The return of the Mighty Mighty New 52 Discussion thread

[Sirnotappearinginthisthread]

Don't be sorry for something you don't understand. Do you honestly think that fans of how things used to be would be fans of some very obvious changes?

Yes .

[GlennSimpson]

All of that history is the reason they had readers in the first place. And while Marvel also is a frequent user of the new #1 sales gimmick, at least they have never felt the need of destroying all their continuity just to bring in some new readers.

It's really sad that such a vibrant and colorful comics universe that DC had was completely rewritten just to come up with some sales numbers. If Marvel has been able to continue their dominance without sacrificing their history what does this mean? That DC is so insecure about their properties that the only way for them to increase sales is to continually reboot them over and over and over again leaves a lot to be said?

But like I've said, this will all probably be a mute point come April of 2015 when the next Crisis occurs.

Marvel doesn't necessarily destroy their continuity, but they do have characters who have gone through a staggering amount of changes and trial and tribulations in their life and somehow end up back at where they started. Take Speedball for example - is the Speedball in the current New Warriors book really the same guy who was cutting himself as Penance? That was like a year ago for him. He certainly "bounced back".

And of course there are various continuity mistakes made at Marvel. And those changes that are made just to keep the timeline from getting out of control (like constantly moving up the circumstances of Tony Stark's accident to different wars and areas of the world).

But at the end of the day, Marvel doesn't need to do something to get all of that attention. They are the #1 company in terms of sales and market share. DC is #2, they have to take more risks (or fewer, depending on the context). More people want to read Marvel comics than want to read DC comics. DC has to yell louder.

And don't forget all the people like me who certainly enjoyed the old continuity, but also find the new one just as good. A fresh start.

But your mileage may vary. You certainly have the right to not like something. But if you phrase your statements in the form of a question, then I'm forced to believe you are looking for an answer to those questions. Rhetorical questions are like sarcasm - they don't work well over the internet

[GlennSimpson]

Don't be sorry for something you don't understand. Do you honestly think that fans of how things used to be would be fans of some very obvious changes?

I gotta go with "yes" here too. I liked my last car. I like my current car. They aren't the same, but I like them both for different reasons and because they are the same in all the ways that matter.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

And even though editorial may have been a problem for some of the writers, it could very well be responsible for many of the really great titles DC is publishing right now. They have a system, and the people that work best in the system are going to produce the best work. The people who can't work well in the system should go and find a new system they can thrive in.

Eh, I don't really think that's the case. The editorial conflicts are more than likely responsible for driving away talent and wrecking. Take the examples of Joshua Fialkov on Green Lantern Corps and Blackman and Williams' Batwoman. Their Batwoman was probably the single best run on a Bat-female's title I've ever seen in my lifetime. And look what happened because of editorial.

When you look at it, its really the books that have been given freedom from editorial over interference that are the better one of their line. The system that DC has now is basically one where certain writers, who have built up enough credit with the editorial staff, are the ones whose books are pretty free from interference. For example, I doubt that anyone at DC editorial is gonna interfere with Geoff Johns’ plans or Brian Azzarello’s or Scott Snyder’s or Jeff Lemire’s. Its because writers like those guys have been proven to produce quality product and/or draw in customers.

That sort of system, though, means that everyone else is subject to mucking in their books until they prove that they are able to produce really good/high-selling stuff. That has a way of driving away talent, and that’s something that needs to stop.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I hate to say it, but I agree with DOT and FG. No major problems with writing on either front, and it's true that DC has a fine pool of artistic talent to draw from, but they don't use their best on any permanent basis. Jae Lee is fantastic, as is Eaglesham, Janin and the list goes on, but Sorrentino is the only really outstanding artist that DC keeps busy all the time, while Marvel uses takes full advantage of their talent.

Jae Lee is the case of an artist who needs a bunch of breaks. He's a regular on Batman/Superman, but has had to swap out every other arc in order to keep up. Same story for Cliff Chiang. However, Capullo and Mahnke are both phenomenal artists that are pretty great about being on time.

[GlennSimpson]

Eh, I don't really think that's the case. The editorial conflicts are more than likely responsible for driving away talent and wrecking. Take the examples of Joshua Fialkov on Green Lantern Corps and Blackman and Williams' Batwoman. Their Batwoman was probably the single best run on a Bat-female's title I've ever seen in my lifetime. And look what happened because of editorial.

When you look at it, its really the books that have been given freedom from editorial over interference that are the better one of their line. The system that DC has now is basically one where certain writers, who have built up enough credit with the editorial staff, are the ones whose books are pretty free from interference. For example, I doubt that anyone at DC editorial is gonna interfere with Geoff Johns’ plans or Brian Azzarello’s or Scott Snyder’s or Jeff Lemire’s. Its because writers like those guys have been proven to produce quality product and/or draw in customers.

That sort of system, though, means that everyone else is subject to mucking in their books until they prove that they are able to produce really good/high-selling stuff. That has a way of driving away talent, and that’s something that needs to stop.

You think "you need to prove yourself before we'll let you operate with less supervision" is an unreasonable rule? Isn't that the conditions under which most people work?

As for Fialkov, turns out the story is that editorial didn't think what he was writing was gripping enough and suggested killing off John Stewart to give it some weight. People can construe that any number of ways, but one of them is "Fialkov's story was so boring that killing off a major character was the only way it could be salvaged."

[Dispenser Of Truth]

The New 52 has been a very bad experience for old time fans. Especially because when you get down to it, the reboot wasn't even necessary. You could have incorporated the multiverse and the Wildstorm characters back into the DC universe without having to do any of this.

But nooooo, DC execs decided they wanted to bring in younger fans and that the easiest way to achieve that would be to turn all the icons into twenty something year olds and compress the history of the DC Universe to just being five years old (SOMETHING THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHEN YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE BATMAN AND GREEN LANTER CONTINUITY!!!).

The DC Universe was just fine before the New 52 mess. Why was it necessary to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place? All of the stories that are being told now could have just as easily been done in the old DC Universe, hell even all the changes done to Wonder Woman could have just been integrated as retcons. Also, recreating established characters just to add diversity to your line? Really lame move DC!!!!!!!! And the biggest sin by far, turning Superman into a pompous jerk who is barely recognizable as the symbol of truth and justice that he once was!!!!!!

There is nothing you could tell me that would justify what the New 52 has done, plain and simple. The old Universe was working just fine.

Oh my god. I never thought I would be compelled to defend the New 52 beyond Batman and Superman, but if anything could convince me, it would probably be this exact post. The all caps and tons of exclamation points are doing the opposite of what I think you think they are, man. And those younger fans? Yes, I agree they did a bad job of it, but de-aging the characters and compressing the timeline are the only things they should have done that they actually did. Said young fans wouldn't much care about Batman or GL continuity being RUINED FOREVER!!!!! either. And DC hadn't been relevant outside of Johns or Morrison in years before the reboot. Not that the New 52 did all that much good on that front, but still.

End of the day, pushing for new fans to revive an industry barely at a fraction of its former glory is way more important than placating old fans that tend to be incapable of being satisfied anyway. The reason I'm angry myself is that they didn't push harder.

Also, everyone please just stop forever about how god, diversity is ruining everything, changing a skin tone or orientation of a minor character completely changes everything about them and the racial purity of our paper-people is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than an atmosphere of inclusiveness and even remotely reflecting the real world (in a way that actually matters, as opposed to the "Flash can only fly x fast and Batman should kill his villains" idea of realism that's dead from jump street in a genre built on Superman).

[GlennSimpson]

Also, everyone please just stop forever about how god, diversity is ruining everything, changing a skin tone or orientation of a minor character completely changes everything about them and the racial purity of our paper-people is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than an atmosphere of inclusiveness and even remotely reflecting the real world (in a way that actually matters, as opposed to the "Flash can only fly x fast and Batman should kill his villains" idea of realism that's dead from jump street in a genre built on Superman).

QFT. I think people who care more about consistency in a fictional character's ethnic background than they do making the world a little better are not necessarily racists, but they have priorities I would seriously disagree with.

Plus, sometimes one shouldn't say things because despite not having racist intentions, you still sound darn racist when you say it.

[thetrellan]

Jae Lee is the case of an artist who needs a bunch of breaks. He's a regular on Batman/Superman, but has had to swap out every other arc in order to keep up. Same story for Cliff Chiang. However, Capullo and Mahnke are both phenomenal artists that are pretty great about being on time.

You'd think after all the evolutions Lee's art has gone through he'd have developed some speed. His work is simpler than it used to be, certainly. Capullo isn't what I'd call phenomenal, though he seems to have found his stride for sure. And yes, Mahnke is pretty amazing, especially if you look at The Mask Volume One and see how fast he went from 0 to 60, if you get my metaphor. He starts out a nothing artist, really bad, then suddenly takes off big time. He's been a force to be reckoned with ever since.

The thing about Chiang and Capullo is that they're really solid artists. Where most artists draw the occasional weak panel, they seem to hit the mark panel after panel, page after page. And they do it with style and character. They've earned their stripes for sure.

Still, I stand by what I said. Right now DC seems to be the talent engine of the comics industry, and that means that major talent is finding its way into comics through them. Which is both good and bad. It means DC has a sizable pool of talent to draw from, but it also means more lesser talent is employed there. Lesser talent that Marvel doesn't waste time on. Or at least that's the impression I get.

[cgh]

Oh my god. I never thought I would be compelled to defend the New 52 beyond Batman and Superman, but if anything could convince me, it would probably be this exact post. The all caps and tons of exclamation points are doing the opposite of what I think you think they are, man. And those younger fans? Yes, I agree they did a bad job of it, but de-aging the characters and compressing the timeline are the only things they should have done that they actually did. Said young fans wouldn't much care about Batman or GL continuity being RUINED FOREVER!!!!! either. And DC hadn't been relevant outside of Johns or Morrison in years before the reboot. Not that the New 52 did all that much good on that front, but still.

End of the day, pushing for new fans to revive an industry barely at a fraction of its former glory is way more important than placating old fans that tend to be incapable of being satisfied anyway. The reason I'm angry myself is that they didn't push harder.

Also, everyone please just stop forever about how god, diversity is ruining everything, changing a skin tone or orientation of a minor character completely changes everything about them and the racial purity of our paper-people is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than an atmosphere of inclusiveness and even remotely reflecting the real world (in a way that actually matters, as opposed to the "Flash can only fly x fast and Batman should kill his villains" idea of realism that's dead from jump street in a genre built on Superman).

I hate to be that guy who uselessly posts just to say "great post" but...great post.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

You think "you need to prove yourself before we'll let you operate with less supervision" is an unreasonable rule? Isn't that the conditions under which most people work?

It wouldn't be if DC was in the business of manufacturing and selling tires. But in an industry that literally deals in creative storytelling, overly intrusive supervision is a hindrance.

[andersonh1]

End of the day, pushing for new fans to revive an industry barely at a fraction of its former glory is way more important than placating old fans that tend to be incapable of being satisfied anyway.

Those "old fans" are pretty much keeping the whole industry afloat. And even if that wasn't the case, how many new fans has DC drawn in? Their own surveys indicated that they brought some lapsed readers back into the fold, but only a tiny fraction of readers were genuinely new to comics.

So they drive off old fans while not drawing in new fans, and swap a few lapsed readers for the fans they've drive off. They're juggling the readership, but not growing it.

Also, everyone please just stop forever about how god, diversity is ruining everything, changing a skin tone or orientation of a minor character completely changes everything about them and the racial purity of our paper-people is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than an atmosphere of inclusiveness and even remotely reflecting the real world (in a way that actually matters, as opposed to the "Flash can only fly x fast and Batman should kill his villains" idea of realism that's dead from jump street in a genre built on Superman).

It's not an either/or proposition. They can respect the fidelity of older characters while adding new minority characters. DC's universe needs to expand. And don't fall back on the tired old "fans won't buy new things" argument. Plenty of new characters have succeeded in the past, and will continue to do so.

[GlennSimpson]

And don't fall back on the tired old "fans won't buy new things" argument. Plenty of new characters have succeeded in the past, and will continue to do so.

I'd like to hear about these successful new characters.

I'd also like to hear your definition of "successful". Mine is that they can easily sell a continuing ongoing selling at least 20,000 a month regardless of the creatives involved.

[AlexanderLuthor]

QFT. I think people who care more about consistency in a fictional character's ethnic background than they do making the world a little better are not necessarily racists, but they have priorities I would seriously disagree with.

Plus, sometimes one shouldn't say things because despite not having racist intentions, you still sound darn racist when you say it.

With respect to the Wally West "controversy" I don't really have a dog in that fight. I grew up with Wally as Flash, but certainly see why Barry was restored when he was and have enjoyed the book since then. With that said, I guess I just don't understand what DC was thinking in this case. Literally the only people in the world who would care about the name Wally West are die-hard Wally West fans. I think if they would have just introduced the same character we have now and named him John Smith those people would have groaned about it not being Wally, but moved on or hoped he came back in a different fashion. But the way they've done it, the fans that you are trying to attract aren't going to care what the name is, and now you've used a name that was synonymous with a certain look and character to people for no real reason. It almost feels like trolling and just doesn't make a lot of sense to me

[AlexanderLuthor]

Oh my god. I never thought I would be compelled to defend the New 52 beyond Batman and Superman, but if anything could convince me, it would probably be this exact post. The all caps and tons of exclamation points are doing the opposite of what I think you think they are, man. And those younger fans? Yes, I agree they did a bad job of it, but de-aging the characters and compressing the timeline are the only things they should have done that they actually did. Said young fans wouldn't much care about Batman or GL continuity being RUINED FOREVER!!!!! either. And DC hadn't been relevant outside of Johns or Morrison in years before the reboot. Not that the New 52 did all that much good on that front, but still.

End of the day, pushing for new fans to revive an industry barely at a fraction of its former glory is way more important than placating old fans that tend to be incapable of being satisfied anyway. The reason I'm angry myself is that they didn't push harder.

Also, everyone please just stop forever about how god, diversity is ruining everything, changing a skin tone or orientation of a minor character completely changes everything about them and the racial purity of our paper-people is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than an atmosphere of inclusiveness and even remotely reflecting the real world (in a way that actually matters, as opposed to the "Flash can only fly x fast and Batman should kill his villains" idea of realism that's dead from jump street in a genre built on Superman).

Good post. Both Marvel and DC are in a tough situation. Seemingly, their characters have rarely been this popular - maybe the 40's and early 90's? But while sales are going up to some degree it's nothing compared to the flood of people seeing the movies/TV Shows. Avengers, Iron Man, Superman, Captain America and Green Arrow are all coming off of or have highly successful movies or TV shows, but really don't sell well at all. And some of those books are quality. Why is that? Is it the company's fault, is it the medium itself, is it society, is it the younger demographics preferences? Probably a combination of all of the above. But I know both companies are trying desperately to tap into the huge pool of potential fans that have been created -just w/o a ton of success, yet