Re: FINAL CRISIS #1: A Very Short Review

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:44:28 -0400, Eminence
<grey.eminence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:52:37 -0500, grinningdemon
<grinningdemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:05:50 GMT, "YKW (ad hoc)" <quesada@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

grinningdemon <grinningdemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:15eh4491b1nm5v5ijvt8a484q86kc3r0s1@xxxxxxx:

There is no good way to reboot the DCU...any attempt would cause far
more problems than it solves...and it would be the last DC book I
read.

Pshaw. 'Course there's a good way. Pick an unused Earth, have that
world's Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman make their respective debuts
more or less simultaneously, then build up that Earth the way Marvel
built up its Ultimate line. Voila: instant (effective) line-wide reboot.

The problem there is that you have characters who couldn't possibly
appear for years if not decades into the new earth...and some of them
are fan-favorites...never happen.

That really only holds true if you assume EVERY character has to be
reintroduced on the new Earth, and in some sort of chronological order
that mimics the original continuity -- something that clearly hasn't
held true for the Ultimate universe.

The difference being the Ultimate Universe has been introduced in
ADDITION to the regular Marvel Universe...not as a REPLACEMENT...so it
really doesn't matter when characters show up in the Ultimate Universe
or even if they do at all...because people can still check out the
main marvel line...it is also an important distinction that the
Ultimate Universe is NOT a restart of the mainstream Marvel
Universe...it's something else entirely...there are similarities but
there are also vast differences...and you can bet that if the Ultimate
Universe were intended as a replacement, all the fan-favorite
characters would have shown up quite quickly...which would be far
easier to do on the Marvel side of the fence where there aren't so
many clear, sequential generations of characters.


Better, in fact: You don't kill the main line for older fans, but you
maintain complete freedom to go in any direction in the new 'verse.

That many books would glut the market and have a negative impact on
sales...not to mention confuse people...the Ultimate line is CLEARLY
something completely different...there's no confusing those books with
the mainstream Marvel Universe books...but continuing the current DC
line while restarting with a new line without any clear distinction is
sure to confuse people...remember, there are a great many stupid
people out there.

This also assumes DC wouldn't implement a phase-in/phase-out period.
Do characters sell books, or do books sell characters? Why not ease
into the new universe by trying a reverse approach to what launched
the Silver Age, i.e., transform current books into titles like Mystery
in Space, Tales to Astonish, etc., and then use them to launch the new
versions of characters.

The Silver Age didn't replace the Golden Age...the Golden Age had been
gone for years before DC tried superheroes again by starting the
Silver Age...it wasn't a phase in/phase out period...there were almost
no superheroes at that time so nothing was lost by introducing new
ones.


You are right that it would be a bad idea -- and glut the market -- to
have duplicate versions of characters on the stands... but that
wouldn't be a smart idea for DC if starting over with a clean slate
were truly the goal, and it would be counter-productive to try and
hook people on an "Ultimate" Superman if the regular Supes were still
dominating "Superman", "Action", "JLA", and "Superman/Batman" every
month.

The post I was responding to suggested keeping both universes going in
seperate lines...something we both seem to agree would not work out.


It works better if you've also taken the old-DCU versions of the
characters off the board in some manner (as I had -- until very recently
-- long expected FINAL CRISIS would do), the better to focus media
attention on the restart without any other issues ("When are the =real=
Superman and Batman coming back?") clouding the matter, but it's not
strictly necessary.

Which would piss off all the fans of those versions of the
characters...including me.

Your argument seems to be both circular and intentionally
self-defeating; to wit: "DC can't afford to piss off fans with a
half-assed reboot, and they can't afford to piss off fans by making
characters "go away" with a full reboot, and they're going to lose
fans if they don't fix the problems they have now, which they should
definitely do (provided they don't eliminate certain characters, as
would doubtless be required with either half-assed or full-on
reboots)..."

Actually, my main point is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Are
there problems with the current DCU? Sure. Do those problems require
a reboot that would toss out ALL of the long history and prior stories
(something which has never been done up until now)? Absolutely not.
I don't think they are losing substantial numbers of readers because
of this and, if they are, I'd argue it's because they won't leave well
enough alone and keep screwing with continuity...just commit and
concentrate efforts on making it work as is.


Superman, Batman & Robin, and Wonder Woman were phased out of Earth-2
and into Earth-1 in such a seamless way that it's not easy to pinpoint
when the transition occurred. Yet the characters who helped form the
JLA in 1958 are clearly *not* the characters who fought alongside the
JSA in 1948, and while the JSA "retired" in 1951, characters like
Captain Comet ('53) and J'Onn J'Onzz ('55) were clearly based on
Earth-1, so you can't even point to Flash's revival in Showcase ('56)
as the crossover point. While such an approach wouldn't work today,
I'm only pointing out that it has been done.

We're all well aware of that...but I'm not sure how it's relevant to
the current discussion.


They would NEVER restart everything across the board so you'd just end
up with another half-assed reboot like after CoIE.

Some of the resistance to a full reboot must come from sales &
marketing, with concerns about brand recognition, market penetration,
copyright, trademarks, and whatnot... but there's also resistance from
fans -- some of which is driven by completist mentalities, or too
great an obsession with continuity, or even plain old cynicism (the
reboot is a gimmick; it'll be forgotten within a year; it's a great
idea so long as they don't screw up *my* favorite characters...
waaah).

Fans like continuity...they may not all be sticklers for every detail
but they do like the shared universe concept and consistent
characterization for their favorite characters...throwing all of that
out in favor of starting everything all over again would likely cause
them to lose more old readers than they gain in new ones...if they
gain any at all.


Superheroes have dominated the industry for over five decades now --
far longer than their original run. They're so firmly entrenched that
for all intents and purposes, "comics" = "superheroes" and alternate
genres are essentially marginalized. Meanwhile, the market continues
to shrink and the companies vaccilate between trying something new (to
bring in additional fans at the risk of pissing off the Old Guard) and
staying the course (producing increasingly insular products for the
above aging fanbase).

No one is stopping them from trying new things...but, as you say, they
need to balance attempts at gaining new readers against maintaining
their current fan base...and I personally think a full reboot would
cost them much of that fan base.


Given that the average, non-comic reading person -- the kind who'll go
to see "Iron Man" and never know (or *care*) what is different from
the comics -- probably still thinks Robin is *** Grayson and has a
view of Krypton that's 97% influenced by the 1978 Superman film,
what's the real harm of a universe-wide reboot *if* it's approached by
DC with 100% commitment? They might gain some new readers. They might
lose some old readers. But the core of the Old Guard will probably
stick around regardless (addictions are hard to break). And we just
might end up with a cleaner, brighter setting for new stories.


I don't think they would gain many new readers from this approach...I
highly doubt that the people who see "iron Man" will be any more
likely to check out the comics if they rebooted the character from
scratch than if they just continued on...I also think you overestimate
what the "Old Guard" are willing to put up with...and I think a reboot
and the subsequent loss of the characters' histories would limit story
potential and likely lead to DC telling the same old stories all over
again (not unlike what Marvel has done with Spiderman recently...which
also seems to be losing sales).


.