The Comic Book Thread

[Sid87]

It's... not, though.

Well I said "vague", not "direct". It's a pretty close concept.

The mainstream companies are going through a really crappy period.

DC had a fairly decent idea with the New 52, but they BUTCHERED it in execution. To my understanding, the point of the new 52 was to reset history and make things new and fresh for new readers to jump right in. Instead of doing that, all they managed to do was make things convaluted and impossible to understand for CURRENT readers. If they needed to do a reboot, they should have done a REBOOT; just start everything over. I totally understand that'd mean losing popular characters like Tim Drake, Kyle Rayner, and Kon-El, but it's easier than trying to figure out where those characters all fit in to a universe that's only 5 years old. And the readers would be anxious to see how those characters all came back and affected the new reality. And past stories...which ones still exist? Which don't? Death of Superman? Blackest Night? Knightfall? Identity Crisis? 52? Instead of thinking about things like that, they were too wrapped up in taking away Superman's red panties and having him date Wonder Woman. The whole New 52 thing just seems like a HUGE failure to me, and I imagine that within 2 years, DC either has to do a new/better version of a reboot or they just go back to the old post-Crisis continuity.

Marvel meanwhile has just fallen into a stretch of REPEATED big events that all make each new one seem so pointless and minor. Civil War. World War Hulk. Secret Invasion. Siege. Fear Itself. X-Men vs. Avengers. I think in the last 5 years, Marvel has had exactly 8 months where they weren't in the middle of the latest OMG GIANT MEGA CROSSOVER EVENT! It's nice establishing all the characters live in the same universe and have to deal with the same things.... but these events used to be special because they were spaced so far out. And sometimes you just need a regular old three-issue arc where someone fights Stilt-Man.

[BCVM22]

If they needed to do a reboot, they should have done a REBOOT; just start everything over. I totally understand that'd mean losing popular characters like Tim Drake, Kyle Rayner, and Kon-El, but it's easier than trying to figure out where those characters all fit in to a universe that's only 5 years old.

Wait, what is it that says a "REBOOT" (all caps) has to involve completely getting rid of every modern-day iteration of a character? Is there a rule that says in a REBOOT, the former Robin, the former most recent Green Lantern of Earth (not anymore, though...) and the modern Superboy would all have to be gone? Why would those characters and those like them have had to get the axe in order to make it successful?

And in fact in some places, they did do exactly what you said. Wally West is, by all accounts, nonexistent right now, and that's a ticking clock as to how long it will take before they find some way to introduce him.

And past stories...which ones still exist? Which don't? Death of Superman? Blackest Night? Knightfall? Identity Crisis? 52?

They've said most, if not all, of those major storylines still exist, even if their details didn't happen exactly the same way in the new continuity.

Instead of thinking about things like that, they were too wrapped up in taking away Superman's red panties and having him date Wonder Woman.

That's simply not accurate, to assume that they were more focused on the little things as you're accusing them. They have vast editorial departments for that very reason, who map out and plan out what affects what, why, when, where and how. We simply aren't privy to those resources.

The whole New 52 thing just seems like a HUGE failure to me

But it's not, really. Wasn't perfect, no, but "a HUGE failure" it was not either.

Marvel meanwhile has just fallen into a stretch of REPEATED big events that all make each new one seem so pointless and minor. Civil War. World War Hulk. Secret Invasion. Siege. Fear Itself. X-Men vs. Avengers. I think in the last 5 years, Marvel has had exactly 8 months where they weren't in the middle of the latest OMG GIANT MEGA CROSSOVER EVENT!

Well. Yes? They do a big crossover event more or less every summer. DC does much of the same, if you look at their recent publication history.

but these events used to be special because they were spaced so far out.

They weren't, though. Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publica...r_events#1990s

No, not all of those are companywide - some are simply between the various titles of one character or family of titles - but a lot of them are, and they're anything but spaced out.

And sometimes you just need a regular old three-issue arc where someone fights Stilt-Man.

Which we're still getting plenty of.

[Sid87]

Wait, what is it that says a "REBOOT" (all caps) has to involve completely getting rid of every modern-day iteration of a character? Is there a rule that says in a REBOOT, the former Robin, the former most recent Green Lantern of Earth (not anymore, though...) and the modern Superboy would all have to be gone? Why would those characters and those like them have had to get the axe in order to make it successful?

It makes sense that if everything is starting over and brand new that there shouldn't be 7 Robins and 32 Green Lanterns and alternate realities of characters. And where do they fit in? Was Kyle ever in the JLA? Were Tim, Dick, and Jason all Robins in the span of 5 years? Was Superboy a clone of someone most the world didn't even know of yet? I'm not saying I WANT (and yes, I cap words where I would emphasize them where I speak; it happens) those characters gone--Tim and Kyle and Superboy are my three favorite DC characters--but it's the exact opposite of being accessible to new readers. I mean, proper reboots isn't exactly new territory for DC; they did it in the 80's with Crisis on Infinite Earths to erase decades of stories that contradicted each other. What DC did was basically say "We're doing a reboot, so buy all our stuff. But we're not actually rebooting anything at all".

And in fact in some places, they did do exactly what you said. Wally West is, by all accounts, nonexistent right now, and that's a ticking clock as to how long it will take before they find some way to introduce him.

So they did it to one character, yes, which is even more befuddling, really because why did Wally get shunted off, but readers were just left to wonder why/how/where everyone else who shouldn't be around yet goes? Well, Wally and Stephanie Brown, but very few people miss her (I do, but like I said...I used to love Tim's solo book).

They've said most, if not all, of those major storylines still exist, even if their details didn't happen exactly the same way in the new continuity.

And once again, what's the point of doing a reboot to get new readers if all your history is still there; you just made it more confusing. They basically just turned the entire DC universe into the running gag of how Hawkman's history is so muddled and confusing.

That's simply not accurate, to assume that they were more focused on the little things as you're accusing them. They have vast editorial departments for that very reason, who map out and plan out what affects what, why, when, where and how. We simply aren't privy to those resources.

So the New 52 makes complete sense and everything fits together perfectly, but they just don't want to tell anyone so that old readers are confused and new ones are bewildered? Sounds like a plan.

But it's not, really. Wasn't perfect, no, but "a HUGE failure" it was not either.

Well, from a critical standpoint, it's been a large failure. Sales have been sporadic; some titles have done really well and held strong, others were cancelled in short order and others still are hanging by a thread. So it depends how you look at it. The overwhelming reaction I have seen to it online has been negative, but sales haven't been bad at all.

Well. Yes? They do a big crossover event more or less every summer. DC does much of the same, if you look at their recent publication history.

Possibly. It seems less frequent there, but I guess they fell into it, too. Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis and Blackest Night and what not.

They weren't, though. Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publica...r_events#1990s

No, not all of those are companywide - some are simply between the various titles of one character or family of titles - but a lot of them are, and they're anything but spaced out.

I take issue with a lot of those. Days of Future Past wasn't an EVENT. It was a really good story, but it was a self-contained two-issue arc. Torment? Who would ever consider that a huge event story? Invasion of the Spider-Slayers? But okay, let's keep them all and compare the last few decades:

1970's: 4 such stories
1980's: 17
1990's: 27
2000's: 49
2010-2012: 32

So... I'm pretty sure that actually proves my point. The 70's average a big event once every few years. The 80's averaged less than two per year. The 90's averaged less than three. The 2000's averaged about five. And the 2010's are averaging more than ten.

I do actually appreciate your support of the companies; I think the more comic fans the better, and everyone has their own tastes. I just don't feel either of the big two have been worth buying on a regular basis in ages.

[Flame Haze SnS]

I read and own majority of Sonic the Hedgehog comic books. Most of 'em are from Sonic the Hedgehog, Knuckles the Echidna (and its mini-series), Tails mini-series, Sonic X, Sonic Universe, Super Sonic Specials, and. I have recently "restarted" on Sonic Archives and have yet to get my hands on Knuckles Archives and Princess Sally mini-series. I have already started on Megaman comic books.

For some reason, the artworks of Sonic comics have "degraded" since somewhere around late #140-ish. The best artwork was from #122-123 by Jay Axer (loves the way Sally Acorn knees Nack Weasel below belt). Tracey Yardley's/Steven Butler's artwork was acceptable, but I'd prefer Jay Axer's, Patrick "Spaz" Spaziante's, or Jon Gray's artwork. :/

My favorite plot-wise was centered around Mecha Madness where Mecha Sonic was fighting with Mecha Knuckles. Another was the way the original Dr. Robotnik ceased to exist in #50.

My BIGGEST DISAPPOINT of all was that Archie Comics may make a change to Sally Acorn's appearance (vest zipped up, spats on, and "whiskers" gone) once she is de-roboticized.

I have about 3 boxes of comic books from 1950's (they're cowboy-themed comic books) given to me by my mother's friend's husband.

[WildHennaCharizard]

I'm not a big comic reader but I enjoy the Teenage mutant ninga turtle comics as well as Usagi yojimbo.

[Thomas Elliot]

I have to admit, when DC came out and said they were re-vamping their universe, I was excited. Call it what you want, reboot, re-vamp, brand new universe whatever, it's all the same. They had aimed to take away a significant market share from Marvel and they have succeeded in doing so.
To be honest though, a year and a half in, specifically from a continuity perspective I am not sure if they have succeeded in that aspect. If I worked them, I would have set out a universe bible that dictated exactly what did and didn't happen, give to all of the writers scheduled to write the first story arc, and the bible would be passed on from then. It has been pretty confusing in some regards, but very fluid in others, at least in my mind.

To be honest though, I really don't see how any one can follow Marvel nowadays. Seems like every six months they are pushing out another reboot, re-numbering the issues, multiple issue crossovers and all that can get incredibly confusing. Hickman's runs on Fantastic Four, Secret Warriors and the Dan Slott run on Spider Man are about the only things of merit in my mind.

[Sid87]

What's everyone's opinion on Otto-Spidey? I have one friend who LOATHES it, and another who thinks it is a good arc. I'm torn... I kind of hate the idea, but at least it's a change-up (which hopefully won't last extremely long).

Isn't it wild there are two active Spider-Man (616 and Ultimate) and NEITHER of them is Peter Parker?

[fixthe_fernback]

What's everyone's opinion on Otto-Spidey? I have one friend who LOATHES it, and another who thinks it is a good arc. I'm torn... I kind of hate the idea, but at least it's a change-up (which hopefully won't last extremely long).

Isn't it wild there are two active Spider-Man (616 and Ultimate) and NEITHER of them is Peter Parker?

The times, they are a changin'.

Admittedly, I don't know how to feel about. Mostly because I've only recently started to really read comic books XD
However, I've gotten the same mixed reactions from friends on Octavius as Spidey, though most of them really like Miles filling Parker's shoes...
Regardless, I'm certainly interested in the whole debacle.

[ParaChomp]

What's everyone's opinion on Otto-Spidey? I have one friend who LOATHES it, and another who thinks it is a good arc. I'm torn... I kind of hate the idea, but at least it's a change-up (which hopefully won't last extremely long).

Isn't it wild there are two active Spider-Man (616 and Ultimate) and NEITHER of them is Peter Parker?

Spidey's has always been my favourite superhero and I am bumbed about this. No less, Venom has entertained me so much so far and how I've been hooked to Flash Thompson, I don't think I'll mind Doc Ock in Parker's body in the long run.

Speaking of Octavious, last time I checked his appearance in the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon looks aged and disgusting. I have a feeling that if they do kill off Parker it might be through Octavious' doing.

Other than that, can't wait for the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon to end and eventually Avengers Assemble (which is also directed by Man of Action) once it starts airing. Hulk: Agents of S.M.A.S.H. worries me a tad but seing Paul Dini as the writer makes me breathe a sigh of relief.