DC's new 52 - A success or a predictable, total disaster?

2456

Answers

  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16
    @JSA4me, before Ollie was the liberal, skirt-chasing (OK, fishnet-chasing), conscience of the JLA, he was a millionaire with an arrow cave and an arrowcar, and a kid sidekick, and largely indistinguishable from the Batman of the era. Then he lost everything and his character evolved. In one issue

    The new series is starting him fresh and is intended to show the transition from millionaire playboy to crusading liberal over time. Sounds like it could be a good story to me, if they get the right writer.
    Well, no. It's not starting fresh to retell a story arch that was done well to begin with. To me they're doing this to skirt around the problem of the fact that even though killed and brought back to life this Green Arrow has been slinging arrows for more than 50 years. So, they're going to pretend he really started being green arrow in about 2011 and that's how they'll keep him young. And he probably lost his money in the mortgage backed securities meltdown instead of being swindled out of it, of him personally being swindled out of it, which if they do that I think detracts a lot of motivation for why he's a hero in the first place.
  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16
    Torchsong gets it. To me this revamp was totally unnecessary, and to add insult to injury, it's not even evenly applied. Aquaman is really the same old character and taken seriously. He's got a good creative team behind him. Green Arrow now is just terrible, and an insult not only to Mike Grell, but to Green Arrrow fans. Okay, here's a question for you should fans be rewarded for their loyalty to a character even if the copyright owner wants to make drastic change? Would you accept a Sherlock Holmes who was a lesbian truck driver from New Jersey who was not a detective? Is that still Sherlock Holmes? I would say NO.


    But here's the context-- Green Arrow fans were saying the exact same things you are, and making these same complaints ABOUT the Mike Grell era. I am old enough to not only remember Craig Kilborne, but also to remember that the "trick arrow vs. sharp arrow" debate raged in the letter columns of Grell's Green Arrow series for years. That was a drastic change. And one for the better, in my opinion, since I think the Grell era is the best that character has been. At least, for me. But to some of the old time fans of Green Arrow at that time, to take away his boxing glove arrows, and put him in a gritty mature readers title WAS to take away Spock's pointy ears. But, in that case, I personally think it worked out, and Green Arrow got to be relevant to a readership of that time.

    Now the latest new version of Green Arrow, to judge by the first two issues, was terrible. But that happens. But he wasn't terrible because he had been one way forever and now changed for the first time. Rather, it was terrible, to me, because the changes this time around weren't good ones. Or, at least, weren't the ones I was interested in.

    But these are decades-old funnybook characters. Some are going on a century. Should we complain that Captain America isn't still chasing down Japanese spies? Or that Superman doesn't play pranks on Lois and juggle planets while Jimmy cross-dresses? Things change. Sometimes that change succeeds, often it doesn't. But these characters don't actually belong to any current fan, no matter how vocal or loyal.
    I think part of the debate was the embrace of violence that was not part of the character previously, and not previously portrayed as a virtue either. It used to be a standard, "WE DON'T KILL." Not anymore. The demise of the comic code authority, though welcomed for many reasons, saw an increase in blood and gore. Both Batman and Green Arrow now had weapons that were razor sharp, batarangs cut through a bad guys hands, arrows went through the bad guy. Some saw this as making the character more mature and real for a "more sophisticated," audience. Some didn't. I don't think it improved the writing a great deal. There was less detective work and more bloody fighting.
  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16

    Well, no. It's not starting fresh to retell a story arch that was done well to begin with.


    Worked pretty well for
    Ultimate Spider-Man.

    And Batman Begins

    And the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes.



    Missing the forrest for the trees. Batman Begins restored the franchise and grounded Batman, at least the movie franchise into a more realistic world. The previous films were terrible.

    The new Sherlock Holmes is great.

    Both of these restore the characters and bring them back to their roots, which is my whole point, which you don't seem to grasp, or don't want to. There is a way to modernize without total disregard for a characters origins.

  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16
    Torchsong gets it.


    Well, there's a first time for everything... :)

    Okay, here's a question for you should fans be rewarded for their loyalty to a character even if the copyright owner wants to make drastic change?


    No.

    The copyright owner owes you a comic. Nothing more. Nothing less. And it's not even a two-way street. You don't owe the copyright owner anything. You have the choice not to buy their book, see their movie, download their songs.

    Example: Captain Marvel. I love the character. I've read pretty much everything they've ever put out about him. I winced when they gave Mary Marvel purple pigtails and started showing her ass every five minutes in Countdown...because that wasn't what (to me) the character was about. As a result, I didn't buy Countdown. I don't see myself purchasing this current incarnation of Cap, either. I might check it out in a store, but I vote with my dollars, and the $3-4 I'd use to buy a story about Cap I'm not likely to enjoy would be much more appreciated by the indie company or self-publisher who has a story I *would* like to read, don't you think?

    Here's the fun thing, though...if you don't like something, and you don't buy it, that'll come back to the copyright holder. "Wow, people aren't digging what we're doing with Green Arrow. Maybe we should re-tool him or just cancel the title and bring him back later." Those three George Washingtons are your ONLY real way of really showing a company what you think about what they're doing. It's why I buy Demon Knights day and date of release. I want DC to know that I really enjoy this book.

    Glad you like the original Captain Marvel, and I agree with most of what you've said. Sometimes I think it's appropriate to do more than passively not buy the comic. Protests and criticism have their place.

    I was hoping to see more people upset with DC's New 52. This was DC basically firing its own fans.

    I don't understand why, for example, JSA had to be canned. I don't understand why in order to put Cyborg into the JLA they had to write him as though he never existed before. The Aquaman in the JLA doesn't seem to be born today, like the Superman and Wonder Woman they put in this new JLA. Mr. Terrific could have been given his own title without taking an eraser to his own history, and that of the JSA. Why couldn't we keep the JSA and give Mr. Terrific his own title?

    I don't understand why it had to be one way or the other. Why couldn't we have Supes, Bats, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg in a new JLA lineup? Why take the approach that all of these characters are brand new?

    I don't like " you don't have to know or remember anything in order to enjoy this comic," approach because it appeals to ignorance. I don't think something that is often the starting point for children to get into reading should do that. A tongue-in-cheek- approach, what, you didn't buy the previous issue, shame on you, might work too. I think they should be able to write stories where if you don't know anything you'll still enjoy the comic, but if you do you'll enjoy it more. I think the more you bring to something the more you'll enjoy it. If you take the time to educate yourself about Shakespeare, then, I think, the more you will enjoy watching a live production of one of his plays.

    A New 52 Hamlet would be one guy coming out, saying hi, I'm Hamlet, and almost everyone dies, good night.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 4,665
    edited March 2012

    Well, no. It's not starting fresh to retell a story arch that was done well to begin with.


    Worked pretty well for
    Ultimate Spider-Man.

    And Batman Begins

    And the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes.



    Missing the forrest for the trees. Batman Begins restored the franchise and grounded Batman, at least the movie franchise into a more realistic world. The previous films were terrible.

    The new Sherlock Holmes is great.

    Both of these restore the characters and bring them back to their roots, which is my whole point, which you don't seem to grasp, or don't want to. There is a way to modernize without total disregard for a characters origins.

    Erm.

    I'm quite aware of the forest.

    The whole point to the New 52 is an attempt to "restore the characters and bring them back to their roots"

    What YOU don't seem to grasp, or don't want to, is that YOUR perception of the character is not the only valid one.

    There are plenty of choices made in the New 52 that I don't like, but my disliking them does nothing to change the fact that overall, it HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

    Nor does YOUR disliking them.




    At one point on one of the old forums, we had a thread dedicated to whining, just flat out whining. There was no debate, argument, or questioning the validity of said whining, it was just an outlet. If that's all you want, to whine about things that you don't like, and have people metaphorically pat your hand and say "there, there," perhaps you should start such a thread.
  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16
    @JSA4me, before Ollie was the liberal, skirt-chasing (OK, fishnet-chasing), conscience of the JLA, he was a millionaire with an arrow cave and an arrowcar, and a kid sidekick, and largely indistinguishable from the Batman of the era. Then he lost everything and his character evolved. In one issue

    The new series is starting him fresh and is intended to show the transition from millionaire playboy to crusading liberal over time. Sounds like it could be a good story to me, if they get the right writer.
    Yes, but the reason why that one issue and new direction worked so well, in my humble opinion, was that Batman wondered, Ollie is that you? Rather than, I never heard of a Green Arrow before approach which is what we're getting with this New 52.
  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,039
    Well, this is a lively topic. I wanted to put my two cents into this. I like what I've seen from the new 52. Has everything been great? No. I wish certain characters had not changed as much as they had but overall and for the most part, I have liked what the new 52 has brought us and I am interested in seeing what else it has to offer. Do I miss what's come before? Sure. That's why I still own by back issues. Would I mind if somehow the older stuff was brought back? A little but not overly so to the point where I wouldn't read DC. I love the characters and I for the most part trust the creators that they will do right by these characters. Not everything has been my cup of tea but the stuff I'm reading, I'm loving and that's enough for me.
  • PaulPaul Posts: 165
    edited March 2012
    That clapping?
    Oddly hypnotic. I don't even care if the new DC 52 is good or not anymore.
    Just
    want
    to
    clap.

    With piercing eyes.
    Yep. Orson Welles can have that effect! ;)
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 4,665
    Yep. Orson Welles can have that effect! ;)
    We will serve no whine before its time?
  • JSA4meJSA4me Posts: 16

    Well, no. It's not starting fresh to retell a story arch that was done well to begin with.


    Worked pretty well for
    Ultimate Spider-Man.

    And Batman Begins

    And the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes.



    Missing the forrest for the trees. Batman Begins restored the franchise and grounded Batman, at least the movie franchise into a more realistic world. The previous films were terrible.

    The new Sherlock Holmes is great.

    Both of these restore the characters and bring them back to their roots, which is my whole point, which you don't seem to grasp, or don't want to. There is a way to modernize without total disregard for a characters origins.



    Erm.

    I'm quite aware of the forest.

    The whole point to the New 52 is an attempt to "restore the characters and bring them back to their roots"

    What YOU don't seem to grasp, or don't want to, is that YOUR perception of the character is not the only valid one.

    There are
    plenty of choices made in the New 52 that I don't like, but my disliking them does nothing to change the fact that overall, it HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

    Nor does YOUR disliking them.


    At one point on one of the old forums, we had a thread dedicated to whining, just flat out whining. There was no debate, argument, or questioning the validity of said whining, it was just an outlet. If that's all you want, to whine about things that you don't like, and have people metaphorically pat your hand and say "there, there," perhaps you should start such a thread.
    Wet behind the ears,

    GET OVER YOURSELF!

    You yourself said the New 52 had a 30% FAILURE rate. And more are being cancelled. This is a HUGE SUCCESS TO YOU?
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 2,222

    Well, no. It's not starting fresh to retell a story arch that was done well to begin with.


    Worked pretty well for
    Ultimate Spider-Man.

    And Batman Begins

    And the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes.



    Missing the forrest for the trees. Batman Begins restored the franchise and grounded Batman, at least the movie franchise into a more realistic world. The previous films were terrible.

    The new Sherlock Holmes is great.

    Both of these restore the characters and bring them back to their roots, which is my whole point, which you don't seem to grasp, or don't want to. There is a way to modernize without total disregard for a characters origins.



    Erm.

    I'm quite aware of the forest.

    The whole point to the New 52 is an attempt to "restore the characters and bring them back to their roots"

    What YOU don't seem to grasp, or don't want to, is that YOUR perception of the character is not the only valid one.

    There are
    plenty of choices made in the New 52 that I don't like, but my disliking them does nothing to change the fact that overall, it HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

    Nor does YOUR disliking them.


    At one point on one of the old forums, we had a thread dedicated to whining, just flat out whining. There was no debate, argument, or questioning the validity of said whining, it was just an outlet. If that's all you want, to whine about things that you don't like, and have people metaphorically pat your hand and say "there, there," perhaps you should start such a thread.


    Wet behind the ears,

    GET OVER YOURSELF!

    You yourself said the New 52 had a 30% FAILURE rate. And more are being cancelled. This is a HUGE SUCCESS TO YOU?
    "Wet behind the ears"?

    Let's keep this a little above schoolyard level.

    Or is this another one of those killer bits borrowed from Craig Kilborne?
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 1,645
    Does a 30% failure rate equate to a 70% success rate? I'll take those odds.


  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 1,206
    edited March 2012
    Wet behind the ears,

    GET OVER YOURSELF!

    You yourself said the New 52 had a 30% FAILURE rate. And more are being cancelled. This is a HUGE SUCCESS TO YOU?
    Awesome, Awesome to the max
  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,039
    Does a 30% failure rate equate to a 70% success rate? I'll take those odds.


    I was thinking the same thing. 70% success sounds like a winning number to me.
  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,039
    I hate everything about the new 52. I've said it for years, if you want to get rich sell erasers to DC Comics. I see a lot of the new ideas are being cancelled. Great. Now that you've forced this upon us, and it failed can we have our old heroes back please? Can we have heroes who remember each other? Can I have my JSA back, please? But, do get Alan Scott back into his old costume, that last one, honestly, what the hell were you folks thinking?
    I have a question for you. Are you currently reading any of the new 52 stuff? I take it from the post you pretty much hate all of it. So my question to you is why are you buying it? It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy something you don't like. As for wanting the characters you remember, that's what back issues and trades are for. How do you think I'm getting my Wally West fix? Things change and evolve all the time in comics. If this isn't doing it for you? Sounds like a great jumping off point but don't think just because you don't like something that the rest of the world feels the same way. I like the new 52. I like what I'm reading. Bottom line is you can't please all the people all the time.

  • DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 1,798
    Does a 30% failure rate equate to a 70% success rate? I'll take those odds.



    I was thinking the same thing. 70% success sounds like a winning number to me.
    Not in Bizarro World, my friend.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 4,665
    edited March 2012
    Wet behind the ears,

    GET OVER YOURSELF!

    You yourself said the New 52 had a 30% FAILURE rate. And more are being cancelled. This is a HUGE SUCCESS TO YOU?
    Say, umm... can somebody lend me a towel?

    And a ladder, maybe?

    As has been pointed out, yes, I do consider a 70% Success rate a success. And that's if all ten of the titles mentioned in the article are cancelled.
  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,039
    Does a 30% failure rate equate to a 70% success rate? I'll take those odds.



    I was thinking the same thing. 70% success sounds like a winning number to me.


    Not in Bizarro World, my friend.
    "Me am hating new 52."
  • batlawbatlaw Posts: 569
    For the company its a success even if only financially and or temporarily. for me personally its much more of a failure. This experiment is driving me away so much from characters and the universe and company I've loved and shown loyalty to for nearly 30 years. Its sad but not that big a deal in the grand scope. Plus I hope and suspect things will eventually go back to something similar as before or evolve into something else new I might like. For now they don't get my money and I at least have my memories.
  • LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,697
    Does a 30% failure rate equate to a 70% success rate? I'll take those odds.

    I was thinking the same thing. 70% success sounds like a winning number to me.
    Anyone who could hit like that would be a guaranteed Hall of Famer.

    Do we have an "Ignore User" function yet? Just askin'.
Sign In or Register to comment.