Dan Didio implies that DC continuity needs rebooting every 10 years

[random_havoc]

From an interview by CBR at Toronto Fan Expo last month:

The fans also seemed to feel more like there'd been something continuously maintained at Marvel whereas maybe DC was hitting the reset button once too often. Do you see it that way?
If I look at all the Marvel books -- you know what? I always choose just to focus on our own stuff. I'd rather just concentrate on myself and I'm not really sure what they're talking about in regards to the DC button, but honestly, when I sat down -- I'll go back to a story that I always go back to.
When I first started at DC Comics, I had the opportunity to meet and work with Julius Schwartz, who was still the Editor Emeritus. He was just there, came in once a week. I got a chance to sit with him and talk with him, and he literally said to me at one point, "Every ten years, continuity needs an enema, because your characters don't age in real time, the stories don't move in real time and when you build too much story against the characters, it holds down the potential stories you could tell for the future because you're so beholden to the past."


Source: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34370


To me, he's stating here that he thinks some form of DC reboot every ten years is the right thing to do. This is one more evidence he needs to not be running that company anymore. Look at how Marvel has done it, Didio, and then learn.



Didio also in the interview tries to compare the new DC relaunch to Marvel's relaunch of the X-men comics at #1 and the recent FF #1, etc.
Which is a pretty ignorant comparison to me because there's a big difference between relaunching and restarting the numbering and rebooting the whole character/storyline/setting/everything.

 

[RoughNTumble]

I prefer DC's reboots tbqh

although 10 years might be a little too frequent

 

[Primal Slayer]

Well Didio doesnt even go by that now does he? I mean DC reboots continuity ever 2 years it seems. If they could keep continuity tight for 10 years I would be fine with them rebooting almost every 10 years if they kept things straight, aged characters. But they dont.

 

[CConn]

I agree with Didio more than I agree with random_havoc. I'm glad he's not co-publisher.

 

[Phatman]

Didio is incompetent. You don't need to reboot an entire comic book universe every ten years.

Sure some premises go stale. And some get dated. But a smart editor will look at the sales numbers, request a new creative team, refresh and keep the original numbers and continuity, like Giant Sized X-men #1 Neal Adams Batman Run, Frank Miller's Daredevil, Micheline & Layton's Iron Man or Diana Prince: Wonder Woman.

Books only get screwed up when editorial doesn't have the BACKBONE to cut something short and bring in someone else with new ideas. For example the Detroit era of Justice League. It was a half-assed attempt to turn the Justice League into the X-men and readers saw through it. But by the time DC editorial realized it wasn't working, they had lost so many readers the title had to be rebooted.

It's clear a lot of the writers at DC today don't understand the characters and don't "get" the characters they're working with. That's because editorial isn't giving them the leadership and the guidiance they need. I doubt Didio and his editors understand the characters in the DC catalog the way Jim Shooter or the late Mark Gruenwald knew every character at Marvel or even how Paul Dini and Bruce Timm know the DC catalog. An editor who knows the characters can give writers and artist points on the character's "voice" personality, and an understanding of their actions and can explain in a sensible way why something should or shouldn't be done in a story. They can keep things consistent from issue to issue and series to series.

Didio signed off on the reboot of DC four times already and it just keeps getting more and more convoluted after each one. Anyone else would be fired, but this guy keeps his job. Personally, I feel he should have been fired way back in 2005 after he approved Identity Crisis, a book that was totally inapropriate for publication as a comic. And he should have taken Jim Lee and Bob Harras with him.

I find it funny that Paul Dini & Bruce Timm can work with 60+years of continuity while putting together BTAS & STAS. Moreover, they can make it fresh and entertaining.

I also find it funny that the creators of The Batman & LOSH animated can work with 60+ years of continuity while making it fresh and entertaining.

I also find it funny that the creators of Batman: Brave & The Bold can work with 75+ years of continuty while making it fresh and entertaining.

None of these people from WB's animated division needed to reboot anything.

But Didio needs three reboots to make DC workable to him.

This is a man who signed off on crap like Identity Crisis, Infinite crisis, Final Crisis and Grounded.


Who killed off characters with cult followings like Ronnie Raymond and Ted Kord and shoehorned minorities in their place the name of diversity.

Maybe if we got the Firestorm series with Raymond people had been begging for since 2000the book would have gone to 100 issues like the first volume. And maybe if DC decided to give Ted Kord the serious push they gave Booster Gold like making him a regular in Birds of Prey the character would have made it to the B-list.

Didio gave us Wonder Woman who was nearly impossible to follow. I mean her book had three reboots on top of this fourth one. Diana, Donna, and then Diana again. In three different costumes.

Who gave us Bart, then Wally, then Barry as Flash. With three reboots.

Who approved a Superman storyline where he spent a year walking around the country. trying to "find himself" No, no one pays money for that type of hippie BS. Superman is an American icon. The Flagship of DC. And Didio allowed JMS to turn him into a PUNK worthy of 70'-early 90's Hal Jordan.

When people buy a Superman comic they want to see ass-kicking, Truth, Justice and the American Way, not some chump going to find himself and helping protestors in Iran.

He's turned the DC Universe from a single easy-to follow universe back into a huge convoluted multiverse and into another convoluted multiverse. The only difference is that readers are ankle deep in crap instead of being in it up to their eyeballs.

Who decided that kids shouldn't read comic books and made graphic violence and gore the standard for DC, which long-term will cut the company off at the knees. 20 million kids growing up today are potential new readers and he's targeting people 18-40 who are outgrowning the medium and moving on to James Patterson.

No, it was Didio's bad editorial decisions over the course of eight years made DC unreadable to the point it needed a reboot. And it will need another one because the entire universe under his incompetent leadership is a MESS.

I grew up with DC in the 70's and early 80's and as bad as it was it was easier to follow than today.

No, DC doesn't need to be rebooted every ten years. What DC needs is a strong editor in Chief who will maintain a standard of quality and make creators put the characters first, and check their egoes and big ideas at the door. Someone who will make everyone understand that good storytelling sells above gimmicks, new costumes or a flavor of the month character.

Comics are a universe of characters. But a strong editor knows that the basics are gonna sell comics and attract new readers. Good writing builds buzz that generates word-of-mouth among readers. Good art grabs the reader and makes them pick up a book. and great distribution puts those books in places where people will notice them.

Comics don't need reboots when they're written well Drawn well and Marketed properly.

 

[The Morningstar]

Didio and Johns... those guys are like, totally awesome.

 

[Spike_x1]

Didio is incompetent. You don't need to reboot an entire comic book universe every ten years.

Sure some premises go stale. And some get dated. But a smart editor will look at the sales numbers, request a new creative team, refresh and keep the original numbers and continuity, like Giant Sized X-men #1 Neal Adams Batman Run, Frank Miller's Daredevil, Micheline & Layton's Iron Man or Diana Prince: Wonder Woman.

Books only get screwed up when editorial doesn't have the BACKBONE to cut something short and bring in someone else with new ideas. For example the Detroit era of Justice League. It was a half-assed attempt to turn the Justice League into the X-men and readers saw through it. But by the time DC editorial realized it wasn't working, they had lost so many readers the title had to be rebooted.

It's clear a lot of the writers at DC today don't understand the characters and don't "get" the characters they're working with. That's because editorial isn't giving them the leadership and the guidiance they need. I doubt Didio and his editors understand the characters in the DC catalog the way Jim Shooter or the late Mark Gruenwald knew every character at Marvel or even how Paul Dini and Bruce Timm know the DC catalog. An editor who knows the characters can give writers and artist points on the character's "voice" personality, and an understanding of their actions and can explain in a sensible way why something should or shouldn't be done in a story. They can keep things consistent from issue to issue and series to series.

Didio signed off on the reboot of DC four times already and it just keeps getting more and more convoluted after each one. Anyone else would be fired, but this guy keeps his job. Personally, I feel he should have been fired way back in 2005 after he approved Identity Crisis, a book that was totally inapropriate for publication as a comic. And he should have taken Jim Lee and Bob Harras with him.

I find it funny that Paul Dini & Bruce Timm can work with 60+years of continuity while putting together BTAS & STAS. Moreover, they can make it fresh and entertaining.

I also find it funny that the creators of The Batman & LOSH animated can work with 60+ years of continuity while making it fresh and entertaining.

I also find it funny that the creators of Batman: Brave & The Bold can work with 75+ years of continuty while making it fresh and entertaining.

None of these people from WB's animated division needed to reboot anything.

But Didio needs three reboots to make DC workable to him.

This is a man who signed off on crap like Identity Crisis, Infinite crisis, Final Crisis and Grounded.


Who killed off characters with cult followings like Ronnie Raymond and Ted Kord and shoehorned minorities in their place the name of diversity.

Maybe if we got the Firestorm series with Raymond people had been begging for since 2000the book would have gone to 100 issues like the first volume. And maybe if DC decided to give Ted Kord the serious push they gave Booster Gold like making him a regular in Birds of Prey the character would have made it to the B-list.

Didio gave us Wonder Woman who was nearly impossible to follow. I mean her book had three reboots on top of this fourth one. Diana, Donna, and then Diana again. In three different costumes.

Who gave us Bart, then Wally, then Barry as Flash. With three reboots.

Who approved a Superman storyline where he spent a year walking around the country. trying to "find himself" No, no one pays money for that type of hippie BS. Superman is an American icon. The Flagship of DC. And Didio allowed JMS to turn him into a PUNK worthy of 70'-early 90's Hal Jordan.

When people buy a Superman comic they want to see ass-kicking, Truth, Justice and the American Way, not some chump going to find himself and helping protestors in Iran.

He's turned the DC Universe from a single easy-to follow universe back into a huge convoluted multiverse and into another convoluted multiverse. The only difference is that readers are ankle deep in crap instead of being in it up to their eyeballs.

Who decided that kids shouldn't read comic books and made graphic violence and gore the standard for DC, which long-term will cut the company off at the knees. 20 million kids growing up today are potential new readers and he's targeting people 18-40 who are outgrowning the medium and moving on to James Patterson.

No, it was Didio's bad editorial decisions over the course of eight years made DC unreadable to the point it needed a reboot. And it will need another one because the entire universe under his incompetent leadership is a MESS.

I grew up with DC in the 70's and early 80's and as bad as it was it was easier to follow than today.

No, DC doesn't need to be rebooted every ten years. What DC needs is a strong editor in Chief who will maintain a standard of quality and make creators put the characters first, and check their egoes and big ideas at the door. Someone who will make everyone understand that good storytelling sells above gimmicks, new costumes or a flavor of the month character.

Comics are a universe of characters. But a strong editor knows that the basics are gonna sell comics and attract new readers. Good writing builds buzz that generates word-of-mouth among readers. Good art grabs the reader and makes them pick up a book. and great distribution puts those books in places where people will notice them.

Aside from some minor trivial details unrelated to your overall point, I agree fully.

Comics don't need reboots when they're written well Drawn well and Marketed properly.

Print this off as a banner and put it up in Didio's office.

 

[Panthro]

DiDio definitely doesn't seem to be the sharpest knife in the box. He couldn't even distinguish Kyle Rayner from Hal Jordan in his interview on the "Green Lantern: Emerald Knights" DVD. He was referring to the scene in "GL: Rebirth" where Green Arrow tries to use Kyle's ring, but DiDio kept calling Kyle "Hal" even as they showed the actual panels of Kyle coming to Green Arrow's side, and I was like

 

[The Batman]

Actually, Dan's right in a way, and in fact, they basically did this all of pre crisis (Which is probably why he quote julius schwarz). Instead of a comic crawling up its own ass and not gaining any new readers, pre crisis comics were usually designed to grab new readers and would frequently do retellings of origins. While pre crisis is usually bunched together, there are differences between, say, Golden Age, Silver Age, and Bronze Age Batman.

 

[random_havoc]

The absolute proof that Didio is flat out guaranteed wrong is in that Marvel hasn't had to do a universe reboot once. Yeah, massage certain necessary changes as the years pass, but having to do a bunch of reboots time after time shows a complete and total incompetence on the part of the people running it. TOTAL incompetence.

And the sad part is that clearly he has no problem with doing it again in a few years. Apparently it's the only thing he can think of to try and boost sales.

 

[hippie_hunter]

But Marvel is very different than DC. Marvel really isn't a mishmash of multiple comic book companies the way DC is (National Comics, All American Publications, Fawcett Comics, Charlton Comics, Quality Comics, Milestone Media, and WildStorm Productions). Marvel is more grounded than DC's typical fantastical route. And the characters that dominate Marvel have been around less than DC's.

Reboots tend to be necessary for DC on account that DC wants to account for the various companies that it acquires and incorporate them into the DC Universe proper, the fantastical route DC takes tends to set up some roadblocks for DC, etc. There's nothing wrong with a reboot as long as it's handled properly.

And it's not like DC has done reboot after reboot after reboot. They tend to go for the reboot button every 25 years with the transition from the Golden Age to the Silver Age in the 1960's. To Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986. To Flashpoint in 2011.

 

[Spike_x1]

But Marvel is very different than DC. Marvel really isn't a mishmash of multiple comic book companies the way DC is (National Comics, All American Publications, Fawcett Comics, Charlton Comics, Quality Comics, Milestone Media, and WildStorm Productions). Marvel is more grounded than DC's typical fantastical route. And the characters that dominate Marvel have been around less than DC's.

I hear the bolded part a lot, and for the life of me, I just don't understand it. How is a guy who sticks to walls and swings on webs more "grounded" than a guy who shoots fire from his eyes and flies around, for example? Both companies have large scale epics and cosmic stories, and both companies have smaller and/or earth-based stories. Both companies' main universes, at their cores, are completely balls to the wall ridiculous, and neither is more realistic/grounded/believable than the other, IMO.

Reboots tend to be necessary for DC on account that DC wants to account for the various companies that it acquires and incorporate them into the DC Universe proper, the fantastical route DC takes tends to set up some roadblocks for DC, etc. There's nothing wrong with a reboot as long as it's handled properly.

Really? A reboot is the only way to incorporate newly acquired properties into the DCU? Sure, do something to iron out the resulting wrinkles in continuity (even if it's just saying, "yeah, these dudes were totally at that big, important event. You just didn't see them cuz they were out taking a leak"), but you don't have to automatically reboot things whenever that stuff comes up.

Keeping that itchy trigger finger away from the reboot button might do them some good.

And it's not like DC has done reboot after reboot after reboot. They tend to go for the reboot button every 25 years with the transition from the Golden Age to the Silver Age in the 1960's. To Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986. To Flashpoint in 2011.

Zero Hour? Infinite Crisis? True, they weren't reboots in the typical way we think of that term, but they're reboots as much as Flashpoint was from Batman or Green Lantern's perspective. Editorial decided that continuity could use a good screwing around, so s**t gets unnecessarily funky.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I hear the bolded part a lot, and for the life of me, I just don't understand it. How is a guy who sticks to walls and swings on webs more "grounded" than a guy who shoots fire from his eyes and flies around, for example? Both companies have large scale epics and cosmic stories, and both companies have smaller and/or earth-based stories. Both companies' main universes, at their cores, are completely balls to the wall ridiculous, and neither is more realistic/grounded/believable than the other, IMO.Really?

I don't mean grounded as in more realistic, I mean grounded in terms of tone. To try and say that Marvel or DC is more realistic than the other is absurd.

Marvel wants to establish the Marvel Universe as if it is our world, just with some comic book elements to it. They try and use current world leaders. They use real life cities like New York City, Los Angeles, and San Fransisco as bases of operations for their heroes. Heroes such as Spider-Man, Captain America, Daredevil, etc. feel more down to Earth. Yeah, they have a multiverse, but the universes rarely interact with one another. Hell, even their space operas feel a bit toned down (not that it's a bad thing because I love what DnA have been doing with Marvel's space properties).

DC on the other hand, just says **** it and don't even attempt to make it feel like our world. The DC Universe is a place where Lex Luthor and Pete Ross become President as opposed to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Heroes set up bases of operations more often in fictional cities like Gotham City, Coast City, Metropolis, Gateway City, Central City, Star City, Opal City, Fawcett City, Dakota City, St. Roch, Midway City, etc. Even for their more realistic heroes like Batman, DC tends to treat their heroes as a pantheon of gods as opposed to being more down to Earth. The DC Multiverse is an integral part of DC's epic as opposed to Marvel just letting their various universes be their own thing.

That's what I mean by grounded. Not realism, because it's ****ing comics. But by how their universes feel.

A reboot is the only way to incorporate newly acquired properties into the DCU? Sure, do something to iron out the resulting wrinkles in continuity (even if it's just saying, "yeah, these dudes were totally at that big, important event. You just didn't see them cuz they were out taking a leak"), but you don't have to automatically reboot things whenever that stuff comes up.

It's not just the various properties that DC acquires, it's a multitude of reasons.

Again to bring up with the grounded tone of Marvel, because it is more grounded, it often feels as if it allows itself to keep more up to date with the times much more easily. Even if it isn't fresh, Spider-Man still feels modern. DC on the other hand because of taking a more fantastical tone, a lot of concepts DC uses often feels out of date and they drive themselves into a wall as a result. It's a reason why Superman sometimes feels irrelevant, out of the times, and needs to be updated.

And because of the stories comics like to tell sometimes, continuity can sometimes feel like a total cluster****. Marvel has overall done a rather good job in keeping their universe easily accessible. DC on the other hand, absolutely needed Crisis on Infinite Earths to happen to streamline things.

While it is easier to get into the DC Universe now thanks to things not getting as hectic as they were pre-Crisis and the advent of the Internet, frankly things needed to get changed. Irrelevance and bad editorial decisions had essentially ruined the brands of Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and the Flash. One Year Later pretty much killed the momentum that DC had going for them before Infinite Crisis and got worse with the editorial mess that was Final Crisis.

Along with rebooting 25 year old continuity, Flashpoint enabled DC to also revamp flagging characters and rebuild momentum, just like what Crisis on Infinite Earths did.

Keeping that itchy trigger finger away from the reboot button might do them some good.Zero Hour? Infinite Crisis? True, they weren't reboots in the typical way we think of that term, but they're reboots as much as Flashpoint was from Batman or Green Lantern's perspective. Editorial decided that continuity could use a good screwing around, so s**t gets unnecessarily funky.

Batman and Green Lantern historically tend to come off unscathed from reboots. They really weren't affected much by Crisis on Infinite Earths either.

Also, even though Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis tweaked continuity here and there, they were nothing at all as far reaching as Crisis on Infinite Earths and Flashpoint were.

 

[redhawk23]

Didio and Johns... those guys are like, totally awesome.

 

[Spike_x1]

I don't mean grounded as in more realistic, I mean grounded in terms of tone. To try and say that Marvel or DC is more realistic than the other is absurd.

Marvel wants to establish the Marvel Universe as if it is our world, just with some comic book elements to it. They try and use current world leaders. They use real life cities like New York City, Los Angeles, and San Fransisco as bases of operations for their heroes. Heroes such as Spider-Man, Captain America, Daredevil, etc. feel more down to Earth. Yeah, they have a multiverse, but the universes rarely interact with one another. Hell, even their space operas feel a bit toned down (not that it's a bad thing because I love what DnA have been doing with Marvel's space properties).

DC on the other hand, just says **** it and don't even attempt to make it feel like our world. The DC Universe is a place where Lex Luthor and Pete Ross become President as opposed to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Heroes set up bases of operations more often in fictional cities like Gotham City, Coast City, Metropolis, Gateway City, Central City, Star City, Opal City, Fawcett City, Dakota City, St. Roch, Midway City, etc. Even for their more realistic heroes like Batman, DC tends to treat their heroes as a pantheon of gods as opposed to being more down to Earth. The DC Multiverse is an integral part of DC's epic as opposed to Marvel just letting their various universes be their own thing.

That's what I mean by grounded. Not realism, because it's ****ing comics. But by how their universes feel.

I'm certainly not feeling it.

When I see a Manhattan full of spider people, a flying helicarrier, the military fighting giant radioactive green dudes, glowing cubes that screw with reality, or just MODOK in any context, I don't find myself giving a crap about who's President in the given universe and whether or not it's the same dude as in real life.

Marvel's New York isn't the real New York, and just as many sci-fi shenanigans happens in it as any number of made up cities in the DCU. So, IMO, the MU's Manhattan is effectively just as fictional as Gotham City in my mind. The fact that it's named after a real world location has no bearing on the matter to me.

It's not just the various properties that DC acquires, it's a multitude of reasons.

Again to bring up with the grounded tone of Marvel, because it is more grounded, it often feels as if it allows itself to keep more up to date with the times much more easily. Even if it isn't fresh, Spider-Man still feels modern. DC on the other hand because of taking a more fantastical tone, a lot of concepts DC uses often feels out of date and they drive themselves into a wall as a result. It's a reason why Superman sometimes feels irrelevant, out of the times, and needs to be updated.

Superman himself as a character has never felt irrelevant or out of the times. Some of the stuff that goes on around him, maybe, but a half-way decent writer can still work with those concepts without having to reboot s**t.

And because of the stories comics like to tell sometimes, continuity can sometimes feel like a total cluster****. Marvel has overall done a rather good job in keeping their universe easily accessible. DC on the other hand, absolutely needed Crisis on Infinite Earths to happen to streamline things.

While it is easier to get into the DC Universe now thanks to things not getting as hectic as they were pre-Crisis and the advent of the Internet, frankly things needed to get changed. Irrelevance and bad editorial decisions had essentially ruined the brands of Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and the Flash. One Year Later pretty much killed the momentum that DC had going for them before Infinite Crisis and got worse with the editorial mess that was Final Crisis.

Along with rebooting 25 year old continuity, Flashpoint enabled DC to also revamp flagging characters and rebuild momentum, just like what Crisis on Infinite Earths did.

Now, I actually do agree with with this segment, but I see no reason why they can't finally break this trend and forget about rebooting their crap from this point forward. Flashpoint might have been a hard pill to swallow for some people, but DC seems to have a good thing going now. What they should focus on is simply keeping the good times rolling, not keep them rolling for ten years and then reboot things again.

Batman and Green Lantern historically tend to come off unscathed from reboots. They really weren't affected much by Crisis on Infinite Earths either.

Also, even though Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis tweaked continuity here and there, they were nothing at all as far reaching as Crisis on Infinite Earths and Flashpoint were.

Semantics over the term "reboot." After all, Crisis on Infinite Earths didn't reset every little detail either. In the context of DC Comics' track record, I refer to any large scale crossover event that f**ks with continuity, in big and small doses, a reboot. Hard reboot, soft reboot, gradual reboot, Mainframe's Reboot, whatever.

 

[The Morningstar]

That comment was dripping in sarcasm. I hate them both.

 

[Lord]

I don't agree with a reboot every 10 years but if they make another reboot do this:
1- Warn the writers 1 year before the reboot so that they can tie loose ends, if that means the readers knowing about that 1 year before too so be it
2- Make it a 100 % reboot, they didn't do it with crisis either, in fact they never do a complete reboot because of the old readers, but they will return and the reboot also atracts new readers and making it 100% also makes new readers less confused.
3- Ask fans online and search for any loose ends and unanswered questions.
4- If there are still unanswered questions in the old universe by the time of the reboot then publish alongside the reboot a weekly comic a la 52 in real time to close the old universe and make it a good buy letter for that universe.
5- Try to make new readers interested in the less known characters by chowing what happened until that point

 

[Sith Scotti]

Considering the lack of sales they need to gain new readers . The continuity is a mess to begin with so I am in the reboot side .... Unless you want to start againg characters ...

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm certainly not feeling it.

When I see a Manhattan full of spider people, a flying helicarrier, the military fighting giant radioactive green dudes, glowing cubes that screw with reality, or just MODOK in any context, I don't find myself giving a crap about who's President in the given universe and whether or not it's the same dude as in real life.

Marvel's New York isn't the real New York, and just as many sci-fi shenanigans happens in it as any number of made up cities in the DCU. So, IMO, the MU's Manhattan is effectively just as fictional as Gotham City in my mind. The fact that it's named after a real world location has no bearing on the matter to me.

Like I said, it's not grounded in terms of realism. That would just be ridiculous. But grounded in terms of tone. Sorta like how I would consider Star Trek to be grounded in tone while Star Wars was fantastical in tone.

Marvel has put a lot of effort in trying to make the 616 Marvel Universe feel like it's our world populated with superheroes and science fiction. Sorta like how the creators of Star Trek tried to make the series feel like it was set in our future. Marvel editorial has come out saying that they see

Superman himself as a character has never felt irrelevant or out of the ti mes.

Explain why Superman Returns underperformed while we have heroes like Batman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man thriving at the box office. Why the top selling comics tend to be Green Lantern, Batman, and Avengers? Why merchandise for characters like Batman and Spider-Man sell WAY more than Superman merchandise.

Superman today just doesn't connect as much.

Some of the stuff that goes on around him, maybe,
but a half-way decent writer can still work with those concepts without having to reboot s**t.

That I can agree with.

Now, I actually do agree with with this segment, but I see no reason why they can't finally break this trend and forget about rebooting their crap from this point forward. Flashpoint might have been a hard pill to swallow for some people, but DC seems to have a good thing going now. What they should focus on is simply keeping the good times rolling, not keep them rolling for ten years and then reboot things again.Semantics over the term "reboot." After all, Crisis on Infinite Earths didn't reset every little detail either. In the context of DC Comics' track record, I refer to any large scale crossover event that f**ks with continuity, in big and small doses, a reboot. Hard reboot, soft reboot, gradual reboot, Mainframe's Reboot, whatever.

I really don't mind having a reboot about every 25 years. 10 years, yeah, I agree too much. But based on how DC typically reboots their universe, I really don't have a problem with.

 

[random_havoc]

Like I said, it's not grounded in terms of realism. That would just be ridiculous. But grounded in terms of tone. Sorta like how I would consider Star Trek to be grounded in tone while Star Wars was fantastical in tone.

Marvel has put a lot of effort in trying to make the 616 Marvel Universe feel like it's our world populated with superheroes and science fiction. Sorta like how the creators of Star Trek tried to make the series feel like it was set in our future. Marvel editorial has come out saying that they see

This is in your head dude. You're making up a superficial differentiation based on how you "feel" about it, when there's no rational differentiation to make.

Explain why Superman Returns underperformed while we have heroes like Batman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man thriving at the box office. Why the top selling comics tend to be Green Lantern, Batman, and Avengers? Why merchandise for characters like Batman and Spider-Man sell WAY more than Superman merchandise.

Superman today just doesn't connect as much.

No, Superman Returns just plain sucked and was made as a sequel to a 30 year old movie. There's nothing wrong with the character, it's all in how he's handled. Why didn't you throw in Daredevil in your list up there? He's REALLY down to earth for a superhero. But see, just like Superman Returns, Daredvil was just plain a crappy movie.

I really don't mind having a reboot about every 25 years. 10 years, yeah, I agree too much. But based on how DC typically reboots their universe, I really don't have a problem with.

Again, Marvel hasn't had to do a universe reboot even once. If DC had done it once, I'd not much care. But the idea that they have to do it as a repeated process shows incompetence, because clearly Marvel creative managed to avoid it for the past 50 years straight without a problem.

*my comments in bold above

 

[Spike_x1]

Like I said, it's not grounded in terms of realism. That would just be ridiculous. But grounded in terms of tone. Sorta like how I would consider Star Trek to be grounded in tone while Star Wars was fantastical in tone.

I didn't say anything about realism in that last post.
I tried to say that Marvel's use of real world leaders and locations has no bearing on the tone of the story when things like death rays and planet eaters are popping up in the same universe. If DC had Obama as the President (and for all I know, they might), it likewise wouldn't make a difference to the tone of their universe.

Marvel has put a lot of effort in trying to make the 616 Marvel Universe feel like it's our world populated with superheroes and science fiction. Sorta like how the creators of Star Trek tried to make the series feel like it was set in our future. Marvel editorial has come out saying that they see

Saying that they see... what? Dead people?

Explain why Superman Returns underperformed while we have heroes like Batman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man thriving at the box office.

Because it was a s**tastic movie, and it still performed far better than it deserved to.

Green Lantern's movie underperformed as well. So what?

Captain America has the same virtuous, upstanding and iconic personality traits as Superman, but people generally loved his movie. Regarding the character himself, from the audience reactions I saw, people actually enjoy seeing a hero like that when it's shown in a legitimately good movie. In fact, I've been hearing things like it was a breath of fresh air to see a comic hero on screen that people can actually look up to.

Why the top selling comics tend to be Green Lantern, Batman, and Avengers? Why merchandise for characters like Batman and Spider-Man sell WAY more than Superman merchandise.

Superman today just doesn't connect as much.

Because Superman's comics in recent years haven't been as good as the ones you listed? I love Superman and what he stands for, but speaking from my own experience, I stayed away from his comics for a few years now because I didn't like the direction they were going in. It had nothing to do with the character himself.

But from the general reader's perspective (I was discussing this with a friend just a couple days ago), Superman is literally invincible (except for a little green plot device) and devoid of any character flaws whatsoever. In other words, people don't think the character is interesting. And without checking out his comics, they have little reason to doubt that assessment.

Most people aren't aware of stories that can be told around Clark's emotional weaknesses, striving to live up to his own image, the fact that many of his enemies actually are powerful enough to challenge him physically, and the struggle to do the right thing when confronted with morally gray situations. If would-be readers were aware of that kind of storytelling potential in regards to Superman, more people would definitely give the character a shot. Little to do with his relevance to today's world, just a misinformed perspective on a character (like people who think that Aquaman is useless). A reboot like we've just had would certainly grab people's attention and possibly more readers, but it's not the solution to make Superman "more relevant."

 

[The Question]

I don't understand the logic. Rebooting every ten years doesn't increase storytelling potential, it just increases repeativity. You have Superman crashing in kansas every ten years, the justice league forming every ten years. Just the same ten years repeating over and over.

The only way to increase story potential is to allow actual lasting change.

 

[CConn]

*my comments in bold above

Your comments are stupid.

I totally get what hippie means about tone...and I agree with it.

What Marvel is just as unrealistic as DC - if not more so - it does portray both it's locations and most of it's characters in a darker way.

Honestly, I don't like it myself. It makes most of Marvel's characters a lot less likable, I find. But in any case, there's definitely a tonal difference between Marvel and DC.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't understand the logic. Rebooting every ten years doesn't increase storytelling potential, it just increases repeativity. You have Superman crashing in kansas every ten years, the justice league forming every ten years. Just the same ten years repeating over and over.

The only way to increase story potential is to allow actual lasting change.

Yeah, every ten years is way too much.

 

[CConn]

I would kind of argue that titles get "soft" reboots every few years.

Batman and Robin "rebooted" Batman in a lot of ways. Kevin Smith's GA rebooted that character, etc.

About half of the new DCU titles seem to follow that pattern of a soft reboot. Batwoman, Batman and Robin, Swamp Thing, Animal Man all are in that style of having a "fresh start" without starting from the very beginning all over again.

If they did that every 10 years, it'd probably be a great idea...and keep everything fresh and accessible for new readers.

If they do "hard" reboots ala Superman or Superboy...well, that would be stupid.

It should also be noted Didio credited Julie Schwartz as saying continuity needs to be rebooted every 10 years, so maybe you guys should direct your flaming hatred at him as well.