Examples of Pre-Flashpoint Canon Reasserting Itself in the DC Universe

[Stingo]

Well gosh golly Stingo, I'm really glad you're enjoying DC comics. I hope you enjoy tallying up the marks in the continuity too! Me, I prefer to see things move forward so I'm really not interested in too many "throwbacks" to the olden days. But hey, whatever rocks your socks, right?

GlennSimpson,

I don't believe I ever suggested that I don't want to see things move forward for DC and its respective characters. If DC does reintegrate a majority of its pre-Flash Point continuity I'm pretty confident that they have enough talent in their stables who can acknowledge and respect past stories while moving characters such as the Justice Society of America "forward." Roy Thomas did this admirably during his tenure at the company. So did James Robinson, Ed Brubaker, Geoff Johns, etc. Acknowledging a past continuity is not a bad thing in my humble opinion. It enriches the stories being told now if done properly. I respect your opinions, even if I don't share all of them. I think one thing we do have in common is an obvious love for the medium.

Bestest,
Stingo

[GlennSimpson]

GlennSimpson,

I don't believe I ever suggested that I don't want to see things move forward for DC and its respective characters. If DC does reintegrate a majority of its pre-Flash Point continuity I'm pretty confident that they have enough talent in their stables who can acknowledge and respect past stories while moving characters such as the Justice Society of America "forward." Roy Thomas did this admirably during his tenure at the company. So did James Robinson, Ed Brubaker, Geoff Johns, etc. Acknowledging a past continuity is not a bad thing in my humble opinion. It enriches the stories being told now if done properly. I respect your opinions, even if I don't share all of them. I think one thing we do have in common is an obvious love for the medium.

Bestest,
Stingo

It's true that a writer who WANTS to write about something taking place in past continuity can sometimes do a good job. I don't particularly think Johns or Robinson did all that great a job, as they both frequently "modified" that history to suit their stories. But at any rate, the New52 has a sufficiently nebulous history that I don't think there are many stories that a writer is dying to tell that he couldn't, within reason. That might involve stating that some things in the New52 history are similar to those pre-Flashpoint, but they can do that without there being some line-wide history dump. I'd prefer each writer just kinda do what they want in that situation. Could a writer write a JSA story right now? Well, no, not really. But is there any writer who is so worked up about writing a JSA story that there aren't other stories they'd be just as happy writing that do fit in the current continuity (including inserting some things that haven't been addressed either way)? Most assuredly not.

Plus, it has been my observation that many comics fans seem to want there to be history there, even when that history doesn't directly impact the stories. Take the recent (before Rebirth) Cyborg series. It didn't necessarily sell that well. But if you had done a one-shot where it was established that there was a brief period where Cyborg was a member of a Titans team, you could have then published the same Cyborg series and gotten better sales. It's a very strange thing to me, but it happens. But my point is, if you were willing to buy those stories without the history being an overt part of them, then why do you need the history at all?

[mr_crisp]

Ollie is talking about his chili again, this is a Pre Flashpoint thing coming back.

It's that beard. Since it came back Ollie is being written as the older pre-Flashpoint version.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Well, I guess this thread, like everything, has officially gone off the tracks.

But my point is, if you were willing to buy those stories without the history being an overt part of them, then why do you need the history at all?

(1) You're starting with a very inverted assumption in my opinion. Instead of asking why we should keep it, tell me: why, if writers can come on and tell good stories regardless, we should get rid of it? That's an especially important question given it also means pissing off a majority of the fanbase. The former actually requires DC to affirmatively erase the continuity. The latter wouldn't require anything of them, just to keep things the same.

(2) And to answer your question: Well aside from the fact that that's just how all forms of literature from novels to movies to TV shows to plays have always operated since forever, the past history of a character is always playing a part in that character's present stories because (a) that's how they all arrived at their status quo as current in the books to begin with and (b) (related to (a)) that history is what contains the defining aspects of the character.

For example, as to (a), anyone who has picked up a Superman comic in recent history knows that Lois and Clark are married, and that she is full and well aware of his identity as Superman. In fact, that has pretty much been a staple of Superman comics for about 20 years. So, how did they get there? After all, when Superman comics first came out, Lois had no idea that Superman and Clark were one and the same. Well, that's because DC, in the 80s and 90s, published a series of Superman comics, and in the course of those stories, Clark and Lois began dating, Clark revealed his identity to Lois, and they got married. That's how they arrived at their present (and some might even say iconic) status quo. So, erasing those stories from the history of the DCU has the effect of irrevocably altering what many would say is the iconic status quo of Superman's life and verily piss off everybody who ever invested in those Superman comics.

For another example of this, let's look at the Fantastic Four. Its no shocker that the iconic status quo of Reed and Sue Richards is that they are a married couple with kids. However, they weren't always. In fact, they didn't get married until about 4 years after first debuting. Their son Franklin didn't debut until 1968. And then their daughter, Valeria, didn't come along until 1999. Franklin and Valeria, even if they weren't there at the beginning, are now huge parts of the status quo of the Fantastic Four, as a team and as a family. So, if Marvel were to erase them from MU continuity, it again, would piss off pretty much everybody who's read Fantastic Four comics over the past 50 years, because those developments were what helped the FF arrive at their current status.

Now, as to (b), its somewhat related to (a), in that those developments that take place over the years are in fact what helps contribute to characters' images and their defining aspects. So, for example, we all know that Joker is Batman's archenemy...but what MAKES him worthy of that status?? The answer is: all the stuff that he's done to Batman and the Bat-family over the years––shooting and paralyzing Barbara Gordon, beating Jason Todd to death, shooting and killing Sarah Essen (Jim Gordon's wife), etc. So, if you were to erase those accomplishments from continuity, the Joker goes from being an iconic super villain to being just some guy in a clown get up who hasn't done anything of note. Likewise, who the hell is this Bane guy and why should I care about him, if the story arc containing his crowning villainous achievement, Knightfall, is wiped from continuity?? The same applies for pretty much any iconic character, whether they be a super villain like Lex Luthor or Dr. Doom or Magneto, or superhero.

And I'm not even going to get into how multiple origins and multiple histories of a character only serve to confuse readers and make the character even more impenetrable, and therefore drive readers away.

So, when you say "why should they keep the history?" to me that sounds like a really stupid question because that history is what these characters are built on and why we even care about them.

[byrd156]

Well, I guess this thread, like everything, has officially gone off the tracks.



(1) You're starting with a very inverted assumption in my opinion. Instead of asking why we should keep it, tell me why, if writers can come on and tell good stories regardless, we should get rid of it? That's an especially important question given it also means pissing off a majority of the fanbase. The former actually requires DC to affirmatively erase the continuity. The latter wouldn't require anything of them, just to keep things the same.

(2) And to answer your question: Well aside from the fact that that's just how all forms of literature from novels to movies to TV shows to plays have always operated since forever, the past history of a character is always playing a part in that character's present stories because (a) that's how they all arrived at their status quo as current in the books to begin with and (b) (related to (a)) that history is what contains the defining aspects of the character.

For example, as to (a), anyone who has picked up a Superman comic in recent history knows that Lois and Clark are married, and that she is full and well aware of his identity as Superman. In fact, that has pretty much been a staple of Superman comics for about 20 years. So, how did they get there? After all, when Superman comics first came out, Lois had no idea that Superman and Clark were one and the same. Well, that's because DC, in the 80s and 90s, published a series of Superman comics, and in the course of those stories, Clark and Lois began dating, Clark revealed his identity to Lois, and they got married. That's how they arrived at their present (and some might even say iconic) status quo. So, erasing those stories from the history of the DCU has the effect of irrevocably altering what many would say is the iconic status quo of Superman's life and verily piss off everybody who ever invested in those Superman comics.

For another example of this, let's look at the Fantastic Four. Its no shocker that the iconic status quo of Reed and Sue Richards is that they are a married couple with kids. However, they weren't always. In fact, they didn't get married until about 4 years after first debuting. Their son Franklin didn't debut until 1968. And then their daughter, Valeria, didn't come along until 1999. Franklin and Valeria, even if they weren't there at the beginning, are now huge parts of the status quo of the Fantastic Four, as a team and as a family. So, if Marvel were to erase them from MU continuity, it again, would piss off pretty much everybody who's read Fantastic Four comics over the past 50 years, because those developments were what helped the FF arrive at their current status.

Now, as to (b), its somewhat related to (a), in that those developments that take place over the years are in fact what helps contribute to characters' images and their defining aspects. So, for example, we all know that Joker is Batman's archenemy...but what MAKES him worthy of that status?? The answer is: all the stuff that he's done to Batman and the Bat-family over the years––shooting and paralyzing Barbara Gordon, beating Jason Todd to death, shooting and killing Sarah Essen (Jim Gordon's wife), etc. So, if you were to erase those accomplishments from continuity, the Joker goes from being an iconic super villain to being just some guy in a clown get up who hasn't done anything of note. Likewise, who the hell is this Bane guy and why should I care about him, if the story arc containing his crowning villainous achievement, Knightfall, is wiped from continuity?? The same applies for pretty much any iconic character, whether they be a super villain like Lex Luthor or Dr. Doom or Magneto, or superhero.

And I'm not even going to get into how multiple origins and multiple histories of a character only serve to confuse readers and make the character even more impenetrable, and therefore drive readers away.

So, when you say "why should they keep the history?" to me that sounds like a really stupid question because that history is what these characters are built on and why we even care about them.

Fantastic post.

[Lhynn]

Well, I guess this thread, like everything, has officially gone off the tracks.
Snip

Id also like to add how much interest a reader loses when continuity is so fragile, when character development is so unimportant that the people that write it are willing to throw it away at a whim. It was almost enough to put me off comics forever.

[upgrayedd]

It's that beard. Since it came back Ollie is being written as the older pre-Flashpoint version.

And I am enjoying it, issue 10 he used a boxing glove arrow for more pre-Flashpoint loving

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

As someone pointed out in the Deathstroke #6 thread, Deathstroke's relationship with Patricia Trayce (the third Vigilante) is now back in continuity. I guess this also means that the entire Deathstroke series under Wolfman is now back in canon as well.

[GlennSimpson]

Id also like to add how much interest a reader loses when continuity is so fragile, when character development is so unimportant that the people that write it are willing to throw it away at a whim. It was almost enough to put me off comics forever.

That's very true. Knowing that old continuity could get thrown back in and the new52 versions of the characters' development could get thrown away is quite upsetting.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

That's very true. Knowing that old continuity could get thrown back in and the new52 versions of the characters' development could get thrown away is quite upsetting.

Could be? Hell, DC has essentially established that it will be. Read any Superman books lately?

And yes, its sooo upsetting to lose something that took less than 5 years to build as opposed to something that took more than 50 years. Add to that the fact that, a lot of New 52 didn't really build anything new at all. It rehashed stories that had already been told. We didn't need a new origin for Batman when we already had a better one in Year One. We didn't need a weekly series detailing Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown's reintroduction. We already HAD Cass and Steph Pre-Flashpoint. And they were more developed too. So, I can't wait to have those 10 years put back on the timeline so that they can get that development they underwent Pre-New 52 back.

What you're calling "development" was actually regression. Taking years of experiences and story development AWAY from characters is NOT development, its regression.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Fantastic post.

Thank you.

[andersonh1]

The skull-faced robot Brainiac showed up in the most recent issue of Green Lantern Corps. When is the last time we saw him post-Crisis, other than a cameo here and there? The Shaggy Man has appeared in Aquaman. Did he turn up much post-Crisis? I'm wondering just how much DC continuity is really back in play? Are we seeing the results of the Crisis being averted at the end of Convergence?

[colonyofcells]

Skull face Brainiac is from pre coie late bronze age history. Post coie pre flashpoint brainiac was green but he did use lots of robot drones with faces similar to old skull face brainiac of pre coie.
http://www.toonzone.net/comics/image...MLSNKv2_DJ.jpg
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...20100409230631
New 52 started with the collector of worlds who looked like a robot centipede and the later Brainiac was green. Convergence featured the pre flashpoint Brainiac as the mastermind and was sort of green. The green lantern corps 8 skull face brainiac is maybe just a drone of the collector brainiac who could still be the green one of New 52. Shaggy Man was in New 52 Forever Evil (Justice League of America 4). Convergence has more to do with saving the multiverse rather than with the history of clutter earth. If pre coie history and pre flashpoint history are really restored, this means Barry returned from the dead and Supergirl also returned from the dead.

[Lee]

Could be? Hell, DC has essentially established that it will be. Read any Superman books lately?

And yes, its sooo upsetting to lose something that took less than 5 years to build as opposed to something that took more than 50 years.

For anyone who started reading Superman in those 5 years, it probably is.

The "Pre-Flashpoint" Superman that we have back now, that version of the character first appeared in 1986. A lot of fans at the time did not take kindly to the changes that were made to the character and the mythos. But a lot of other fans who started reading Superman after 1986 feel differently.

Even then, the 1986-2011 Superman had his origin and early days revised in 2003's "Superman: Birthright" and re-revised 2009's "Superman: Secret Origin". With both, some people liked the changes, others didn't.

[Sacred Knight]

It actually is more upsetting to me to lose five years of potential grown to 30. For the simple reason that the 30 years of post-Crisis history had the time to fully flesh out and to grow, and become what it became. When it ended my thought process was more in the realm of "it was a damn good run". This has me just lamenting the waste of time it all ended up being. Its more about irritation over the creative end of things and a lack of decision making prowess, more than it is preferences over a continuity. I grew up with the old continuity, so I obviously didn't hate it. But they made a decision to retire it and start anew, then reneged, basically making the past five years completely worthless. That type of creative incompetence is just hand-wringing, and why its so hard to, even as one of the older fans this initiative seems to be targeting, be entirely happy with their moves.