Who would want to see some updated versions of classics?

[thefiresky]

Would it be sacrilegious to revamp classic graphic novels? I mean, I'm reading Crisis on Infinite Earths right now for the first time (I know, shame on me) and I'm having a tough time grinding through all of the out dated dialogue. I understand the art aspect of it, I I get that you can't "repaint a Picasso piece", but for the media aspect of comics I would love to have a newly revised version of certain graphic novels. I guess it might be considered a complete disgrace to Marv Wolfman to rewrite everything, and a disgrace to George Perez if you were to re-draw it. What else may be stopping DC (or Marvel) from re-writing their classics. I mean people re-do movies all of the time because older ones become non relatable.

[Jenn]

I personally don't think they should. Not because it would be sacrilegious but because there's a very high chance the updated version wouldn't live up to the expectations. At best it would just be a diluted copy of the original. At worst it would just plain suck. So what's the point?

To use your movie analogy, most of the times, studios remake movies not because the originals have become unrelatable, but to make money from an already established brand. Their only goal is profit and it shows. I think we can count on our hands the number of remakes that turned out well. Most of them suck. The same thing would happen with comics.

[Buried Alien]

I wouldn't go for a full-on COIE remake that simply duplicates the original with updated dialogue and art, but what WOULD intrigue me is how the Post-COIE First Crisis (the trip about COIE is that one of its outcomes is that it retconned ITSELF to play out differently in the Post-COIE DCU), Post-FLASHPOINT, and Post-CONVERGENCE versions of the Crisis played out.

The last of these scenarios is presently one of the great mysteries/untold stories of the DC Multiverse: how did the Pre-COIE Earth-One Flash and Supergirl, Post-COIE Superman, and ZERO HOUR-era Hal Jordan/Parallax's intervention in the Crisis specifically play out after the events of CONVERGENCE?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[thefiresky]

To use your movie analogy, most of the times, studios remake movies not because the originals have become unrelatable, but to make money from an already established brand. Their only goal is profit and it shows. I think we can count on our hands the number of remakes that turned out well. Most of them suck. The same thing would happen with comics.

True, I definitely understand the financial/corporate strategy. But I mean, a lot of older comic collections are such important continuity pieces. When a comic from 2017 makes a reference to a 70's or 80's precursor it's like reading completely different characters. A lot of times I catch myself thinking "Batman would never have done that NOW" or "Superman doesn't talk like that". I just think reengaging older story arcs could be essential. Maybe instead of rebooting continuity story arcs, maybe DC could create a "companion guide" for continuity purposes for current readers like having the updated DC Encyclopedia, but instead of character bios, they could do continuity story arc bios. Idk just ideas off the top.

Also I realize that sounds like I don't know my history. Not boasting but I have read a plethora of older collections like Kingdom Come, (now) Crisis, Convergence, Watchmen, Earth 1 stuff, Frank Miller Batman, All-Star Superman, all the Jeph Loeb stuff, all of Alan Moore's stuff, Blackest Night, Sinestro Corps War etc.

[MajorHoy]

DC shouldn't take old stories and republish them with changes. That's disrespectful to the creators (and readers) of the original versions.
Now, in the past, DC has taken some old Golden Age stories and reprinted them with changes, but that was usually done because the old artwork was not usable or because of other problems, and when I saw them, it was clearly stated what they did and why. But a whole graphic novel would be a different thing. If DC wants to reissue an old graphic novel with changes, they need to just create a new graphic novel and clearly indicate it's "BASED ON THE ORIGINAL STORY BY ____________" and redo the whole thing (dialogue and artwork) to reflect whatever changes may have occurred since then based on retcons & reboots, not just change a few things because "it's too hard for some people to try and understand how they use to write and draw comic books".
That would be like rewriting the Declaration of Independence. It's one thing to do that and present it as a "simplified" version or "written in up-to-date vernacular", but you don't then pass it off as a replacement for the original piece of history.

[thefiresky]

DC shouldn't take old stories and republish them with changes. That's disrespectful to the creators (and readers) of the original versions.
Now, in the past, DC has taken some old Golden Age stories and reprinted them with changes, but that was usually done because the old artwork was not usable or because of other problems, and when I saw them, it was clearly stated what they did and why. But a whole graphic novel would be a different thing. If DC wants to reissue an old graphic novel with changes, they need to just create a new graphic novel and clearly indicate it's "BASED ON THE ORIGINAL STORY BY ____________" and redo the whole thing (dialogue and artwork) to reflect whatever changes may have occurred since then based on retcons & reboots, not just change a few things because "it's too hard for some people to try and understand how they use to write and draw comic books".
That would be like rewriting the Declaration of Independence. It's one thing to do that and present it as a "simplified" version or "written in up-to-date vernacular", but you don't then pass it off as a replacement for the original piece of history.

I agree completely. As I mentioned in the original post, I also acknowledge it would be disrespectful to the original creators. Your theory on a "new" novel with the inclusion of "Based on _________ by ___________" is also the sort of suggestion I would imply.

Also, I wasn't suggesting these ideas because "it's too hard for some people to try and understand how they used to write and draw comic books", I suggested alternate ideas for the continuity aspect. My theory is that it would help new fan bases adapt easier, thus improving sales and increasing customers. True fans (like most of us who have been reading for years), will go back and read the originals - of course. I'm not sure about the statistic, but I know the majority of readers are between 20 and 30. I think that "re-wrapping" some of the older stuff that could be essential in both the MU or the DCU, may attract newer or younger readers with the ability to follow along easier, and jump on board easier. I think that's what discerns people away from starting comics. They don't know where to start, or they don't know which stories are in continuity so in order for them to fully understand - they'd have to go back and do years of reading in some instances.

I feel like these are reasons DC and Marvel keep rebooting their characters, because there is too much continuity to keep up with and they want new readers to climb on board something new. Simultaneously this pisses a lot of older fans off because the years of reading their favorite characters are suddenly null and void in "The All-New whatever".

[Frontier]

I wouldn't be against an adaption of these classics, in animated form .

[thefiresky]

I wouldn't be against an adaption of these classics, in animated form .

I like that idea, however I'm not sure they ALL would transcribe well to film (even animated).

[Maxi]

The last of these scenarios is presently one of the great mysteries/untold stories of the DC Multiverse: how did the Pre-COIE Earth-One Flash and Supergirl, Post-COIE Superman, and ZERO HOUR-era Hal Jordan/Parallax's intervention in the Crisis specifically play out after the events of CONVERGENCE?

I would honestly prefer if they didn't mention that ever again. Convergence was a nonsensical mess.

[Buried Alien]

Getting back to the updating of classics...I've been annoyed and unable to quite look at THE KILLING JOKE again the same way again since they reprinted the book showing Batman's costume *sans* his 1964-1994 yellow chest oval around the Bat-symbol. I know that's a ridiculously minor detail to get worked up over, but it irks me.

I've actually been irritated at the removal of Batman's yellow oval logo since it was first instituted after the end of NO MAN'S LAND. Until that point, the presence or absence of the yellow oval was great visual shorthand for when a story occurred in Batman's career (e.g. no oval - Years One to Three; oval - everything after that).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Jenn]

True, I definitely understand the financial/corporate strategy. But I mean, a lot of older comic collections are such important continuity pieces. When a comic from 2017 makes a reference to a 70's or 80's precursor it's like reading completely different characters. A lot of times I catch myself thinking "Batman would never have done that NOW" or "Superman doesn't talk like that". I just think reengaging older story arcs could be essential. Maybe instead of rebooting continuity story arcs, maybe DC could create a "companion guide" for continuity purposes for current readers like having the updated DC Encyclopedia, but instead of character bios, they could do continuity story arc bios. Idk just ideas off the top.

Also I realize that sounds like I don't know my history. Not boasting but I have read a plethora of older collections like Kingdom Come, (now) Crisis, Convergence, Watchmen, Earth 1 stuff, Frank Miller Batman, All-Star Superman, all the Jeph Loeb stuff, all of Alan Moore's stuff, Blackest Night, Sinestro Corps War etc.

That I could get behind. A book with short recaps of what's still in continuity and what retcons may have occurred along the way could be useful, but it should never try to replace them. If anything it should entice new readers to read the original stories. It should be like those literature study guides, it only helps you better understand what you're reading by providing some additional context.

[Frontier]

Getting back to the updating of classics...I've been annoyed and unable to quite look at THE KILLING JOKE again the same way again since they reprinted the book showing Batman's costume *sans* his 1964-1994 yellow chest oval around the Bat-symbol. I know that's a ridiculously minor detail to get worked up over, but it irks me.

I've actually been irritated at the removal of Batman's yellow oval logo since it was first instituted after the end of NO MAN'S LAND. Until that point, the presence or absence of the yellow oval was great visual shorthand for when a story occurred in Batman's career (e.g. no oval - Years One to Three; oval - everything after that).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I think we're due a return for the yellow oval at some point...

[JBatmanFan05]

Eventually everything will be considered "dated." I love COIE's dialogue and don't generally think these should be updated.

[Red obin]

I like the potential of reimagining original stories like they are doing with Lazarus contract.

[Lee Stone]

You would basically be replacing an outdated classic, with an inferior copy that would just become dated as well. (In as few as five years, even.)
Then you'll have two outdated versions. And once the second one becomes outdated, it will drop like a rock in value and shops will have to burn them to get rid of them, while the original will still hold value.

Now, what I would like to see is DC do something like Marvel Saga, which could be used to say 'this happened, and the only differences are what we're showing you here'
Maybe even something like the Who's Who in the Legion series, where the first half of each issue gave a chronological history of the team, covering all the important details, and the back half featured profile pages.