Dan Didio implies that DC continuity needs rebooting every 10 years

[Spike_x1]

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.

Alright, so Marvel's characters might be darker. I don't think that makes things more grounded, as HH put it. Also, what does that have to do with the fact that Marvel hasn't had to do any of this grand reboot s**t that DC seems so keen on?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Tone has a lot to do with why Marvel doesn't even need a reboot to begin with while DC has been doing such every 25 years. Marvel taking a more grounded tone has allowed the company to keep their universe more up to date with the times and avoid stories that tend to muddle continuity and grind to a creative halt in the end.

 

[CConn]

Alright, so Marvel's characters might be darker. I don't think that makes things more grounded, as HH put it. Also, what does that have to do with the fact that Marvel hasn't had to do any of this grand reboot s**t that DC seems so keen on?

Grounded, darker tone, grounded...the terms might not exactly fit, but it's all referring to the same thing. That's all I was pointing out.

But I wasn't addressing how it ties into reboots at all. It really doesn't, IMO.

That said, Marvel DOES do soft reboots (as I described) all the time. Daredevil, Cap, Spider-Man, Thor, etc. have all been changed reformatted to very large degrees over the past couple of years.

And yes, Marvel hasn't every done a hard reboot - and I would say the sole reason for that is that Stan Lee's work is considered scripture to the Marvel fans and editorial staff - whereas DC's original works are so old now that they literally needed to be updated.

But Marvel is a big fan of retcons. Which personally annoy me even more than hard reboots. At least a hard reboot offers a clean slate. Retcons pick and choose to an annoying and usually stupid degree.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

10 years seems too frequent but w/e. See if it works.

 

[Spike_x1]

Tone has a lot to do with why Marvel doesn't even need a reboot to begin with while DC has been doing such every 25 years. Marvel taking a more grounded tone has allowed the company to keep their universe more up to date with the times and avoid stories that tend to muddle continuity and grind to a creative halt in the end.

See, if you'd just told me from the outset that "grounded tone" = darker tone, a lot of the confusion I've had towards your posts would've been nipped in the bud. Now, I still don't really agree that darker = grounded (or even with most of what you've said here), but at least we would've been on the same page from the start.

But I wasn't addressing how it ties into reboots at all. It really doesn't, IMO.

Agreed.

That said, Marvel DOES do soft reboots (as I described) all the time. Daredevil, Cap, Spider-Man, Thor, etc. have all been changed reformatted to very large degrees over the past couple of years.

And yes, Marvel hasn't every done a hard reboot - and I would say the sole reason for that is that Stan Lee's work is considered scripture to the Marvel fans and editorial staff - whereas DC's original works are so old now that they literally needed to be updated.

But Marvel is a big fan of retcons. Which personally annoy me even more than hard reboots. At least a hard reboot offers a clean slate. Retcons pick and choose to an annoying and usually stupid degree.

I think retcons were more or less what we were referring to earlier in the thread, talking about massaging continuity here and there every so often, which, y'know, comes with the territory in a fictional ongoing universe.

True, certain retcons can be mindcrushingly stupid, but I think that's generally only the case when Geoff Johns a writer or Quesada an editor comes along and f**ks with continuity just because he can, or simply has no regard for what came before. A problem both companies share. Conversely, I don't mind retcons that are more intended purely for the maintenance of the given timeline, like keeping Peter Parker in his prime in modern times with Marvel's sliding timeline.

Overall, in spite of some missteps here and there, I think that approach works fine for Marvel. And even though there's a difference in tone, I haven't seen anything to convince me that it couldn't work for DC either.

 

[CConn]

Honestly, I think it doesn't.

Because, I LOVE X-Men, Fantastic Four, Cap, etc.

Yet you know what? I don't really give a damn about any of their current ongoings (except for Cap ).

At a certain point, the continuity does become suffocating. Such is the problem with X-Men.

Often Marvel abandons the campier elements that make their characters fun, in favor of a more mature level of drama. Such is the problem with Fantastic Four.

And why do I read Cap? Because Brubaker took the character and made it accessible. Did what DC is doing with half of their books and took on a totally fresh start, without really abandoning any continuity.

And I used to have some appreciation for Spider-Man. But the ludicrousness of One More Day ended my run of reading his title.

I'm not trying to bash Marvel. Not at all. But despite their missteps, DC has managed to keep my engaged in their characters - characters I don't even like as much as a lot of Marvel's - for a much more prolonged period of time than Marvel. And I do thing it somewhat has to do with how DC treats it's continuity as apposed to Marvel.

 

[The Question]

Since when are Marvel's characters darker? They have an equally broad spectrum of grimness to lightness as the DCU does.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Honestly, I think it doesn't.

Because, I LOVE X-Men, Fantastic Four, Cap, etc.

Yet you know what? I don't really give a damn about any of their current ongoings (except for Cap ).

At a certain point, the continuity does become suffocating. Such is the problem with X-Men.

Often Marvel abandons the campier elements that make their characters fun, in favor of a more mature level of drama. Such is the problem with Fantastic Four.

And why do I read Cap? Because Brubaker took the character and made it accessible. Did what DC is doing with half of their books and took on a totally fresh start, without really abandoning any continuity.

And I used to have some appreciation for Spider-Man. But the ludicrousness of One More Day ended my run of reading his title.

I'm not trying to bash Marvel. Not at all. But despite their missteps, DC has managed to keep my engaged in their characters - characters I don't even like as much as a lot of Marvel's - for a much more prolonged period of time than Marvel. And I do thing it somewhat has to do with how DC treats it's continuity as apposed to Marvel.

Different strokes. It's the exact opposite for me. Every do-over erodes my ability to appreciate DC's characters as anything more than a conglomeration of the favorite elements of a given generation of fans, to the point that this relaunch has drastically lowered my overall interest in the DC universe as well as the DC section of my pull list.

And, really, just how much of the continuity do you really need to get into a comic? There are fresh starts without doing entirely away with the continuity all over Marvel. You can call them soft reboots if you like, but I tend to think of them as just well written jumping-on points. Brubaker's Captain America is an excellent example. The Falcon, Sharon Carter, and Nick Fury start showing up almost immediately in that series. Do you need to know the whole shared history between those characters and Steve? No. Brubaker provides everything you need to know in the telling: Steve's amorous relationship with Sharon, his deep friendship and easy partnership with the Falcon, his guarded respect for Nick--it all comes through in how Steve behaves with each of them. And for the stuff that's too complicated to get across that way or details concerning specifically the current arc or whatever, Marvel's got those nifty recap pages at the start of each issue.

 

[CConn]

Different strokes. It's the exact opposite for me. Every do-over erodes my ability to appreciate DC's characters as anything more than a conglomeration of the favorite elements of a given generation of fans, to the point that this relaunch has drastically lowered my overall interest in the DC universe as well as the DC section of my pull list.

And, really, just how much of the continuity do you really need to get into a comic? There are fresh starts without doing entirely away with the continuity all over Marvel. You can call them soft reboots if you like, but I tend to think of them as just well written jumping-on points. Brubaker's Captain America is an excellent example. The Falcon, Sharon Carter, and Nick Fury start showing up almost immediately in that series. Do you need to know the whole shared history between those characters and Steve? No. Brubaker provides everything you need to know in the telling: Steve's amorous relationship with Sharon, his deep friendship and easy partnership with the Falcon, his guarded respect for Nick--it all comes through in how Steve behaves with each of them. And for the stuff that's too complicated to get across that way or details concerning specifically the current arc or whatever, Marvel's got those nifty recap pages at the start of each issue.

Look, essentially im saying that half of this current reboot for DC are just "jumping on" points. And not really total clean slates. And if that's the kind of reboots, DD wants to do in the future...then it's a perfectly good idea.

Get what I mean?

 

[hippie_hunter]

See, if you'd just told me from the outset that "grounded tone" = darker tone, a lot of the confusion I've had towards your posts would've been nipped in the bud. Now, I still don't really agree that darker = grounded (or even with most of what you've said here), but at least we would've been on the same page from the start.Agreed.I think retcons were more or less what we were referring to earlier in the thread, talking about massaging continuity here and there every so often, which, y'know, comes with the territory in a fictional ongoing universe.

I don't see grounded as darker. That's CConn. DC gets pretty dark as well (just look at Batman). I see grounded as in more down to Earth.

Marvel is more down to Earth with their characters, setting, stories, and with the times. Their characters feel more fleshed out and human. Their setting, while incorporating many fantastical elements and concepts that are completely unrealistic, they try and make the setting feel like our world. They stay relevant with the times by including modern political figures like Barack Obama, modern technology like the iPhone, and modern day issues like racism, change, unrest in certain parts of the world, etc. But most importantly they avoid stories that muddle up line wide continuity like the various Crises that just make things confusing even for the most diehard of readers.

There's nothing wrong with massaging continuity with retcons, like you say, it comes with the business of a fully developed fictional universe. And retcons help Marvel from not needing a full on reboot the way DC does.

Overall, in spite of some missteps here and there, I think that approach works fine for Marvel. And even though there's a difference in tone, I haven't seen anything to convince me that it couldn't work for DC either.

I think that if DC did a better job in keeping their characters more up to date and avoided stories like Crisis on Multiple Earths, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, and Final Crisis, that just flat out muddle or ruin continuity, the Marvel approach would work for DC.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Look, essentially im saying that half of this current reboot for DC are just "jumping on" points. And not really total clean slates. And if that's the kind of reboots, DD wants to do in the future...then it's a perfectly good idea.

Get what I mean?

I do indeed, jelly bean. And I'm fine with those. It's the throwing away of all that came before and rebuilding from the ground up that I object to. Might as well just create new characters.

 

[The Question]

Marvel is more down to Earth with their characters, setting, stories, and with the times. Their characters feel more fleshed out and human. Their setting, while incorporating many fantastical elements and concepts that are completely unrealistic, they try and make the setting feel like our world. They stay relevant with the times by including modern political figures like Barack Obama, modern technology like the iPhone, and modern day issues like racism, change, unrest in certain parts of the world, etc. But most importantly they avoid stories that muddle up line wide continuity like the various Crises that just make things confusing even for the most diehard of readers.

I think that was true at one point, but it hasn't been thecase since the 80s. With the exception of the big reality altering crisises (and really, Marvel has them to they just don't usually use them as an excuse to retcon things) they'd been pretty much equal in all other respects fr several decades now.

 

[Spike_x1]

I don't see grounded as darker. That's CConn. DC gets pretty dark as well (just look at Batman). I see grounded as in more down to Earth.

Marvel is more down to Earth with their characters, setting, stories, and with the times. Their characters feel more fleshed out and human. Their setting, while incorporating many fantastical elements and concepts that are completely unrealistic, they try and make the setting feel like our world. They stay relevant with the times by including modern political figures like Barack Obama, modern technology like the iPhone, and modern day issues like racism, change, unrest in certain parts of the world, etc.

Alright, so you don't mean darker (although chiming in right after I made this post, without immediately disputing it, you can see how I'd think that's what you meant). I still don't see how using real political figures and technology makes a more grounded tone when you have a world filled with the same kind of crazy far out **** as DC (who also have stories about modern day social issues, so there's not much of a difference there either). And they feel more fleshed out and human? Really? I'm definitely not seeing that.

But most importantly they avoid stories that muddle up line wide continuity like the various Crises that just make things confusing even for the most diehard of readers.

There's nothing wrong with massaging continuity with retcons, like you say, it comes with the business of a fully developed fictional universe. And retcons help Marvel from not needing a full on reboot the way DC does.


I think that if DC did a better job in keeping their characters more up to date and avoided stories like Crisis on Multiple Earths, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, and Final Crisis, that just flat out muddle or ruin continuity, the Marvel approach would work for DC.

Yes, I agree. If it weren't for the fact that they feel the need to write stories that actively mess with continuity on a large scale, they wouldn't need to mess with continuity on a large scale and they'd be more like Marvel. What?

 

[CConn]

I don't see grounded as darker. That's CConn. DC gets pretty dark as well (just look at Batman). I see grounded as in more down to Earth.

Not to sound like a girl, but omfg.

I'm not necessarily saying Marvel is darker. I'm saying that there IS a different tone to their universe...and it's one that's hard to peg. Some may view it as darker, some may say grounded, some may say gritty...but I think everyone, at some level, notices the fundamental difference between the two.

 

[Spike_x1]

I can definitely feel a difference between the two universes, but I wouldn't describe that difference as one of them being more "grounded" or "down to earth" than the other, and I certainly don't think it has any relevance on whether or not one company needs to do reboots every few years while the other company doesn't.

 

[Franklin Richards]

It's the difference between Opera and Vaudeville. Symphonies and Musicals.


One evokes Hercules. The other a farmer.


Would you rather hear stories about King David or Pecos Bill?

 

[CConn]

I do indeed, jelly bean. And I'm fine with those. It's the throwing away of all that came before and rebuilding from the ground up that I object to. Might as well just create new characters.

I mostly agree.

I mean, it's stupid as hell that they've rebooted Superman as many times as they've had.

That said, things like Batman: Year One...is fine. And generally even necessary.

 

[Phatman]

Good creative people can build on what someone left. The best creative people can adapt stories from parts of that history and make them relatable to contemporary readers.

Claremont/Byrne built on what Neal Adams founded and Stan Lee did before him on the X-men.

O'Neill/Neal Adams built on everything from the Silver Age on Batman to get the book on track in the 70's.

Byrne built on Superman's 50 year history.

COIE killed off Barry Allen, but allowed Wally West to continue the legacy of the Flash.

Dini and Timm Redefined Batman for a generation by using all of Batman's history.

Even Ellis and Granov/ built on the History of Iron Man to create Extremis. I

All these fresh starts allowed new readers to access the charcter but didn't ruin the previous history.

Bad/incompetent people need to throw everything away and start over.

Some do this because they are too scared to create their own characters and put them on the market. So they project their concepts on an established character.

Others do this because they have no idea on how to tell a story, and are too lazy to dig into the rich history of a character.

Both types convolute stuff to make up for their lack of understanding of a character and their history Stuff like new costumes, new logos, and deaths of supporting characters. The creators don't understand the old stuff, so they jettison it.

Both of these types of creative types are undone by their own lack of research and preparation. As their lack of skills become apparent, they rely more on gimmicks to deflect the reader's attention from their lack of storytelling ability.

A smart editor or an experienced publishing pro can catch onto this. This is where they wrap up a storyline and do some one-issue fill ins until they can find a new creative team with new ideas.

Reboots to me a sign that comics just don't have good quality people in creative. And constant reboots are a sign that no one in editorial/management has a clue. Sure premises need a refresh to get them back on point with the original mission of the series, but everthing doesn't need to be wiped out every decade.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I mostly agree.

I mean, it's stupid as hell that they've rebooted Superman as many times as they've had.

That said, things like Batman: Year One...is fine. And generally even necessary.

Fair enough, although Marvel does those too. Iron Man got captured and built his first suit of armor in Afghanistan now, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm are veterans of some unnamed recent war instead of WWII, Captain America was suspended in ice for over half a century instead of a couple decades, etc. That's just regular maintenance on the rolling timeline, basically. The essence of the origins always (or, ideally, should) remain the same.

 

[The Question]

I can definitely feel a difference between the two universes, but I wouldn't describe that difference as one of them being more "grounded" or "down to earth" than the other, and I certainly don't think it has any relevance on whether or not one company needs to do reboots every few years while the other company doesn't.

Honestly, I think the difference in tone just boils down to different characters. They have different casts of over a thousand, with their own dynamics and relationships with the world around them. That shapes a tone.

 

[Spike_x1]

Honestly, I think the difference in tone just boils down to different characters. They have different casts of over a thousand, with their own dynamics and relationships with the world around them. That shapes a tone.

Bingo.

 

[CConn]

Honestly, I think the difference in tone just boils down to different characters. They have different casts of over a thousand, with their own dynamics and relationships with the world around them. That shapes a tone.

I don't know if I buy that. Marvel and DC characters are pretty similar in many respects.

I think it's all about the editorial staff. The publisher, EIC, editors, etc. Dictate tone.