Diversity in the Batman line

[Dabpool]

I've been a fan for DC for a long time and I want to see them do well. Take a look at the movie, sports and recoding industry. Three names that can be synonymous with those industries are Will Smith, Lebron James and Jay-Z. Now no matter how much you personally don't identify with those people there's a whole swarth of people who do and are willing to spend billions of dollars. In terms of the NBA, a multi billion dollar brand,75% of the fans in this country are minorities and has the highest international brand status out of any US sports league. My point being I don't think DC is "pandering" btw I can never imagine a black comic fan saying that I know I wouldn't . I see them trying to collect the revenue they are missing out on.

[Dabpool]

Also this whole "only add diversity if it makes sense in the story". What does that even mean. I treat these characters as if they are real people living in a real world. If some one does something spectacular in the real world do we ask "why was he black" "why is he white ". No, that would not be racist that would be nonsensical. Thanks Mr Fireman for putting out the fire,being brave and all that but answer me this why are you a minority?

[BumbleBecc]

Twas just a joke from a five years bitter Cass Cain fan, sorry. Ignore me.

The sad thing is i want Cass back too.

I wasn't meaning this as a barb to people who are Steph fans though so I'm sorry you seem to have taken it as such. I can't help but wonder though, what with what is going on with Wally, whether Stephanie's fans wouldn't have reacted in the same way Wally's fans have had she been the one to have had a race change.

Unfortunately it reads exactly as a barbed comment, and then further piling on. It reads as insulting and dismissive and consistent with comments that have been thrown at Stephanie fans for a substantial amount of time.

It's not helpful, and it's provocative. It would be helpful if people considered this before making jibes.

It's particularly ironic that a long suffering group of fans should be dismissed as entitled, in this manner, when they are fans of one of the most mistreated characters in the DC canon. Even moreso when comics fandom has recently shown that when a woman criticises a COVER, one measly cover, it is some male readers who've indulged in death threats, rape threats, publishing personal details and bank account hacking.

Frankly sending a few waffles, or standing up at conventions to as questions about her future is hardly worthy of mockery, when this is considered.

Smallville is a entirely different thing though and they do their own thing there so it's easier to accept any type of change they chose to make. Wally's change is upsetting because it's an change to a character within the N52 universe among other things. I don't imagine that Stephanie fans would have been any happier with a similar change under the same circumstances.

Now I'm not sure she's being treated differently but I do have to say being a part of the Bat line sure does increase her chances of been treated more carefully, especially in light of the Tim Drake fiasco.

And that's a super-valid point: after the initial anger of characters not making it through the transition immediately, the New 52's biggest criticism has been the unnecessary changes to its characters done to appease something other than story (and sometimes story as well). Look at Teen Titans and the reactions to Kid Flash there, followed by what's happening to Wally. Look at the switch from David to Luke in Batwing. Steph fans would have been very loud and vocal about changes.

She was not treated carefully before, she was one of the most mistreated characters in the whole canon.
I don't see why her fandom has to be dragged into this anyway, particularly as an object of mockery when what her fandom was objecting to was her sexualised torture, murder as a message, reduction to being a useless cipher, denial of status and subsequent removal from projects post reboot with at that point no hint of a return. The changes made to Wally are not equivalent.

That Wally fans are upset about the changes to him has nothing to do with Stephanie fans and i don't see why people are determined to drag us in, particularly in the manner adopted.

[Brian from Canada]

It's not helpful, and it's provocative. It would be helpful if people considered this before making jibes.

I think you're misreading what Jason was saying. Stephanie's fans are a vocal bunch — that much is clear based on the amount of demand DC saw at convention panels over the last two years. So are Wally's and Donna's. Watching the reaction to Wally, it's hard not to wonder — in a thread about the need for increased diversity in the Bat-family — how Stephanie fans would react if the same changes were made to her too in the name of diversity. Clearly, they'd be as vocal if not more so.

It's particularly ironic that a long suffering group of fans should be dismissed as entitled, in this manner, when they are fans of one of the most mistreated characters in the DC canon.

Who is dismissing them? I don't think that's happening here. If anything, Stephanie would not be returning to comics had her fan base not been vocal about her absence enough to make DC consider bringing her back. (The same goes for Wally and Donna, both returning this year, while the lack of vocal support for Garth means he's left to languish in absence.) And to say that a fan base wants their character to remain consistent in terms of portrayal — if not improved upon certain aspects — should not define them as "entitled." The only ones, in my opinion, who act entitled are the ones who say that they know better than DC as to how to handle the representation of their universe, and who to hire to write and draw that instead of DC's writers/artists/editors.

Even moreso when comics fandom has recently shown that when a woman criticises a COVER, one measly cover, it is some male readers who've indulged in death threats, rape threats, publishing personal details and bank account hacking.

That's a huge over generalization. First of all, a small handful of male readers do not represent the entirety of male readership. Second, their actions were condemned universally in every possible way. A line was crossed, and no one was happy about it. (That there were no criminal charges announced as being investigated quite frankly surprises me.) Third, there was valid criticism to the opinion piece that had nothing to do with being anti-woman or anti-character, but it got drowned out by those who felt it better to hijack the discussion and make it about being sexist towards the presentation of women. When one poster is criticized for saying they'd said their piece and was done with it, you know the civility has left, and that betrays the love of comics that brings people to the forums. It wasn't the only thread being hijacked either, but it was the tipping point where it became clear that only one set of opinions were being accepted by a few, and that had to change.

None of which reflects on Stephanie as a character. I think if you go back in the archives (before they are deleted) you will see a desire for her to return and be well written again in many readers. The mockery was of DC, who should have realized after the 10th time that there's enough demand in the audience to bring her back sooner than later.

She was not treated carefully before, she was one of the most mistreated characters in the whole canon.
I don't see why her fandom has to be dragged into this anyway, particularly as an object of mockery when what her fandom was objecting to was her sexualised torture, murder as a message, reduction to being a useless cipher, denial of status and subsequent removal from projects post reboot with at that point no hint of a return. The changes made to Wally are not equivalent.

Could you please elaborate here? With examples if possible?

I don't recall any articles about how Spoiler fans were mocked for objecting to her torture. I don't recall any hostility from DC or reports from panels that fans of Stephanie Brown were derided for questioning how she had been treated pre-52. "Mistreated" often means written wrongly or so poorly that it cancels out interest, and Spoiler was hardly alone in that regard: at the end of the post-Crisis era, there were numerous examples that needed to be erased in order to repair the damage. Heck, Sue Dibney received far worse treatment as a character (getting actually killed sadistically out of nowhere), and there was anger at that from the fans, so anything that happened similarly would have been vocalized to in response.

Nor was it her treatment before that kept her out of the New 52. DC made it clear there were no plans for her, Wally, Donna, Garth or other characters left out at the initial launch, and it was only after the fans continued to pester the publisher about the character's return that the expectation of question was mocked — a point, it should be noted, that angered the readers on Internet forums. If you look at the Bat books closely, they had no idea what to do with Jason and Tim either; Steph would have been another casualty of poor planning, IMO.

That Wally fans are upset about the changes to him has nothing to do with Stephanie fans and i don't see why people are determined to drag us in, particularly in the manner adopted.

Because this is a thread about diversity, and Wally's reintroduction smacks of changes to an existing character to appease that demand for diversity — at a time when he's not the only character coming back. Stephanie, thankfully, has been shown to be consistent with her pre-52 appearances, but the speculation of how they would have reacted is a valid one — as is wondering how Donna Troy fans will react if any cosmetic changes are made to her as well.

[Brian from Canada]

At the dawn of the NEW 52 I would have only kept Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, and Cassandra Cain. Damian would have come in later, as Robin.

Well, that's the difference between us. For me, the dawn of the New 52 would have had Bruce as Batman, Dick as Nightwing, Tim as Robin, Barbara as Oracle working with Dinah as Black Canary, no Batgirl, and Jason in hiding after being stopped from killing the Joker. That keeps consistent with the animated features released up to that point (which more readers would know) as well as the key moments that moved the characters forward.

Stephanie would not be in it simply because Tim's working with the Titans would have been a side project that he tried to keep away from Batman — until The Culling, at which point the Justice League would have had to pay attention. (Seriously: they blow up part of the desert and no one in the League bothers to notice? WTC mate!)

When Tim is forced back to school, that's when you introduce Stephanie. And Damian would be reintroduced later, as the League Of Assassins was built up again, with Cassandra as his bodyguard; when Talia launches her attack in revenge for Batman defeating her father, then each member of the Bats would have someone to go up against (Talia-Bruce, Dick-Jason, Tim-Damian, Steph-Cassandra) while Oracle guided the new agents (the new Batman Inc.) against the regular forces.

But to each their own, right?

[BumbleBecc]

Who is dismissing them? Stephanie would not be returning to comics had her fan base not been vocal about her absence enough to make DC consider bringing her back.

Right here.

Cos hell hath no fury like a bunch of white teenage girls with tumblr accounts and no time on their hands?

I have to agree with this statement. The was enough of a bruhaha over Wally. Can you just imagine the explosion it would have created if they had changed one hair on Steph's head? I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't have wanted to see the backlash on that one.

I'll agree as well.

Its quite clear.

That's a huge over generalization. First of all, a small handful of male readers do not represent the entirety of male readership.

That would be a point if i had over generalised as the people in the above quotes did, but that NEVER happened.
Read what i wrote. I said 'Some' i didn't dismiss all men, or even a majority, i said SOME. I never described male fans as a bunch of anything, i commented on some.

Even moreso when comics fandom has recently shown that when a woman criticises a COVER, one measly cover, it is some male readers who've indulged in death threats, rape threats, publishing personal details and bank account hacking.

Could you please elaborate here?

I don't recall any articles about how Spoiler fans were mocked for objecting to her torture. I don't recall any hostility from DC or reports from panels that fans of Stephanie Brown were derided for questioning how she had been treated pre-52. "Mistreated" often means written wrongly or so poorly that it cancels out interest, and Spoiler was hardly alone in that regard: at the end of the post-Crisis era, there were numerous examples that needed to be erased in order to repair the damage. Heck, Sue Dibney received far worse treatment as a character (getting actually killed sadistically out of nowhere), and there was sensitivity to that by the fans, so anything that happened similarly would have been vocalized to in response.

Certainly.

It is commonplace for Stephanie fans to be mocked as zealous, my point is that they have been given every right to be.

I would not dispute that Sue Dibney was badly treated, and it is utterly shameful and fully a part of the sexism prevalent in too many comics, and something that I decry just as vehemently, but i would certainly dispute that it was worse than Stephanie's as a way to undermine my statements.

Was it suggested that it was Sue's fault she was killed?
Was it made out to be Sue's fault for disobeying a man and doing something so stupid she got killed?
Was she graphically tortured with power tools?
Was she blamed for this by other characters such as Onyx?
The question of rape i do NOT want to go into in detail but there has even been suggestions that it is implied that this was also committed against Stephanie by Black Mask, certainly Black Mask's words to her and the torture are highly sexualised. Could the drill be any more phallic? I desperately don't want to think that DC sunk that low, but many do.
Was Sue then murdered by the Dr who could have saved her simply to teach a man a lesson?
Was her significant other supposed to be 'cried out' so he didnt even weep at her funeral?
Was Sue allowed to be a certain here and then that status denied? Were her fans told she was never really worthy of that honour, it was just a gimic?
Did the writer of the story say he wished to gun down her fans?

DC certainly intended Stephanie to be just as dead as Sue was, they had multiple ghost stories of her including a charming issue of Batgirl with her looking emaciated and decayed and again blaming herself for her own death. Thank g_d after a few years we got her back, but it was plainly not DC's original intention, particularly as the return makes little logical sense.

Stephanie's treatment was absolutely appalling.



Finally my objection was to the mocking way in which Steph fandom was introduced into the discussion, the piling on, and the non apologies and justifications that followed.

[JasonTodd428]

[QUOTE=BumbleBecc;28215]

Who is dismissing them? Stephanie would not be returning to comics had her fan base not been vocal about her absence enough to make DC consider bringing her back.[/QUOTE}

Right here.







Its quite clear.




That would be a point if i had over generalised as the people in the above quotes did, but that NEVER happened.
Read what i wrote. I said 'Some' i didn't dismiss all men, or even a majority, i said SOME. I never described male fans as a bunch of anything, i commented on some.






Certainly.

It is commonplace for Stephanie fans to be mocked as zealous, my point is that they have been given every right to be.

I would not dispute that Sue Dibney was badly treated, and it is utterly shameful and fully a part of the sexism prevalent in too many comics, and something that I decry just as vehemently, but i would certainly dispute that it was worse than Stephanie's as a way to undermine my statements.

Was it suggested that it was Sue's fault she was killed?
Was it made out to be Sue's fault for disobeying a man and doing something so stupid she got killed?
Was she graphically tortured with power tools?
Was she blamed for this by other characters such as Onyx?
The question of rape i do NOT want to go into in detail but there has even been suggestions that it is implied that this was also committed against Stephanie by Black Mask, certainly Black Mask's words to her and the torture are highly sexualised. Could the drill be any more phallic? I desperately don't want to think that DC sunk that low, but many do.
Was Sue then murdered by the Dr who could have saved her simply to teach a man a lesson?
Was her significant other supposed to be 'cried out' so he didnt even weep at her funeral?
Was Sue allowed to be a certain here and then that status denied? Were her fans told she was never really worthy of that honour, it was just a gimic?
Did the writer of the story say he wished to gun down her fans?

DC certainly intended Stephanie to be just as dead as Sue was, they had multiple ghost stories of her including a charming issue of Batgirl with her looking emaciated and decayed and again blaming herself for her own death. Thank g_d after a few years we got her back, but it was plainly not DC's original intention, particularly as the return makes little logical sense.

Stephanie's treatment was absolutely appalling.



Finally my objection was to the mocking way in which Steph fandom was introduced into the discussion, the piling on, and the non apologies and justifications that followed.

You know what fine if you want me to admit I was being dismissive the I shall but that was far from what I was meaning. Brain was correct about my line of thinking there. Next time I'll try to be clearer. Geez. And next time I won't bother with an apology either. Peace.

@Brian-Thanks for the help but I'm leaving since it's been made clear that I'm not welcome in this topic.

[BumbleBecc]

You know what fine if you want me to admit I was being dismissive the I shall but that was far from what I was meaning. Brain was correct about that. Next time I'll try to be clearer. Geez. And next time I won't bother with an apology either. Peace.

Generally apologies work a certain way.

I am sorry i caused offence = my bad = apology = accepted.
I am sorry you thought it was offensive = it was your fault for being offended= not an apology.

Unfortunately more and more people use the second form.


ALl i want is for people to think before they make comments which are dismissive or mocking.
I've put up with them my whole life, as i'm sure others have here.
Of all places shouldn't we make an effort to THINK about what we say.

I have been harsh here. Possibly harsher than i should have been. I am sorry that i have been so harsh, but i stand by my point.
Evasion won't help us, we need to face things, and be aware that dismissing sections of the community diminishes us.

[JasonTodd428]

Generally apologies work a certain way.

I am sorry i caused offence = my bad = apology = accepted.
I am sorry you thought it was offensive = it was your fault for being offended= not an apology.

Unfortunately more and more people use the second form.

The thing is I wasn't intentionally being offensive in the first place and I don't see how your second form applies but whatever. Your clearly not going to see that though so since I've been made to feel unwelcome here then I'll simply depart.

[BumbleBecc]

The thing is I wasn't intentionally being offensive in the first place and I don't see how your second form applies but whatever. Your clearly not going to see that though so since I've been made to feel unwelcome here then I'll simply depart.

PM sent, let us try to work through things.

EDIT: Talking is always a good thing. Jason seems a decent guy. Kurisu (i could at least spell properly sheesh) is ever so nice too.

I haven't talked with you Dzetoun, but lets move past it.
I am sorry to be as harsh as i have been.

Shalom

[godisawesome]

New 52 — like Crisis On Infinite Earths before it — was about stripping the concept down to its essential core and then modifying that core to work with today's understanding of superheroics and its mechanics. In the case of Batman, film and television have repeatedly emphasized that core to be Bruce Wayne, his immediate assistants Alfred and Jim Gordon, and his two immediate successors: Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, and Dick Grayson as Robin. That's it. And it's not a Silver Age thing, it's a Golden Age to Silver Age to Bronze Age to Modern Age to Digital Age continuity of what the essential core of Batman is.

Everyone else in the Bat-verse has to have a connection to those characters in order to be an expansion of the Bat-family.

DC could not complete Morrison's story arc without Damian Wayne being present, and Damian's existence without Jason Todd and Tim Drake could not be justified. It is for that reason that Jason and Tim were allowed to continue into the New 52, and it is not without an incredible amount of conflict with the Marvel-like "five year" gap between start of the Justice League and the start of fifty titles in the New 52. Todd in particular seems to have developed a large skill set in a minimal amount of time while Drake has had his time as Robin so minimalized that he is, essentially, a non-Robin when discussed by the Bat-office.

Helena was also allowed to appear — but the writers quickly returned her character to being the daughter of Batman as per pre-Crisis continuity. Those that believe "their" character has been taken away need to realize that The Huntress, as they have known her since 1986, is not the Huntress; it's a replacement for someone else's Huntress that had been around beforehand.

But Stephanie Brown is a perfect example of the non-essential character. Her arcs in post-Crisis DC are as Tim's girlfriend (a role not needed when he's on the run in Teen Titans, in which there will be potential romance with Wonder Girl opposite Superboy) and a potential Robin (a role taken by Damian). She also has the pregnancy component which might distract from the core problems of the Bat-family planned for the New 52: what would happen to her in "Death Of The Family," for example? How would she fit into "Requiem"?

Delaying Stephanie's introduction until her place inside the New 52 universe could be fully thought out is actually a bonus in her favour. Batman Eternal is being planned to define how each of the Bats relates to Batman's Gotham base, and with the roles defined of Batgirl (emotional partner who follows her own path), Batwoman (supernatural aspects), and Red Robin (other leads), we can get how Stephanie and Harper both fit into the mix.


And that's wrong. Defining a character for her minority appeal refuses to accept that she is more defined by the world around her. Cassandra was intended to be a replacement for Batgirl, since Barbara Gordon could no longer perform that role. Gordon, however, now can, so there's no need for another Batgirl in the wings. She becomes another fighting character in a city of fighting characters — and, with all due respect to her fans, it's very hard to justify her existence in Gotham City when you have Black Canary (martial artist with military and espionage training) and Strix (multiple combat arts, communications problems) working with Babs, and Batwoman also running around as well.

Plus, when it comes to Asians, I think a poll would find DC readers might prefer something more done with Katana at the moment than introduce another character to the Bat-world. Katana has demonstrated a lot of potential, in her solo series and in both Birds Of Prey and Green Arrow, and that potential still has to be used to its fullest. (And she's not the only Asian character either.)



DC's junior members don't have any adult supervision, a fact lamented in Teen Titans' final issue. When it does, what's to stop the writers from not taking a cue from Young Justice, the popular animated series, and making Black Canary their trainer? She would certainly be more logical a choice — after all, she's already been established to have taught in a dojo and have the trust of the Justice League (something Cassandra has not).

As for Tim and Cass being together — that was clearly someone's replacement of the Silver Age Batgirl & Robin pairing, and it has no place in the New 52 DCU. Not now, anyway. Tim Drake has been awfully neglected, thanks to poor editorial division, and Batman Eternal has been deemed the first tool to fix that effectively. He can only have one partner in there, and given the choice between Cass and Stephanie, I would rather have Stephanie in there far more than Cassandra. Stephanie has a much more solid background that's unique in the DCU (remember: Damian was raised to be a weapon too), and the romance of the characters is really what endeared them to readers far more than simply being replacements for other heroes.

Thanks for repsonding.

I do have to say that I don't think the core of the Bat-family is the classic Silver age trio anymore, though. I'd say the core of the Bat-family now comes in two types; the Batman as a solo here with no hangers on type, and the generational teams version.

Every media has featured a story with the first; it's arguably the defining trait of the Nolan films. It's also the most simple and easiest version to dive into.

But the second has slowly but surely supplanted the classic line-up in everything but the movies (largely thanks to Batman and Robin traumatizing executives on any sidekicks.) The Arkham series, DTV movie series, and multiple different TV shows all embrace the idea that Dick will become Nightwing, Babs will at least display Oracle style skills, and that there will be successor Robins, with most likely Tim Drake as the leading candidate. The old trio is expected, but now they're the generations 1&2 with a generation 3 perpetually appearing.

Both Batman and Green Lantern showed the benefits of expansion and forward momentum before the reboot, and both clearly continued to reap the benefits after the reboot. The only truly innovative change to the Bat-Family was Babs regaining her suit and fighting abilities, though Simone managed to hold onto the actual events of the Killing Joke, so this entire status quo change could have been a natural development with no problem.

And all the other big changes have been lackluster and generally tolerated, not accepted, or rejected by the fanbase. Helena Wayne's book isn't doing as hot as it should and might be cancelled, Tim's Teen Titans are being cancelled and relaunched, and the only changes really accepted have been the material delivered to supplant the old stuff instead of jack hammered into it...which was the same formula used on Batman during the COIE turnover.

And I'd say stuff like Eternal and Forever Evil, with it's teasing of the Bertinelli's return, imply a tacit acknowledgement by DC that most of their Bat-family changes were kind of stupid. At least I hope so.

And I have to say that I value Cassandra Cain over Black Canary when it comes Gotham specific missions and superheroics, and I see them as being radically different and not at all interchangeable. Black Canary's an autonomous hero who stands on her own and has down to Earth skills combined with a superpower. Cass is that hyper-reality insane martial artist, and her perspective on the world serves as an awesome altruistic look at humanity.

And I'm just going to flat out say it: Cass kicks too much ass to be redundant or replaced by any other Batfamily affiliate. She's an action hero and incredibly unique POV first, a female superhero second. She subverts all kinds of stereotypes and cliches to compete with the big boys of the family: she's a better fighter than all the guys while being comparatively uneducated, she serves others out of a strong sense of compassion and altruism that doesn't require an orphan childhood, subverts the brainwashed-and-raised to kill stereotype, and she's so unique that she's both one of the most heartwarming characters in the family and the most terrifying. And of all the sidekicks, she's the only one who's selection as a nighttime crusader needs to excuse; it's built into her origins that she's more at home trashing scumbags and psychos than anything else.

Reading her stuff was so unique when I was getting into comics, and her only real handicaps have been imposed by editorial and failed to kill her once.

They were stupid to try again.

[t hedge coke]

For those asking for more evidence of Steph fans being dismissed or mocked, I think BumbleBecc did a good job of extracting statements from this thread, alone, though one was apparently in jest to some degree.

And, I really can't believe anyone thinks Steph fans would panic the way Wally fans did if she was reintroduced black, Laotian, Cree, or German-descent for three reasons:

They already announced a new version who'd be black (and this new Wally is just a new version), and the internet did not explode, but many fans were disappointed when it didn't happen. Steph fans, largely, just seemed to be happy good talent were going to be using her.

And, second, it's not because the Smallville universe is less real. Most of her fans don't seem care what universe she's in, or whether the DCnU or post-Crisis U is more real than Smallville or whatever. They just wanted appearances. She could've ported over to Marvel and her fanbase would probably deal fine.

Third, Steph fans, for a smaller fandom are quite diverse. Just here on the board with BumbleBecc, myself, beetlebum, and others, you have a range of ethnicities, nationalities, ages, and genders. I don't want to pigeon hole, here, but if we take a look at the Wally-panickers, I wonder what the breakdown looks like.

[Brian from Canada]

Both Batman and Green Lantern showed the benefits of expansion and forward momentum before the reboot, and both clearly continued to reap the benefits after the reboot.

I totally disagree here.

Batman Incorporated does not fit into the New 52 and is jackhammered in so badly that it becomes implausible: not only has Batman had four Robins in five years, but he's had enough time to hire and train Batman in Europe, Asia and Africa? As for Damian himself, I noted before on CBR that the biggest problem with Damian is that truncated Tim's career as Robin. Dick graduated. Jason's tenure was cut short by Joker, and he becomes someone else's disciple. But Tim? He's pushed out for the natural kid to a point he's not even part of the Batman universe any more. (Teen Titans had no relation to the Bat office at all except for the crossover where he was expected to participate.)

Stripping Batman back a decade to when it was him and Tim, with Dick as Nightwing and Babs as Oracle would have made the timeline far more acceptable and – more to the point – the Batcave far more handleable. It would have allowed Stephanie to appear much quicker (in the Batman & Robin book), and lessen the idea that there's an entire army of assassins vs a fighting force of Bats out there that every other hero is oblivious to. When Batman formed the Outsiders, it was because there was room for another team handling stuff the Justice League couldn't. Here, in New 52, the entry of Batman Incorporated makes the League a distraction from Batman's real fight altogether.

As for the Lanterns, DC failed miserably at how to handle the spectrum after the reboot. Six armies, three special rings on top, and it boils down to event after event because the characters within each are barely strong enough to handle a solo story of their own. Red Lanterns flailed until Guy was put in and they actually started acting like a team. Larfleeze is a joke. New Guardians abandoned most of the team and has become an event in waiting with the annual. And Sinestro is setting itself up to be in the next event, not really to develop the Sinestro Corps into anything but Arkillo & company.

Both Morrison and Johns did the New 52 no favours in picking up from story lines that started beforehand.

[QUOTE=godisawesome;28643]The only truly innovative change to the Bat-Family was Babs regaining her suit and fighting abilities, though Simone managed to hold onto the actual events of the Killing Joke, so this entire status quo change could have been a natural development with no problem.[QUOTE=godisawesome;28643]
It wasn't Simone that did that. I met Simone at a con shortly after the relaunch, and she voiced dismay at the step backwards for Barbara. As for innovative change, Batman didn't need it. Of all the DC heroes, his was the story needing to be modernized least.

And all the other big changes have been lackluster and generally tolerated, not accepted, or rejected by the fan base.

Not all of them. Wonder Woman fans seem to like the realistic revelation that the "made you out of clay" story was a lie to cover up an affair. Aquaman fans are pleased that a lot of the deaths and rebirths have been jettisoned and he's been put back to a strong hero capable of standing up with the "trinity."

Most people forget that part of New 52's concept was to re-envision the characters for modern television and movies so that potential directors and producers don't seem them as antiques from the previous century (as Marvel loves to call them). Some have benefited from the changes, others have not — but it was a risk worth taking because they weren't succeeding with the status quo. The fan base that has rejected the changes includes a big chunk of readers who thought there was no point in making the changes in the first place — and DC knows from its experience with Crisis On Infinite Earths that those readers will eventually come back.

Helena Wayne's book isn't doing as hot as it should and might be cancelled,

Worlds' Finest's problems are not related to the reversion of Helena back to where she was pre-1986. It comes from the fact that the book just isn't that great. But, that said, it doesn't appear in danger of cancellation at the moment — not when the heroines are going to return to Earth-2 just as Earth-2 gets a weekly of its own. If anything, there may be a shift in cast with their return, and that's perfectly fine by me, since Earth-2 has become bloated in cast and narrative right now.

Tim's Teen Titans are being cancelled and relaunched,

Mostly because of bad editing and forced crossovers than the changes. Seriously: Lobdell's plots are used in only half the issues, as we get the introduction of Superboy, "The Culling," "Death Of The Family," "Requiem" and "Forever Evil" all swaying the book back and forth. What changes there were were needed since the idea of the handy sidekick is not being used in New 52 or anywhere else in comics.

the same formula used on Batman during the COIE turnover.

Batman's changes in Crisis On Infinite Earths were just the opposite: in order to prepare the character for the upcoming movie, everything not to the very core of Batman was jettisoned. Goodbye went Earth-2, Robin, and more. Then DC saw the film and immediately planned to kill Bruce Wayne off for good. Nothing was supplanted; if anything, Crisis was a culling, and that's what New 52 couldn't do because of Morrison a

And I'd say stuff like Eternal and Forever Evil, with it's teasing of the Bertinelli's return, imply a tacit acknowledgement by DC that most of their Bat-family changes were kind of stupid.

What tease? DC has firmly established Helena Bertinelli is an alias of Helena Wayne — period. Forever Evil hints at no such return, and Batman Eternal is purely about Falcone and his attempt to reassert the mobsters' control instead of the freaks. DC's only tacit acknowledgement of problems in the Bat-family are the lack of definition of who goes where — like how does Batwoman and Red Robin fit in when Batman needs them most? There's no acknowledgement that anything is stupid or wrong… if anything, Batman's sitting so high in the sales assures them it's right.

Their only problems they have, really, with Batman and his immediate family are the dropping sales of Batwoman (spurred by complaints over the sudden shift in creative teams) and flat sales for Batwing (a book that angered original fans and didn't do anything to bring new ones in with the transition). Expect both to get spotlights in Batman Eternal to help spur them on. But there will be no new Huntress; that's not even on the table.

[Brian from Canada]

Stephanie's treatment was absolutely appalling.

You make three key assumptions in your facts:

1. That Stephanie was intended to be a long-term replacement or permanent fixture in the Batman universe. Stephanie Brown was never fully welcomed into the Bats; she was a friend of Tim's, who replaced him temporarily and incurred Batman's wrath for not following orders (the same reason Tim got booted). But with a male Robin on television and Tim in Teen Titans at the time, the chance of Tim not returning to the role were slim — and once he did, there was no set plan for where she was to go, especially with another potential candidate to try out for the Batgirl role. They clearly had no idea what to do with her, and killing her off seemed the best option rather than have her wander in and out of stories. You may not agree that's the best option, but we've seen plenty of additional characters who vanish after their arcs never to be heard from again. (Like Arrowette: she's not mentioned after Young Justice ends.)

2. That the suggestion Stephanie incurred it upon herself is sexist and wrong. Batman's anger at Stephanie for disobeying him is rooted in the fact that he had already experienced what happens when he loses the ability to protect a teenager. For him, it was the worst possible scenario — and she just didn't see it that way. She went to the front lines and ended up paying for it at the hands of a sadistic villain in much the same way that Jason and Barbara both suffered traumatically from lone encounters with the villains. It may not have deserved rape, but keep in mind what sadisim was defined as in other media at the time. It wasn't just beating someone up any more.

3. That Stephanie's torture makes her more than a victim than Sue. Both stories happen in the same year, but unlike Stephanie — who exercised poor judgment as a hero — Sue was essentially a civilian. Sue is clearly raped (not implied) because Light says he did it — and she's not his only victim. Light also kills Sue to inflict pain on the other Leaguers, while Black Mask leaves Stephanie broken as a message not to interfere with him again. There was no chance to ever save Sue like there was with Stephanie, and Leslie didn't deny the medication to teach a lesson to Bruce: she did it to send a message to everyone else who thought it would be cool to work with Batman without realizing the dangers. Both are victims, both were brutalized, and neither has any claim as to who is the greater victim (unless you count death, then Steph loses because she wasn't really dead for the long term… though, as Robot Chicken reminded us, death with superheroes isn't worth having funerals for because they always come back somehow.)

Finally my objection was to the mocking way in which Steph fandom was introduced into the discussion, the piling on, and the non apologies and justifications that followed.

The first quote doesn't mock Steph fandom at all: it mocks the idea that DC feels much safer altering a character with a predominantly white male fan base because it's not a target audience they are worried about losing.
The second quote both Jason and I noted was not mocking at all, but the very real interest in how the various fan bases might react when their favourites become targets for change due to the demand for diversity. Had Stephanie been changed, the outrage would have been huge — because of its size, not because it is something to be mocked.
The third quote is taken out of context. It's not mocking either; Detzoun follows it up with the point that the Batman universe is far more protected than those of The Flash by its fans, who are more numerous.

That you find them mocking is your own opinion — and you're certainly entitled to that — but classifying the justification of how the original comment is not mocking as a non-apology is, again, what really got CBR to the point it had to have its community forums rebooted. We don't need more "with us or against us" positions in these discussions (please save that for politics), and we certainly don't need more "You're agreeing with them because you're silent" (that's for the interest groups screaming on television). You already have our attention as we have yours.

All I am saying is that there's a huge difference between disagreement and mocking, with the latter not meant to further discussion. The quotes you pointed to are meant for the former, not the latter, and were justified as that. Trust me: when someone is mocking the fan base, you will know: the mass media mocks comic readers all the time, as does Hollywood's latest crop of fandom dismissals.

[JaggedFel]

Yes compressing the bat timeline and keeping Damian in really screwed things especially Tim. U really need at least 10 years, maybe 15. But u can accelerate the aging on Damain.