Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Sci-Fi

DC Reboots Universe 292

Posted by samzenpus
from the crisis-on-infinite-earths-2 dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Bob Wayne, Senior Vice President of Sales at DC Comics, has written to comic book retailers saying: 'Many of you have heard rumors that DC Comics has been working on a big publishing initiative for later this year. This is indeed an historic time for us as, come this September, we are relaunching the entire DC Universe line of comic books with all new first issues. 52 of them to be exact.' In addition, some characters are going to be younger, some may be missing, relationships are being changed, and Grant Morrison will pen a new Superman title."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DC Reboots Universe

Comments Filter:
  • Somehow I see this as being less successful than other reboots (like the Star Trek reboot) since they're essentially hitting the reset button on EVERYTHING. It's like a DC Big Bang.

    • by Squiddie (1942230) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:05PM (#36311256)
      Well, it's not like they will gain a lot of new fans. Comic books aren't really popular even now that everyone is into superheroes and such. Meh, I'll check it out.
      • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:24PM (#36311454) Homepage

        Another part of this announcement, which is probably more significant than the reboot itself, is that DC will be releasing these new comics simultaneously, both at bricks-and-longbox retailers, but also on apps for the iPad, Android, etc. That is where DC is hoping to gain new readers for this rebooted universe, by finally reaching the younger crowd where they live (rather than expecting them to find the local equivalent of the Android's Dungeon), and maybe bringing back some of the many older geeks who've drifted away but find the idea of a new-and-different DCU interesting enough to take a look.

        I don't know if this will work for DC (unlike the Comic Book Guy types out there, I'm not going to prejudge the books before they've been published), and trying to survive in this Brave New World of digital publishing while competing with cooler-looking video games and movies is going to be an up-hill battle. But I think it's a smart move to make, because the alternative was the eventual heat-death of the DC Universe as aging fans of dead-tree pamphlets about characters with decades of continuity dragging along behind them, slowly faded away.

      • by sumdumass (711423) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:25PM (#36311464) Journal

        That's actually a sign of the times.

        Why work at reading and using your imagination to make a story seem real or realistic enough to be enjoyable when you can flip on the tube and watch someone else' version who already went through that effort.

        And Don't take that as me ragging on the new generation at all. It's just a mark on how much CG and other technology has advanced the story telling of other media opportunities.

    • by Ghostworks (991012) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:06PM (#36311270)

      Do you see it being more successful than Crisis on two Earths, Crisis on Infinite Earths, and/or Infinity Crisis? This will be the second official universe reboot, and at least the third mass relaunch. Maybe more, I've lost track. This isn't like other franchise reboots, because other franchises don't get "hot swapped" this way. At the same time, it's not the first time and not a huge surprise to the fanbase, so I doubt you'll get a lot of major complaints.

      • by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:18PM (#36311408)

        I remember Zero Hour as being a partial reboot and supposed to resolve many continuity issues in the mid 90s and in the mid 80s you had COIE, and IC partway between.

        I wonder if they are just trying something new, as the comic industry surely is only a fraction of what it once was.

        I wonder if any kids read comics anymore or if they are all too busy with higher-tech pursuits?

        • by Amouth (879122) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:26PM (#36311498)

          they don't call them "comics" but rather "graphic novels" and yes kids are reading them a lot.. just not nearly as many read the DC stuff as they used to .. now they are reading different verities. (think ones where they can relate to the person who is the "hero" or protagonist)

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:47PM (#36311732)

            Like Alan Moore says, there's a difference between a "graphic novel" as in a novel that is presented in a graphical form and a monthly comic book. DC's mainline stuff (and Marvel's, for that matter) does not have an ending, does not really have a beginning, and generally doesn't really have any lasting development in the middle; any time anything actually happens it generally gets rolled back later. That isn't a "novel". I'm not sure what it is. But this sort of thing is why people don't take comics seriously.

        • by MakinBacon (1476701) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:55PM (#36311820)

          I wonder if any kids read comics anymore or if they are all too busy with higher-tech pursuits?

          I'm 21 years old, and I very rarely see anyone in my local comic shop who looks younger than myself (except on annual Free Comic Day), so no.

          Most of my friends read Japanese Manga, and alot of them insist that Manga doesn't count as comics because there's a negative stigma associated with being a comics fan. Despite all the success that comic publishers have had with movies, they've still completely failed to convince the general population that reading comics is nothing to be embarrassed about, and that is why the industry is dying.

          • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @05:09PM (#36312676)
            This is why comics fans took to calling them 'graphic novels.' An effort to escape the stigma.

            It failed.

            It's not the only genre to suffer the problem. The entire field of western animation is stuck in an age trap, with nothing produced except children's programming and no studio willing to make something for older audiences in a medium traditionally regarded as childish. Furries grumble about a similar problem in fantasy - anything with talking animals is regarded as childish in the same way, resulting in such problems as the publisher-mandated edits to Inherit the Earth to strip it of anything that might challenge the thinking of people over twelve. Video games in general used to have just the same problem, being regarded as a children-and-teens medium, but have had much more success in overcoming it as the players matured.

            I have a 'porn switch' on my desk that kills the power to the monitors. It's not actually for porn - that's just the excuse. It says a lot that I would find my anime-viewing habbits so embarassing, I'd rather call it the porn-switch.
        • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:56PM (#36311834) Homepage

          The issues addressed by those partial reboots didn't address the existential question that faces DC (or Marvel) today. It isn't a question of whether Bruce Wayne saw his parents killed while coming home from a fancy cinema in the 1920s or coming home from a Blockbuster Video in the 1990s. The question is the distribution model used for delivering stories told using juxtaposed pictures and words. Starting over with a fresh, rebooted universe is just a much better way of getting the attention of potential new comics readers, compared to trying to interest them in issue #900-something of a series that's been going since the Great Depression, and constantly refers back to stories published before they were born.

        • My kids read comics, I have three boys; 14, 10 and 6. The six year old we read to and only some of the titles as they can get a little edgy for that age. I have thousands of paper comics and thousands of CBR/Zs and my kids are allowed access to any of them (again with the exception of the 6 year old for now).

          It was finding the CBR/Zs that made me dust off the old storage boxes and show them to my kids. Now they are hooked. There are a couple good online stores to buy from and there is a "Cosmic Comics" about two minutes drive from my house. Cool side note, their is another store called the Adventurer's Guild close by with RPG gear. The kids are always willing to hit one of those stores over game stop when allowance time comes if I suggest it. I don't always, there is some room in their life for games and we do that together as well.

          If you only give your kids video games and netflix then that's all they'll do. If you expose them slowly to other pursuits like comics, reading in general (Lord of the Rings FTW!) and RPGs then I've found they'll take interest. The key is not forcing it, not taking the games and tv away and not making them feel bad if they say no. In other words to find a balance of all their interests. My son professed to loathe reading when he was 8; now he's 10 and my wife and I have a fun time getting him to put the books down and go to bed!

    • by Thud457 (234763) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:52PM (#36311798) Homepage Journal
      In the late 80's "The Phantom" seemed to get into an endless cycle of restarting from his origin story because they couldn't seem to get any traction bringing in new readers. You don't see The Phantom in the funny pages any more.
    • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:07PM (#36311958)

      The reboots and alcoholic and evil "heroes" drove me away from comics about 10 years ago.

      Now I watch the animated Justice League and Batman on netflix.

      Every reboot of a character made it harder to stay connected to them. Every repulsive anti-hero made me less interested in the genre.

      • Every repulsive anti-hero made me less interested in the genre.

        And it's all basically Frank Miller's fault. Unlike Moore, who was honestly interested in bringing some sort of realism and emotional honesty to the genre, Frankie just kept refining his particular right-wing obsessions until he got them as pure as he could in the Sin City books.

        Everybody might have been inspired to reach for Moore's heights, but most of them couldn't get further than Miller's mediocrity, if that.

        And then McFarlane and Liefeld showed up, at the worst possible time...
    • by camperdave (969942) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:09PM (#36311980) Journal
      Why does everyone mention the Star Trek reboot as successful? They made one movie, and that was a lackluster, pathetic piece of garbage. (Red Matter? Seriously? Building the Enterprise on the Earth's surface? Really?) If you want to point to a successful reboot, then point to Doctor Who (although that's more a continuation than a reboot).
    • Nah this was just an accident. Someone tripped on the carpet and hit the big red button.

    • by Crudely_Indecent (739699) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:25PM (#36312146) Journal

      The Star Trek reboot was unique in that the old universe initiated the new universe via unintentional time travel. It will be interesting to see how DC orchestrates the "Big Bang"...what will cause the reboot? Will they acknowledge within the comics that there was a reboot as was done in Star Trek?

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @05:20PM (#36312794)
        Star Trek has had a few continuity problems of it's own. The building of the Enterprise on Earth is actually one of them, but it goes back further than the movie and into the nature of Starfleet. In the old TOS, Starfleet was seen as a multi-cultural force, something akin to the United Nations peacekeeping force. Loyal to federation princibles, open to all, and with command split between all of the Federation's members - no one species having control. Humans were one member among many, and newcomers at that. The headquarters were even located (IIRC) on a starbase, so as not to grant any member the prestige of having the HQ on their homeworld. A coalition of nominal equals.

        As time progressed - through TOS, movies, spinoff series - the Federation became more and more Earth-centered. Humans in command, the headquarters in San Francisco along with the Academy. Eventually canon just established that the Federation had been founded entirely not just humans, but Americans, upon American ideals. This revision felt much better with the primarily US audience, playing to patriotism by returning their country to it's rightful place as ruler of the galaxy, but it goes against the original vision.

        The construction of Enterprise as established by the series isn't actually far from Earth, but it wasn't on the surface. It was built at a starbase in orbit.
  • Ran out of ideas? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @02:59PM (#36311194) Homepage Journal
    I guess they can buy themselves some time by just retelling all of the origin stories again just in case readers missed them the first (or second, or third) time around and missed the movie and were under a rock for their entire life. Certainly much easier than simply retiring the characters and thinking up entirely new stories to tell with new characters that aren't weighed down by decades of cruft.
    • by The Great Pretender (975978) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:37PM (#36311622)
      Just in time for Hollywood to remake them all...
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:48PM (#36311744)

      retelling all of the origin stories again just in case readers missed them the first (or second, or third) time

      At this point, I think it's more like dozens (for some of the bigger characters). Comic books make soap operas look modest when it comes to the silly deus ex machina plot devices to kill-off and return characters, redo their origins, retroactively change their histories, etc. Superman alone must have at least a hundred "origins" by now (especially if you count all the alternate universe Supermen, versions in different media, etc.).

      Personally, I wish they would return to all the politically-incorrect storylines and eras they've swept under the rug over the decades. I would love to see Captain American fight the buck-toothed Japs again, or let the commie menace know what's for at least one more time! And whatever happened to all those great ghetto superheroes from the 70's that used to say "Right on!" all the time and fight with switchblades?

      • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:04PM (#36311920) Homepage Journal
        Its funny that you should mention it, but Disney seems stuck in the same rut of, 'It's easier to recycle, than to invent'. The problem with modern IP is the story never ends, it just keeps going until it is so crappy that it makes no money. You want to see star wars episodes 7-9? GL might not want to make it, but wait for him to die, and somebody will want more Ferraris and blow. It's only a matter of time.

        DC should just kill of a couple of major characters and bury them forever to make room for new ones. You cannot plant new trees unless you cut down some old ones. A reboot is just recycling the old crap again.
  • by TimeElf1 (781120) <kennettb@COUGARgmail.com minus cat> on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @02:59PM (#36311196) Homepage Journal
    They seem really stuck on this 52 number. Really folks 42 is the better number. I can't really see this taking off I think it might turn into another Superboy punch.
  • by senorpoco (1396603) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:01PM (#36311218)
    ultimate mega crisis in forever universes infinite something something.
  • Old fans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:01PM (#36311220) Journal

    Sounds like a good way to alienate old fans. "What, you mean the decades of backstory I've been following is now entirely irrelevant?" I suppose it could help bring in new fans, by lowering the barrier to entry. But I don't see this offsetting the disillusioned older fans.

    If you're going to reboot a universe, do it like Doctor Who did it, and not like Star Trek. Respect the decades of canon, and you have a built in fan base. Change the authors, the visual style, whatever, just don't mess with canon.

    • Re:Old fans (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ghostworks (991012) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:12PM (#36311336)

      "Sounds like a good way to alienate old fans."

      This is DC. Disregard Continuity. They were official labeling all their Golden Age characters as "from Earth 2" (Earth 1 being home to the new version who got to stick around) when Marvel was really starting to take off. Plus, DC also has the most successful elseworlds/what if books. Their characters are brands, so small changes don't really phase fans much. New Batman versus old Batman vs. golden age Batman vs. cowboy Batman vs Batman who fights Aliens and Predator are all basically batman. The stories, minor characteristics, and supporting characters all change from writer to writer anyway. I dare say there is no fanbase that would be affected less by such a major change.

      • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:31PM (#36311558)

        They were official labeling all their Golden Age characters as "from Earth 2" (Earth 1 being home to the new version who got to stick around) when Marvel was really starting to take off.

        Marvel showed them up by making the default Marvel continuity "Earth 616". That's 308 times as big!

    • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:14PM (#36311362) Homepage

      Sounds like a good way to alienate old fans.

      You assume that there are old fans. I imagine if sales weren't dwindling they wouldn't be doing this at all.

      As far as the "decades of canon" goes, is there such a thing? I don't really follow comics but as I understand it both DC and Marvel routinely rewrite their universes with "biggest threat evar!" crossover storylines that totally change things so as to make everything that went before moot anyway.

      Am I wrong?

      • by metacell (523607) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:58PM (#36311858)

        Sort of wrong, sort of right. DC rewrites their universe with increasing frequency since the 80's, but their changes are of the type "assume everything is the same except for the things we explicitly say are different". So the books keep relying on decades of backstory, and keep being inaccessible to new readers - plus become a lot more confusing due to conflicting continuity changes.

        Marvel is much better in this regard - their reboots are temporary and have a clear beginning and ending. For example, a time-traveller or reality-warping mutant changes the Marvel universe, and all the books are affected for a number of months, then go back to normal when reality is restored.
        Marvel's new Sentry character is retroactively inserted in the Marvel universe with decades of backstory, but this is a small change compared to DC's reboots.

      • by Aeros (668253) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:11PM (#36312008)
        Another thing that has turned off a lot of old fans and new fans alike is the price. We used to be able to go to the comic book store with $10 and get a dozen or two stories. Now your lucky if you get 2 or 3 for $10. At least DC has got back to the $2.99 price point where Marvel sticks to $3.99. Yes the quality is MUCH better but seriously, one of the big factors in loss of sales is the high price point.
    • Re:Old fans (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sheehaje (240093) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:24PM (#36311462)

      I actually really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot. I know it flew in the face of years of back story, but it was as entertaining (if a bit campy) story as I've seen in the Star Trek universe. I think I'm learning to live with all my childhood shows, stories and heroes for that matter being brought back in different light as long as what comes of it is entertaining to me and my family. I guess it's better than it being faded out entirely. I still don't forgive Lucas for not seizing the opportunity to really update Star Wars with a really exciting prequel. To me that wasn't entertaining and painful to watch. Star Trek on the other hand proved to exceed my expectations, even though I knew it flew in the face of Gene Roddenberry's vision.

      • by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:41PM (#36311652)

        Eh, TNG (latter half) and DS9 both flew in the face of Gene Roddenberry's vision, and we were better off for it. You might say "Voyager" but then I might say "What? What's that? You mean V'Ger? No, not the best movie of them, but better than 3 or 5."

      • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:55PM (#36311824)

        I'm always willing to give a reboot a chance.

        Heck, as much as I loved it, I'd like to see someone reboot Reboot. Vastly better CGI today, and lots more fodder for the silly puns and inside jokes. Having the characters show up in a casual game would be awesome.

        Enzo: We do what now?
        Bob: You click the cow.
        Dot: ...and?
        Bob: I think that's it.
        Enzo: How do we beat the user?
        Bob: I think the user... is the cow.
        Dot: So how do we end the game and get out of here?
        Bob: I... um... ah! Glitch! Captive bolt pistol!
        Cow: Zoinks!

    • Re:Old fans (Score:3, Informative)

      by dhermann (648219) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:28PM (#36311522)

      If you're going to reboot a universe, do it like Doctor Who did it, and not like Star Trek.

      Yeah, Star Trek was a huge, unmitigated disaster that made $385 million in gross revenue. I can see how a corporation would find the Doctor Who model much more attractive.

    • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:28PM (#36311528) Homepage

      The roughly 50K remaining fans who are obsessed with nothing but whether or not the "backstory" they've been reading will "count" anymore are worth risking.

    • by redemtionboy (890616) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:29PM (#36311540)

      It gets ridiculous later in the series though when it's been running for decades. I wish marvel would do the same. Flash Thompson was in the vietnam war for god's sake.

    • by MakinBacon (1476701) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:39PM (#36311640)

      I believe they did something like this in the eighties with Crisis on Infinite Earths, except they didn't restart the numbering.

      As for messing with the canon, it's not like they don't already constantly retcon things and release new versions of the origin stories.

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:42PM (#36311668) Homepage Journal

      Except they kind of have too. Superman and Batman would both be what? 80 or 90 years old now? Iron Man would be at least 60 or 70. Green Arrow would be in his 50s or 60s. You would need new people for each role and a new backstory for them For some like Superman you could just make immortal but for and some like Batman and and Green Arrow would be possible but other with super powers you would have problems with. Do they get married and have kids and pass it down or what?

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:50PM (#36311770)

      What superhero hasn't been reinvented at least once in "decades"? Shit, I think Batman has had three costume changes just this month.

    • by knghtrider (685985) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:02PM (#36311890) Homepage
      Perfect analogy--The Doctor is still the same--minus the baggage of the stuffy old Time Lords; but still with his age-old nemeses still around. Although, they did overuse the Daleks and Cybermen a bit..
    • Comics as myth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:05PM (#36311922)

      If you're going to reboot a universe, do it like Doctor Who did it, and not like Star Trek. Respect the decades of canon, and you have a built in fan base. Change the authors, the visual style, whatever, just don't mess with canon.

      Canon is the problem. Canon cruft, if you will. For instance, the hopelessly tangled canon behind Barry Allen was the main reason they killed him off in Crisis on Infinite Earths.

      Now, admitting that I've been following DC off and on for more than 50 years (yup), my opinion may not be remotely related to marketability but here it is:
      Comics are mythology. Mythology has no continuity. The details change from year to year and audience to audience so as to address the cultural needs of the time and place. You can always make up new stories in the mythos. If anything is constant, it's character: Zeus is the perpetual playboy who can't keep it zipped, Hera is the jealous wife who can't do anything about hubby so she takes it out on the tootsies and bastards, Hermes is a trickster, etc.

      Were I in charge (and we can all be thankful I'm not), the DC Universe would be much more like the perennial movie versions in that each cycle exists as a snapshot in time. To the extent that there is continuity, it ages rapidly -- the details of anything more than a year old are vague, and anything more than three years old might as well have never happened.

    • by guspasho (941623) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @06:43PM (#36313696)

      "Sounds like a good way to alienate old fans. "What, you mean the decades of backstory I've been following is now entirely irrelevant?""

      This argument is, frankly, bullshit. Of course it isn't irrelevant. That back story isn't going anywhere. The series is just done. And it's about damn time, too. Enjoy rereading it, like everyone still enjoys rereading and rewatching stories told in every other medium. Write fan-fiction if you like.

      DC should alienate the old fans. Or rather, they should stop trying to accommodate the old fans. The old fans who complain about canon are snobby curmudgeons who are more and more far removed from the industry's potential audience as they age and die off.

      Marvel became wildly successful in the 1960s is because DC was already old and stale. DC was trying to apply character archetypes that were a generation old and no longer relevant to the people who were buying comics. They still do, even though they've adapted enough to survive. Marvel came in with Spider-Man and X-Men and characters that had an audience, characters that were relevant and not stale. The same is true of the reinvented, darker Batman of the 80s, Image in the 90s, and Ultimate Marvel in the 00s. Let the canon go and let the companies and characters write stories that relate to their audience.

      If you want true canon and continuity all the characters from the Golden Age are dead of old age, all the characters from the Silver Age are in retirement homes, and all the characters of whatever they called the 90s have settled down with kids and a house and are "too old for this shit". Plus, it gets increasingly ridiculous and increasingly uninteresting the 3468th time that Batman faces off against the Joker. I mean really, how many times can you keep writing that and expect it to sell?

      "If you're going to reboot a universe, do it like Doctor Who did it, and not like Star Trek."

      The only reason this worked with Doctor Who, and nothing else, is that there are few constants. The TARDIS is a police box that's bigger on the inside, the Doctor rides around in it and is incredible, and picks up traveling companions that act as the conduit for the viewer, and that's about it. Everything else is subject to revision, and always has been. The companion changes, even the Doctor changes, not just the actor that plays him but his temperament and personality. If Doctor Who was American, this would be an outrage, and the series would have ended when William Hartnell died or left the series.

  • Oh, look... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mononoke (88668) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:03PM (#36311238) Homepage Journal
    New Coke.
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:04PM (#36311246) Homepage Journal

    Well, it worked for Star Trek, so why not do it for everything else!

    ...wait, did it work for Star Trek or is the jury still out on this one?

    • by rotide (1015173) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:17PM (#36311392)

      We'll see if they make equals and more importantly, a series, that is/are successful and in line with the reboot.

      I know Star Trek in general was extremely niche. I know in it's old state, it was dying, hard to admit it, but it wasn't thriving for sure. I'm sad to say the old thought provoking Star Trek might be history and a new Action Adventure replacement is what's on the table now. But I'd rather see them morph it than just let it die. I love the ST universe and I'll love seeing new interpretations on it.

      As for the canon of Star Trek, they just made it up as they went. Take Trills for instance. In TNG, they couldn't use the Transporters or it would kill them. In DS9, that was too inconvenient. So they gave them spots and took away their limitations. Whenever inconvenient (or convenient) they would change their own canon!

      A reboot in the case of Star Trek was necessary, as the alternative was to let it die =(

    • by gman003 (1693318) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:18PM (#36311394)
      Well, the general consensus is "it's better than the last several movies (ie. Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations), but not quite as good as the best movies (II, IV and First Contact).". So, while the reboot is generally seen as an improvement, there's still many ex-fans who are remaining ex-fans.

      Judging from that, a DC reboot would work if people are feeling that the current stories aren't as good as they should be. Not being a comics fan myself, I can't say if that's the case.
    • by Abreu (173023) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:37PM (#36311624)

      It worked.

      A lot of us who never were Star Trek fans in the first place saw it and liked it.

      I'll certainly watch the sequel coming out in 2012

  • At first, I thought the headline meant that the US Government was going to launch into thermonuclear world war...
  • Just a strategy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LavouraArcaica (2012798) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:11PM (#36311328)
    I think they will just reboot everything. It will probably fail - and they already know it. But when fails, all the old fans will look at the old timeline with nostalgy, raising the value of the old storyline. Then they will come back to what works and sells. Selling more, of course.
  • by drb226 (1938360) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:13PM (#36311348)
    For those of us who don't immediately recognize the reference to comics, after reading the title, we're scratching our heads wondering just how arrogant the US Capitol is.
  • by asdf7890 (1518587) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:13PM (#36311360)
    Again?!
  • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp@G m a i l.com> on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:15PM (#36311370) Homepage Journal

    The people in charge of this reboot... Dan Didio, Jim Lee, Geoff Johns... are some of the prime people responsible for screwing DC up over the past decade. So now they're going to hand the repair job to the same people that helped muck up the works? Sometimes I think Warner Brothers wants to kill DC off.

    And some of the costume redesigns... radically changing Superman's outfight without the red tights and adding a military style collar? His costume has only been popular for 70 years, but hey, what does everyone else know.

    Here's my first prediction for the "new" DC universe.... the reboot won't stop DC's habit of pushing a major "event" series every year, with so many tie-ins that you can't keep up (or afford to buy all the $3-plus issues). And the marketing for it will be the same crap we've heard ever since Crisis On Infinite Earths... "THIS is the event that changes EVERYTHING"... until the next event, that is.

    Maybe now is a great time to quit collecting and just walk away.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:18PM (#36311396)

    Everyone is looking at this and missing the real story. Yesterday's article had the following statement, which will have much greater impact on the industry.

          "The publication of JUSTICE LEAGUE #1 will also launch digital day-and-date for all ongoing superhero comic book titles - an industry first."

    Digital download, available the same day as the paper copies. Why buy a hard copy when you can read it on your PC /.phone/ tablet / whatever?

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=32563

  • by shawnmchorse (442605) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:25PM (#36311476) Homepage

    This just validates my long held view that DC never publishes much of anything worth reading in the first place.

  • by thirty-seven (568076) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:25PM (#36311484)
    This was up on the AV Club yesterday. I mention this because an interesting (and often humourous) discussion occurred there [avclub.com] that many here may be interested in reading.
  • by rpresser (610529) <rpresser@gmail . c om> on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:29PM (#36311542) Homepage

    Because I don't. I've been trying for ten minutes to care and I just can't.

  • by RichMan (8097) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:34PM (#36311598)

    It's comics. They do reboots all the time.

    Also nobody ever really dies.

  • Ugh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:37PM (#36311618)

    Despite being a geek, I've never really followed comic books. Mainly it's been because of cheesedick writing. It's the worst of television (too many hands) mixed with the worst of desperate fan-service for dollars.

    Marvel spawned a whole new universe for new readers, Ultimate something or other. That's running in parallel with their existing titles. I have no idea how successful that was.

    The problem of a long-running strip is that the characters are stuck in a time warp even while the world moves on around them. Archie is always going to be in a 1950's America that never really existed even as computers and cell phones are dropped in. (or at least that's how it looks at the checkout line. That Archie is even still published is in and of itself a time warp.)

    The sad truth of the matter is most of the comic backstories suck to begin with. Too many writers, too much crap. There's not much worth salvaging. And seriously, how many worthwhile stories are there to tell with a given character? The only way to keep it fresh would be to keep getting new takes. Bring a writer on, have him tell his take, move on to the next guy. We see that happen with retellings of classic stories, why not with classic characters? But the problem is that the publishers aren't telling stories, they're moving product. The core consumer they're targeting wants the same old shit, boring and predictable, just like McDonalds. Roided out muscled dudes, pneumatic-titted heroines, and Frank Miller pseudo-grittiness. Bah.

    The only comics I've seen that were any good were limited runs. (limited could mean numbers of years.) But they had a beginning, middle, and end. Something like Sandman was decent. But these lurching, undead, zombie titles that just keep going and going without doing anything new, just the same old boring, dependable shit... Ugh. I've watched too much Star Trek, I don't need to go find something new to be disappointed by.

  • by WillyWanker (1502057) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:47PM (#36311724)
    Please get Jim Lee to stop redesigning costumes. It's not 1994 anymore. And I'm really sick to death of seeing Wonder Woman drawn as a lesbian cowgirl hooker. Just stop already.

    This is going to be a mess of epic proportions.
  • by wcrowe (94389) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:56PM (#36311832)

    Aquaman finally comes out of the closet!

  • by knghtrider (685985) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:59PM (#36311866) Homepage

    and this is exactly why I stopped reading/collecting comics long ago. Asimov didn't reboot his universe, he tied it all together rather brilliantly. Heinlein..well, he used a deus ex machina to tie his stories together with all the other pulp universes in existence; not as brilliant, but a good yarn nonetheless.

    But," we've got sagging sales what do we do?" " I know....let's 'Reboot the Universe'".. bah..

    move along, nothing to see here..

  • by Thud457 (234763) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:06PM (#36311950) Homepage Journal
    Your stories don't belong to you, they belong to your fans.
    That's where your value comes from. If you don't find people with whom your story resonates, your story doesn't sell.
    So stop pissing on your loyal customers by screwing around with what they discern as a good thing, just to pursue those that don't appreciate your oeuvre, Lucas!
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:31PM (#36312224)

    It's DC comics. No one cares. :)

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @04:45PM (#36312380)

    The problem with the American comic book industry is that it's stuck in the persistent now. That means that history irrelevant. We've got these characters and stories that span decades but no one ever ages. The world changes around them to fit with the times and we're expected to accept that everything just happens in the present. The industry, like American entertainment in general, is afraid to let go. They desperately cling to the same never-ending stories because if they let go they're then forced to come up with something new.

    Japanese manga produces and endless amount of crap, but this one area in which they're far superior to American comics. Japanese comics routinely feature a finite storyline. There's a definite beginning and end. Some have a tendency to stretch out a particular storyline to an absurd length, but at least there's the satisfaction that there will eventually be a true conclusion and that major characters could actually die.

    However, I wonder if readers are still obsessed with certain characters like I remember growing up. Whenever a character did die it would spark outrage amongst fans. Evidently American readers have as much trouble letting go as do the writers.

    So this who DC reboot strikes me as lame. It leaves me with this extremely unsatisfying sense that there will never be any resolution. But then I've stopped reading this sort of thing long go. The superhero archetype has gotten a bit too quaint for my taste. They haven't even done anything to modernize the costumes, instead continuing to stick with tights that looks like they've been painted on. I've always wondered if they go with this look because it's easier than drawing clothing and other accoutrements. I don't have an inherent problem with them theme, but they keep perpetuating tired old ideas. How many superheroes do we need?

  • by seandiggity (992657) on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @05:25PM (#36312854) Homepage
    These "back to basics but we're changing everything" reboots are really starting to grind on me...cycles of reboots every few years, and DC tends to do them in the worst way. Marvel leans more toward limited ones like the terrible "Heroes Reborn" or the awesome "Age of Apocalypse"...they seem to be wise enough to test out the reboots on a few titles rather than the whole Marvel Universe at once, and then merge the successful characters/storylines back into Earth-616. DC, on the other hand, will probably be doing "Zero Hour Crisis in Hypertime during Blackest Night in the Multiverse" in 2015.

"The most important thing in a man is not what he knows, but what he is." -- Narciso Yepes

Working...