's the thing, at some point the past needs to matter if we are to have any belief in its reality at all. If, to take a for instance, Dick really did have a relationship with Kori and Roy, then at some point there needs to be a story arc where that shared past really is important. If his time as Batman means something, then at some point there needs to be a story where something from that time really is important. That, I think, is what people are missing, and why it seems like Dick's past and connections, despite the protestations of DC, really do seem slippery and insubstantial.

[Darkspellmaster]

On one hand, I can understand why DC doesn't want to go too deep into what happened in the Five Missing Years. If you get into that, you start having to definitively state what did and did not happen, who knows who, and so forth, which greatly restricts your degrees of freedom and flexibility.

It depends on what you consider freedom and flexibility. On the one hand I agree with you that in some cases it can put a restriction on the writer, on the other hand as a writer I have to say that if a writer can't find a way to deal with said restrictions or find loop holes with which to work around then that writer really isn't up to a challenge on a serialization in the first place. I'm not saying that the writer is bad by any means it just seems to me that they are lacking in that field of writing and this is not a terrible thing but it does mean they probably have trouble dealing with histories and working that into their plots.

The thing about defining the past isn't that you have to use it, but having it there allows for certain subplots to happen. Your main plot can be about a knock down drag out fight or mystery that needs solving. Your subplot deals usually with the personal life of the hero. Now I know people will say "I come to Nightwing to see Dick Grayson beat up the bad guy and get laid with random women." Well good on you then, that's great, but a vast majority of readers come for an adventure but stay for the personal subplots that happen with the characters. Why? Because that is what makes the character human and relatable. And there's the other key here, the less a character has in their past the less relatable you can make them. Say for instance I wanted to talk about Bruce's Love life for whatever reason. Maybe there's a case he's working on where a guy is a two timer or something. Using that past I can build on a personal connection to the case given that he's been with several women (Julie Madison, Viki Vale, Kathy Kane...etc) so it could make it so that he grapples with the question of "Am I like this guy?" because of how he uses part of his persona to cover for being Batman. Without that history it would be harder to make that personal connection to the situation.

On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for the complaints that we see from Conway, Oasis, and others. Yes, we have been told that certain relationships still exist, that certain things still happened, and so forth, but none of that seems to carry all that much weight. Now, granted, continuity and the past never carried all that much weight. Despite the much vaunted deep history of the DC Universe pre-Flashpoint, the past mostly only existed when the writers really needed it to exist for some specific reason, otherwise it was mostly meaningless. After all, when Batman faces the Joker at the end of No Man's Land, does he really seem to have any sense that this is the man who murdered Jason Todd and crippled Barbra Gordon? Not really, no. But five years later, in Hush, suddenly the death of Jason Todd is a big deal again, only once again not to be a real event by Black Mirror. And that was in the supposed heyday of history and a shared universe.

The thing is, in regard to writers using the history of things, it depends on the writers knowledge and understanding of the history in question, and the size of the event. The No Man's land novels I believe addressed more of the issue with Joker than the comics did, but that's two different mediums and books tend to allow for more exploration of various things than comics can due in part the number of pages a comic can have. The thing about weight is that when used properly the weight can have a definite meaning, as you pointed out with Hush. Jason's death there was brought to the forefront due to the fact that it was a more personal story that Bruce was dealing with, where as with No Man's Land, there's a huge epic problem that he needs to face. Man vs Nature in No man's Land's case vs. Man vs. Himself or Man in Hush. They are two very different stories with very different conflicts. Moments that may be slipped in could have been useful, but again the question is, does the writer have the skills to know about this and will the reader get the history? There in lies where the editor comes in to decide things. We won't know for sure if Jason's death may have been used in parts of a script in No Man's land, because the writers and artist can't outright show their stuff due to legal reasons with DC's contracts. Which is a shame really.

But, here's the thing, at some point the past needs to matter if we are to have any belief in its reality at all. If, to take a for instance, Dick really did have a relationship with Kori and Roy, then at some point there needs to be a story arc where that shared past really is important. If his time as Batman means something, then at some point there needs to be a story where something from that time really is important. That, I think, is what people are missing, and why it seems like Dick's past and connections, despite the protestations of DC, really do seem slippery and insubstantial.

Agreed! I think it comes down again to the Show me, don't Tell me that it's important aspect. As a long time reader I know that it is important, but just because I know something from a different universe doesn't mean that in this one it exists. Like you said at some point these stories need to be told. DC can't just rely on past stories and say "Well it happened pre reboot." Nope you don't get a treat for that lame excuse. This is sort of why I wish that DC would just adapt Marvel's sliding timeline. It would have cleared a hell of a lot up rather than doing reboot after reboot.

[JasonTodd428]

Agreed! I think it comes down again to the Show me, don't Tell me that it's important aspect. As a long time reader I know that it is important, but just because I know something from a different universe doesn't mean that in this one it exists. Like you said at some point these stories need to be told. DC can't just rely on past stories and say "Well it happened pre reboot." Nope you don't get a treat for that lame excuse. This is sort of why I wish that DC would just adapt Marvel's sliding timeline. It would have cleared a hell of a lot up rather than doing reboot after reboot.

I do think readers deserve to have someone at DC say what stories and parts of history are definitively still in play and which ones aren't. That's a very important bit of information and it might go a long way toward making some fans a little less divisive about the changes that were made as well as clearing up a few things. However, just because we don't have all the details on the history of the N52 it doesn't automatically follow that everything from the previous universe has been wiped from existence either. It's more of a two way street IMHO. I've been working on the assumption since the reboot started that everyone's histories are still there but because things happened differently in this timeline those histories are not exact duplicates of those in the previous universe, which is why I feel we should be given a background on the N52 universe. Then again I'm one of those go with the flow kind of guys who are not bothered with changes overmuch and who pretty much considers everything to be "in continuity" at least in my own mind until I'm shown otherwise so I suppose YMMV on this.

[Lazurus33]

I do think readers deserve to have someone at DC say what stories and parts of history are definitively still in play and which ones aren't. That's a very important bit of information and it might go a long way toward making some fans a little less divisive about the changes that were made as well as clearing up a few things. However, just because we don't have all the details on the history of the N52 it doesn't automatically follow that everything from the previous universe has been wiped from existence either. It's more of a two way street IMHO. I've been working on the assumption since the reboot started that everyone's histories are still there but because things happened differently in this timeline those histories are not exact duplicates of those in the previous universe, which is why I feel we should be given a background on the N52 universe. Then again I'm one of those go with the flow kind of guys who are not bothered with changes overmuch and who pretty much considers everything to be "in continuity" at least in my own mind until I'm shown otherwise so I suppose YMMV on this.

We need a N52 version of these:

History_of_the_DC_Universe_1.jpg

24760-3604-27540-1-history-of-the-dc-un.jpg

[JasonTodd428]

We need a N52 version of these:

History_of_the_DC_Universe_1.jpg

24760-3604-27540-1-history-of-the-dc-un.jpg

I agree. I really would like to see something like that for the N52. Maybe we'll get something like it at some point.

[oasis1313]

At least Starfire REMEMBERED that she'd slept with Dick before. Doesn't appear to remember anything else about whether they had a relationship, but I guess the rolling in the hay must have been good enough to spark a neuron in her brain somewhere.

[HLOTS]

At least Starfire REMEMBERED that she'd slept with Dick before. Doesn't appear to remember anything else about whether they had a relationship, but I guess the rolling in the hay must have been good enough to spark a neuron in her brain somewhere.

What about Dick? Does he remember Starfire? Does he ever talk about her? Has he ever tried to contact her?
Why should she give a damn about him?

[ReverseReverseFlash]

I remember when DC said this isn't a complete reboot when new52 was about to come out which shows in Batman and Gl etc main titles.

That was their mistake and downfall. You can't half reboot a universe like pre52. New52 is a mess because of that.

That's a load.

1985 was a half-reboot. Zero Hour was half-reboot. Infinite Crisis was a half-reboot.

Last I checked, 'fans' couldn't stop clamoring for the return of those eras.

[nepenthes]

Such an epic cover. courtesy of gotham spoilers

[Conway]

What about Dick? Does he remember Starfire? Does he ever talk about her? Has he ever tried to contact her?
Why should she give a damn about him?

The Requiem issue Lobdell did seemed to show that Dick remembered and was avoiding her. Some of the stuff at the beginning of Tynion's RHatO run insinuated that the breakup was painful and that's why she chose not to remember anything.

Really this issue did three things, it showed why he was needed at SPYRAL, it killed Nightwing, and it showed him moving forward into SPYRAL. From the "set-up" angle it did everything it needed to. From a fan standpoint it kind of just ignored Nightwing and was a let down. From the business sense it failed to capitalize on the huge opportunity to cash in on people's love for Dick Grayson. You can bet his funeral issue would have sold as well as B&R R.I.P.

[Dzetoun]

Really this issue did three things, it showed why he was needed at SPYRAL, it killed Nightwing, and it showed him moving forward into SPYRAL. From the "set-up" angle it did everything it needed to. From a fan standpoint it kind of just ignored Nightwing and was a let down. From the business sense it failed to capitalize on the huge opportunity to cash in on people's love for Dick Grayson. You can bet his funeral issue would have sold as well as B&R R.I.P.

I think there were more problems with the set-up than that. There was another thing that needed to be done that was not even attempted, which is to give a clear and reasoned explanation for keeping the Bat Family in the dark when so many other people appear to be in the know. The absence of such an explanation was, I think, why we see so many comments about the Spyral angle being very weak.

[JasonTodd428]

I think there were more problems with the set-up than that. There was another thing that needed to be done that was not even attempted, which is to give a clear and reasoned explanation for keeping the Bat Family in the dark when so many other people appear to be in the know. The absence of such an explanation was, I think, why we see so many comments about the Spyral angle being very weak.

I'm wondering if that explanation is, in fact, something that is going to be given in the first few issues of Grayson, which might indicate that they were handed NW#30 sometime after they had already finished with at least the first issue of Grayson if not a few more. If it is maybe they didn't think to repeat it in NW #30 because of that. IDK