Despite Rumors, DC Comics Stands Behind "DC You" Initiative Moving Forward

[GlennSimpson]

But it was in line with continuity and events that have influenced Batgirl's life.

Says the guy with the Ant-Man avatar, a character whose personality has gone through big changes (credible genius who took down Dr. Doom in "FF", lovable goofball in "Ant-Man").

[RobinFan4880]

But it was in line with continuity and events that have influenced Batgirl's life.

According to the poster I quoted, that is changing the character on a fundamental level. They aren't supposed to, in his mind, change. We the readers are supposed to move on, not force the characters to change with us (which is exactly what happened to Batgirl/Babs).

[xMatt]

Yeah, I know what you mean and I know where Byrne is coming from. The only part I take umbrage with, is that by his 'model', there should be no ramifications or wider consequences that impact a character. By his 'model', characters must remain stagnant.

Says the guy with the Ant-Man avatar, a character whose personality has gone through big changes (credible genius who took down Dr. Doom in "FF", lovable goofball in "Ant-Man").

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying I'm not allowed to like things?

And I'm not saying I enjoyed/didn't enjoy Batgirl. I'm just saying, that the characterisation is in line with over two decade's worth of stories, most of them told by Simone.

[GlennSimpson]

Yeah, I know what you mean and I know where Byrne is coming from. The only part I take umbrage with, is that by his 'model', there should be no ramifications or wider consequences that impact a character. By his 'model', characters must remain stagnant.



I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying I'm not allowed to like things?

And I'm not saying I enjoyed/didn't enjoy Batgirl. I'm just saying, that the characterisation is in line with over two decade's worth of stories, most of them told by Simone.

So do you think it was a mistake to change it for the latest version without explanation?

[xMatt]

For Batgirl or Ant-Man? And by mistake, do you mean: a) quality b) sales c) continuity/canon or d) all of the above?

[GlennSimpson]

For Batgirl or Ant-Man? And by mistake, do you mean: a) quality b) sales c) continuity/canon or d) all of the above?

For Batgirl, any of the above.

[xMatt]

In that case, I don't think it was a mistake.

The quality seems to be up (although I still don't really like it all that much, but that's personal preference). The sales seem to be up as well, from what I gather, at least digitally. As for continuity/canon -- it's the only part that I can view as a potential mistake but DC seems to be championing the 'story > continuity' concept. As you said, the change hasn't really been 'explained' (not yet, anyway). But if, ten or twenty years from now, this version of the character becomes the status quo and the definitive interpretation, I suppose it wasn't a mistake.

[kingaliencracker]

I know that particular stance is quite popular, but I've personally never believed or even understood it. If it were true that superhero characters should never change or evolve, a huge amount of them or the elements associated with them wouldn't even exist to be protective/conservative about. With Byrne's mind set, Batman wouldn't have a bat cave or a rouges gallery or a Robin, and Superman would be a bald scientist with telepathic powers... Or, hell, they would never even have been created, because that would be change for change's sake from pulp heroes like The Shadow or The Phantom, which in turn would have been considered change for change's sake from mythological heroes like Hercules and Gilgamesh, and so on. If anything, IMO change and evolution in superhero comics should be encouraged much more than it is today, and the fact that it isn't is an albatross around the neck of the industry.

I think there's a difference, though, between a character evolving naturally and new elements being introduced, versus say...marrying off Clark and Lois, or replacing Spider-Man with a clone, or killing off long-established characters and replacing them with new ones, etc.. I think the latter is what Byrne is getting at - not necessarily that new things or changes can't occur at all.

[GlennSimpson]

I think there's a difference, though, between a character evolving naturally and new elements being introduced, versus say...marrying off Clark and Lois, or replacing Spider-Man with a clone, or killing off long-established characters and replacing them with new ones, etc.. I think the latter is what Byrne is getting at - not necessarily that new things or changes can't occur at all.

The problem is, the difference between those categories varies from person to person.

Byrne didn't think that he significantly changed She-Hulk but others would disagree.

[TheNewFiftyForum]

The problem is, the difference between those categories varies from person to person.

Byrne didn't think that he significantly changed She-Hulk but others would disagree.

Exactly. "Natural evolution" is one of those phrases that are thrown around a lot, yet no one can give a definition of what the hell it actually means.

[John Aston]

I know that particular stance is quite popular, but I've personally never believed or even understood it. If it were true that superhero characters should never change or evolve, a huge amount of them or the elements associated with them wouldn't even exist to be protective/conservative about. With Byrne's mind set, Batman wouldn't have a bat cave or a rouges gallery or a Robin, and Superman would be a bald scientist with telepathic powers... Or, hell, they would never even have been created, because that would be change for change's sake from pulp heroes like The Shadow or The Phantom, which in turn would have been considered change for change's sake from mythological heroes like Hercules and Gilgamesh, and so on. If anything, IMO change and evolution in superhero comics should be encouraged much more than it is today, and the fact that it isn't is an albatross around the neck of the industry.

At some point, we move past watching Sesame Street and leave it for another audience and shouldn't expect Big Bird to be deconstructed as a shitzo talking to an imaginary friend which is all a dream sleeping in a bird cage inside Mr. Hooper's store.

In fairness, some superhero comics should evolve. Others should not. Batman's character can't evolve, which why we have his vast supporting characters like Nightwing, Robin, Batgirl so we can have a Bat-character moving forward. Spider-Man probably shouldn't have graduated high school. Daredevil should move forward but periodically getting kicked in the groin. Thor, not so much. The Green Lanterns rinse and repeat on about a 10- to 15-year pace as the corps is dismantled and reinstated creating the illusion of change.

If anybody who has been out of Marvel and DC proper for a while, it seems like change took place at once and again and again and again, and there isn't anything remotely familiar to relate. That said, jumping in and sorting out the world can be fun, too, but the days where comics were written as if every issue is somebody's first issue providing an in-story compass are long gone

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Hey whatever works for them. I'm happy because I'm saving a lot of money not buying these new titles, and dropping some of the ones I was reading.

You know, that's the reason people say the entire comics industry is going under. Because people refuse to try anything new or different.

Been reading comics since 1982 and I've seen lots of changes in those years. As with all changes I will drop some titles and pick up new ones, but with the drastic changes by DC and Marvel over the past few years my pull list for them has been getting smaller. So for me as an old buyer of their books it has backfired (really DC? a Robotic Bat Bunny?)....sorry, can't let that one go. As for Marvel, will not read Spider-Man until he's married to Mary Jane. I know, I know....let it go.

Can I ask how much of the "Robotic Bat Bunny" story you've actually read. Because I'd guess it was literally none of it...

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

LOL...DC looks that way now....IMO....clean up/order is needed.

I feel that Didio is saying that new fans can't enjoy the characters like the older fans.
Instead of good stories they have to change the foundation of the characters to make new fans like them.

Makes me feel like my business isn't wanted anymore.

LOL. Come on, guys. I'm a long time reader and I don't feel like my business "isn't wanted anymore." It's really disheartening to see older fans act like they are entitled to freeze these characters in time at the exact moment when they first knew them. Its an attitude like that that keeps the industry stagnant without any creativity or originality, which is after all the lifeblood of an industry like comics.

Obviously, when you have characters that are around as long as those at DC and Marvel, there have to be changes in the status quo and reinterpretations of who these characters are in order to relate them to the current societal landscape. 1950s Superman would not work today. Just like Iron Man, as he was originally presented, wouldn't work today either. How many changes has Spider-Man gone through in his 50+ year-long career? Is the campy 1960s Batman the same as the 1980s' Dark Knight?

People need to chill and accept change. Its not the end of the world. Trust me, you'll survive a few simple alterations to what are, after all, fictional characters.

[Tayswift]

But the current Batgil is a reversion to a simpler, happier Batgirl from the Silver Age. The dark, moody, depressed hero that was Simmone's Batgirl was antithetical to the classic interpretation of Batgirl.

Barbara outgrew her role as batgirl more than 20 years ago. bring her back was a mistake, the character lacks depth. stephanie was doing well as a lightheart batgirl before the reboot

[GlennSimpson]

At some point, we move past watching Sesame Street and leave it for another audience and shouldn't expect Big Bird to be deconstructed as a shitzo talking to an imaginary friend which is all a dream sleeping in a bird cage inside Mr. Hooper's store.

Well, there are two issues there. One, the new audience doesn't like the same thing we did, so they have to change it one way or the other. Also, the writers don't want to write the same things they or someone else already wrote.