Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Badges

David_D ·

About

Username
David_D
Joined
Visits
5,830
Last Active
Roles
Member, Administrator
Points
2,099
Badges
29
Posts
1,778
  • [UPDATED: An Open Letter to DC Comics] Formerly: Need Help: Constructing a DC 'Screw Up' List

    Just a reminder of the original poster's request:
    Alright fellow geeks. I need some help. With the recent news regarding the Batwoman creative team, DC has finally done something that can be classified as "the straw that broke the camels back" for alot of fans. Without going into too much detail (that will come later once I finish what I'm going to do) I need some help from you fine folks.

    What I Need: Links to every news story you can remember of DC vs creators since the New 52.
    His request was for links to stories where creators had issues with management.

    I feel like this thread is becoming a general whinge about creative decisions you don't like. Which is related, but I think we might have a few of those running already, you know what I mean? Do we really need to repeat all that again here, especially when what the original poster asked for was links to 'DC vs. Creator' stories?
  • Super Duper Man of Steel Spoiler Discussion



    I don't know. I understand people's problem with the superman killing thing, but not really with the violence overall caused by Zod and his minions. We've seen similar amounts or much, much, much worse in other movies, some this year. In Independence Day the aliens totally level major metropolises all around the world. In This Is The End, the whole world ends. In Avengers we don't see as many building crumble, but millions of aliens invade and start killing people and then millions more are blown up by a nuclear weapon. In Wolverine we see Nagasaki get leveled.

    Edit: Even in Superman: The Movie we see a nuclear bomb go off. Not many, if any, deaths are depicted on screen... but c'mon.
    I think the difference, at least for me, is that This is the End is an apocalypse movie. it is in the title. Independence Day is a story about an alien invasion that beats all of humanity to the brink of extinction. And Nagasaki is a piece of actual history.

    But a Superman movie is where I want someone to actually save people BEFORE those things happen. You know, because he's Superman. Others may want something different than that, and so be it. But that is why, from the beginning of this discussion, I have talked about this movie having a tone problem. It is not that they did any level of destruction we haven't seen before. We have. But it felt out of place in a Superman movie. To me, the fact that a mythic level of destruction happened BEFORE Superman can stop it feels too dark and grim for what I want out of a Superman movie. That amount of destruction is not supposed to happen in a world with a Superman in it.

    And, maybe on more of a qualitative, and subjective point, I just wasn't entertained by watching it happen. It didn't make the story better, and it felt emotionally disconnected from anything else that is supposed to matter. If the casualties are mythic, than who gives a damn if Lois gets saved, or that (I think unnamed?) other reporter from the Daily Planet gets saved? For me, going for that mythic scale just made the whole thing feel like an apocalypse movie rather than a superhero one. Like Independence Day, it was a story about a destructive alien invasion of the world, but Superman was one of the invaders, too. The Earth would be better off if had never landed here.

    To me, that is not what I expect, or want, a Superman movie to feel like.
  • Ben Affleck is the new Batman in MOS Sequel

    Frankly, I don’t think the general audience is going to give much thought as to whether this Batman is the same Batman from the Nolan movies or not. Just like they don’t care if the Daniel Craig Bond is the same as the Sean Connery Bond or the Timothy Dalton Bond. They know Batman, and as long as Batman has pointy ears and a cape and that Bat symbol on his chest, and a cool car, that’ll be good enough for them.

    This is popcorn fare. The general audience just wants to be entertained.
    Agreed. I think as comics fans we, as a group, tend to put more energy and time into organizing the mental real estate of continuity. But I don't think continuity or multiple versions of a character confuse the general audience as much as we sometimes think it will; nor does is concern the general audience as much as it does us.

    And, to be clear, that is not me saying that the general audience is dumber or smarter than us. Rather, we have trained ourselves to be looking for continuity (including the references and winks as well as the errors) in ways that are just not so much the practice of the general audience.

    Simply put-- if a new person is playing Batman, and no flashbacks or direct connections are made to the Nolan trilogy, than it is a new enough Batman for the general audience to move forward. To not reference back is to also give permission to stay in the present with the movie in front of them. Looking for (or even demanding) clarity about whether or not the events of the Nolan trilogy took place in the same world as these Snyder movies feels like the kind of thing only we comic fans spend energy on.
  • Damian Wayne........ back already. Kinda. Sorta.

    I don't know that DC's intention with the New52 was to avoid multiple or alternative versions of their characters. Because even if, briefly, that was the case in their comics, at the same time the New52 launched, there were already concurrent, alternate versions of these characters existing in series of movies, video games, cartoons, direct to DVD features, etc. So even the most easily confused hypothetical reader would have, say, other versions of Batman in their head at the same time of month one of the New52.

    Besides, I don't think readers actually get confused by multiple versions of the same character. Especially when it comes to characters like a Batman or Superman that even a non-comic reading person gets have had multiple versions across a variety of media in their own lifetime.

    In a time when an average moviegoer is familiar with the term "reboot", I don't think confusion from alternate versions of a character are really a concern.
  • Damian Wayne........ back already. Kinda. Sorta.

    I don't know that DC's intention with the New52 was to avoid multiple or alternative versions of their characters. Because even if, briefly, that was the case in their comics, at the same time the New52 launched, there were already concurrent, alternate versions of these characters existing in series of movies, video games, cartoons, direct to DVD features, etc. So even the most easily confused hypothetical reader would have, say, other versions of Batman in their head at the same time of month one of the New52.

    Besides, I don't think readers actually get confused by multiple versions of the same character. Especially when it comes to characters like a Batman or Superman that even a non-comic reading person gets have had multiple versions across a variety of media in their own lifetime.

    In a time when an average moviegoer is familiar with the term "reboot", I don't think confusion from alternate versions of a character are really a concern.


    Well, let me put it this way.

    I have been reading comics all of my life, since about 1973. I am well-versed in DC lore, continuity, movies, Elseworlds, etc. all the way up to, oh about the 52/countdown series'. I have not read a lot of the New 52 stuff, and just reading press releases and seeing covers confuses the hell out of me.

    Imagine what Joe Shmoe, who just saw Dark Knight Rises, thinks when he finally goes into the comics store. Accessible? I don't think so. It's not even accessible to me. I understand, and even enjoy, the different versions "across a variety of media", but have no clue as to the current relationships of Batman, Nighwing, Damien, Robin, Red Robin, Red Hood, BatGirl, BatWoman, etc.


    And, make no mistake, accessibility was the top of the list of objectives at the New52 launch.
    Every reader, new and established, is different of course. And want different amounts of information and different paces. For example, some people, when the New 52 launched, wanted that first five years of continuity (that gutter between when the Justice League first met each other to the present where most of the books were set) detailed out in a timeline in the back of the book. Already committed to dates and events. And that's fair. Some people want that amount of guidebook information. To me, that is limiting. That is reducing your stories to Wikipedia paragraphs before the stories even get told.

    Personally, I think the way to find out what the relationships between the characters are in the New 52 is to watch them have those relationships. We will know, say, what Batman thinks about Batwoman by watching them have a scene together. To me, not knowing before I buy the book exactly what I can expect is not a barrier to entry. It is rather fodder for the story that I am about to read. Others may want something different, and that is fair.

    But I think whether or not something is accessible to the hypothetical "new reader" is a hard thing for any of us to judge. It depends on the reader. Heck, I jumped cold into Uncanny X-Men in 1986. A little more than halfway into Claremont's 19 year original run. The amount of relationships, plots, subplots (including many dangling ones) was enormous. And this was without the Internet to help me out. And it absolutely hooked me. What I didn't know yet was a big part of what got me on board. I read to find out more. That happens, too.

    And the best way for a reader, new or longtime, to know whether the story is bringing them in (call that accessible if you want) is if it works for them when they read it. If the main way you are judging the work is by their press releases and covers, then really your problem is with their marketing people?