Was New 52 judged to harshly?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Was New 52 judged to harshly?
Was New 52 judged to harshly?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Because people grew up on the post-crisis universe and had hard times letting it go.
I hate post-crisis zealots, specially wonder woman gays
they were right to complain though, Azzarello's wonder woman was antithetical to wonder woman.
ok gay
Elaborate on what you mean by that.
Diana was more of an outsider from the Amazons then she was in Man's world.
There's no going back from making them a society of babykillers and then in not on an issue later those baby that weren't killed had a brotherhood of loving submission?
>Diana was more of an outsider from the Amazons then she was in Man's world.
Oh, no! Some minor internal conflict over her place in the world!
The conflict is that the Amazons is doing gender infanticide, a thing that disproportionately happen to girl infants in the real world.
it's better when their bigotry and murderous nature is shown as a good thing, like in historia
There's a difference from killing rapists and killers and killing babies. If you look at the two and assume they're the same thing then you're the sick one.
Yeah, Azarello's wonder woman was actually entertaining and managed to pull in new readers from the non comic-reading crowd
Genuinely it did come off as a mean spirited parody
cope
I liked jeans & tshirt supes
sinestro GL was kino too
No. It was given a lot of slack when it was first rolled out. Even when it started to get shit it was mostly curbed because it didn't feel like it was malicious just incompetent.
It was mainly Wally/Titans fans doing the b***hing, as usual
i think the blame game for the New 52 reached a tipping point when Scott Snyder used it to justify him hijacking and crashing the DC universe.
The one good thing he's done in his career. Redeemed him in my eyes.
He did more damage to continuity and characters then New 52 so frick him.
I don't understand why Scott thought Death Metal was gonna undo New 52 or why Snyder even had a problem with it.
>or why Snyder even had a problem with it.
A lot of his storylines were planned pre-Flashpoint and I think he had a complex that in 10+ years all his work would be considered to be in some weird inauthentic DCU(ironic thing is it's the opposite, his early run is still recommended while everything after early Rebirth is like pissing in the wind as far as relevance)
Nope, it deserved the hate it got. Most of the books were shit, and only a small number weren't worse off than they were before the reboot.
People always talk about how Aquaman is good, but if you actually take the time to read it you'll find that the quality drops HARD after just 5 issues.
For every legitimate criticism you have there's like 5 different complaints that were just fanboys whining.
>you're points are invalid because other people have bad takes
What kind of fanboy company defending take is this?
i thought this was from porn comic for a second, but then I remembered its from that Luna Brothers fetish comic.
If you're still blaming new 52 for everything then you're the pathetic fanboy.
Anon, the fanboy mindset is DEFENDING these books.
Really, I sat down and read a a lot of New 52 2 years ago, and I found little good. Action comics was the best, but even then it had a really bad start. I'm not even a Green Arrow fan and I feel insulted by that trash.
>the fanboy mindset is DEFENDING these books
No, the fanboy mindset is to complain.
The fanboy mindset is to always defend no matter how bad it is.
Just look at BvS.
No fanboys are entitled complainers. You're acting more like a fanboy then anyone else.
So you're not a fan, by being a fan of it and defending it?
This is a masterclass troll and I just want to keep feeding you. How far can we go with this?
>I'm not even a Green Arrow fan and I feel insulted by that trash
You felt insulted? Get over yourself.
Anon, you dry defending N52 Green Arrow. Trust me, it's really bad.
Trust me anon, it's just mediocre.
At first I'd agree, but volume 3 is when it gets really bad and starts cutting out major story beats.
Dan Didio was ultimately right in that a shared universe between writers has a linited shelf life and that the post-crisis universe was already radically changed from what the fans wanted.
This was unironically the best Storytime Weekend of Pain thread I've ever seen.
all books were weak and bad on purpose.
Yes, but The Movent was special. That shit was on par with Bordertown, but without the creator being Metooed and having the book canceled on a cliffhanger.
How many years have to pass before a board deludes themselves into thinking shit was actually choclate
How long are you gonna keep making mountain out of molehills?
Superman and Batman weren't great, Justice League started terribly but Wonder Woman in her solo was the best it had ever been, Earth 2, Swamp Thing and Animal Man where all fantastic as well, heard some lesser knowns had great starts but they all either got cancelled or like Wonder Woman and Earth 2 dived off a cliff a cliff into shit when the writer changed.
New 52 had a lot of good ideas, but was executed poorly. It was supposed to be a new universe for new readers, unless you were reading Green Lantern. Or Batman. Or... A lot of the new designs were terrible. A lot of the new characters were terrible. And then ultimately it didn't matter, because it got undone pretty quickly.
>New 52 had a lot of good ideas, but was executed poorly.
You just described most Bendis books.
I don't think spamming "super genius teenage black girl" every time is a good idea
I was 15 when it came out and followed DC since I was like 4 years old but starting reading around 8 years old and I picked up the New 52 titles when they came out and I found them lame, I like the DC Universe direction during the pre-52 stuff and it didn't hit the same. I stopped reading DC during new 52 and only read new non-canon stuff for awhile I went back read some of it, still mid.
Why are nu52 fanboys like this?
This is an entirely one-sided argument of weirdos who want to be outraged versus people who are just trying to discuss comics.
Who knows, who cares?
Marvel was better at the time anyway.
Well then go start a thread about that then.
You seem angry.
And you seem desperate.
Am I? Whatever.
I'll just keep feeding you because I know you need to reply.
And yet they saw the numbers DC was doing for retailers in that first year so by October of 2012 Marvel put out Marvel Now - all first issues but kept continuity. Valiant did the same thing. The New 52 quickly slumped story telling wise but for a good half of year it was doing numbers - so much that many publishers were trying to cash in on a similar approach.
Well, yeah, collectors bought it thinking it would be valuable. Everything was a #1 and they were pumping out new first appearances all the time. That's what drove sales.
Financially it was a success but it did more damage in the long run.
I'm still mad this book was cancelled and Irey never got to be Impulse.
me too, anon.
ayyy my homie
I remember the all the fun having damian interact with kara & steph
Whatever happened to Nick Spencer? Why did he leave DC?
Does anyone else remember T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents?
It was comfy
Okay, I need to ask, what books were that?
I didn't read all of them, but I didn't get that feeling aside from the end of the first run of Action Comics.
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
The Flash
Swamp Thing
Animal Man
Dial H
Action Comics
Lemire's Green Arrow
Resurrection Man
that's more good books than existing non-Batman books now
>Aquaman
Starts off really good, but once it hits volume 2 it loses a lot of steam. It's still alright, but it's mediocre at best.
>Swamp Thing
Yeah, that was 7/10 if you ignore how it tries to retcon a book that isn't even cannon anymore and really just fricks with the the new 52 continuity.
>Action Comics
Slow/bad start, but once it finally gets going in volume 2, it's 10/10.
>Lemire's Green Arrow
That was shit.
It was the start of the Bat Family explosion
No you silly billy, Batman having a huge crimefighting family was from the post crisis universe.
Post Crisis had a lot of vigilantes in Gotham, not all of them were Batfamily. Many worked closely with others in the Batfamily or often, but they weren't in the inner circle.
Look at Batman reborn era which was probably the biggest it got, they had a clear designation; they're had an Azrael but not in the Batfamily, Batwoman wasn't really operating with the reborn era family, Tim was on the fringes as Red Robin, Cass was basically gone. They handled it like musical chairs,only a preset amount of spots. As Batwoman came in, Huntress was put on BoP(and BoP shifted from a Gotham bookto a general DCU book.
One of the biggest things was when they were considering getting rid of Damian as Robin so it felt like a bunch of writers were vying to make a new Robin.
>but they weren't in the inner circle.
A meaningless indistinction when we're still dealing with the same numbers.
It's meaningful when the ones who aren't an active part of the family aren't really crossing over or interfering with the main batbooks(and even then what happens in the batfamily books rarely if ever reflects on Batman/Detective)
The point of Inc is that most of them weren't in Gotham.
Anon we're talking about a perioid of time where Grant Morrison fully commenting on how Batman could just franchise his name out. Trust me, the Batman family was bigger then than it is now.
The current main Joker appeared in 526 issues since the start of New 52 according to the DC wiki.
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Joker_(Prime_Earth)
That's more than 40 issues per year and he's just a minor Batman family villian.
>he's just a minor Batman family villian.
Ya slipped up
>[Joker's] just a minor Batman family villian.
it's only sunday I can't handle this amount of moronation
Early 2000's Marvel is probably the model for how to jump start a company. They got new writers, a lot of which came from indie/non-cape books, new artists(or artists reworking their styles) that were a far cry from the 90's fare, continuity remained but only as necessary, RECAP PAGES(why these aren't standard I'll never know). And if you truly wanted a fresh start, you had Ultimate.
DC bogged it down from the jump by having their relaunch based on multiverse stuff, having no coordination, keeping most of the same writers and digging into the 90's Image/Marvel pile of all things. It looked and read like something from the late 90's(Credit to Capullo who did feel like he freshened up, though). The admirable attempt at non-cape books was bogged down by most of them having meat and potatoes cape writers. It felt like 90's Image where you had "military operatives" but they were just written as superheroes.
Funny thing is DC had a few pre-Didio books that managed to feel as fresh and modern as 2000s Marvel. I'm thinking of stuff like Detective Comics with the minimalist, simple color art.
>Liefelded
Truly a fate worse than death
early new52 was really BAD, late new52 was okish
This. It took years, but by time Rebirth happened they finally found their footing.
Rebirth was way more terrible. The worst book of New 52, red good and the outlaws was the best one of rebirth.
Yes, and no.
Rebirth started strong, but slowly fell apart the longer it went on since there was no real plan in the long run.
I really liked the DCYou era and am bummed that it was a massive flop. Gotham Academy, Prez, Omega Men, Grayson, were all fun. And I enjoyed that Doctor Fate series too, even though I'm the only one.
jim lee, didio and lee friends were a mistake.
Damn, the few books I did like got cancelled pretty early on.
I read all of New 52 (with the exception of Harley Quinn... it's unbelievable how bad that series is) within the past two years, as I wanted to catch up on modern DC.
It was bad. And I feel like I can say this somewhat more objectively than most, as I've austically read huge swathes of comics in publication order from every era.
There were diamonds in the rough, but they really stood out by not being as awful as everything else that was coming out at the time.
I will say this though. DC's coloring was phenomenal during this time. I detest digital coloring, but they knocked it out of the park on a few series, even if the house style of art was largely boring.
>And I feel like I can say this somewhat more objectively than most,
I feel like that automatically makes you the least objective judge of quality.
I first got into DC with the New 52 and since then I still haven't found a definite answer to the question of why they dedicate so much collective brain space to try and "fix" the universe.
The very concept of the initiative was that, and they've spent the next decade doing that over and over. It feels like they spend more time trying to build, destroy and rebuild the shared world until they feel like they got it right than they spend actually exploring said world and creating stories in it.
I get the appeal of the shared universe gimmick but if they're going to half-ass it and then try to make the half-assing make sense in-universe and start getting their heads stuck up their own asses about it maybe it's better to drop it altogether?
Because the point is never to "fix" anything, the point is to relaunch a bunch of #1 issues with brand new reinterpreted characters to try and artificially pump sales appealing to collectors because they learned absolutely nothing from the 90s crash.
Even if that were the case why go through all the trouble of setting the universe reset up and all when they could simply end one run and start the next with a new #1?
linewide #1 sells more than random #1s
Fair enough. Still, you can just do something like this Dawn of DC stuff and publish a bunch of #1s at the same time without making excuses about it.
That's what I'm saying, if you're not gonna be careful about your continuity to the point where it actively hinders you from telling stories wouldn't the simpler solution to simply drop it instead of crafting an elaborate plan to "fix" it, then realizing it didn't go exactly as planned and start making patch after patch to the point where it hinders you from telling stories? Are all of these repeated events of "reality itself collapsing so we can bring back X heroes from before the New 52" needed when a simple "look we're just gonna write them as they were before but without the extra baggage" would have sufficed?
>you're not gonna be careful about your continuity to the point where it actively hinders you from telling stories wouldn't the simpler solution to simply drop it
You can't simply "drop" continuity nor would you want to. What you think is gonna "replace" continuity is still effectively going to be continuity.
It's only continuity if you enforce it as such. If the editorial lets the next writer come over and treat the book as a clean slate then you've dropped it.
I don't think you understand how unattainable that is or how unattractive for both writers and readers.
Like I said, I do understand the appeal of the gimmick. But if you're gonna be taking things back to square one every couple of years and spend more time making excuses to keep the illusion of continuity alive instead of actually rolling with the changes you make to the world it loses its luster, don't you think?
Plus most singular cape stories are episodic in nature in the first place. And I don't think it's any less attractive to any party given the amount of elseworlds, one-shots and the like out there.
It's not a gimmick anon, it's just how writing works. If you reference an earlier story you're creating continuity which means it's an inevitability. What you're suggesting is a lot more work for a pesser result.
If you reference an earlier story in an episodic format you're creating a nexus between those two stories. You don't need to commit to that continuity going forward if you don't want to. Hellblazer ran for 300 issues with that workflow and it didn't suffer for it, for example (I did go back to read earlier stuff after I got into the New 52)
You can just write around and undo continuity changes with some quick writing. TV shows change casts and status quo all the time. Marvel similarly made changes in the 2000's. Thinking you need to explain it as external universe changes is how you get so convoluted int he first place.
Because the then-current continuity was at a dead end. The Fourth Word saga was over, the prophecy of the green lanterns fufulled, the entire of Krypton was brouggt back and then destroyed by the american gogernment, Nightwing was Batman, Barry Allen was alive again, and to top it all off, Mary Marvel was raped just one times too many.
Because DC is kinda dumb and they think every relaunch has to be a crisis or addressed in a big way.
>Dan Didio: "The outside world recognized [the] New 52 as a great jumping on point for them, and latched on to our interpretations for [the] New 52 to make it their interpretations in other media. Which was one of the goals — to align all these sensibilities and create one vision that people can really latch on to, and move into other mediums as well."
They probably wanted a clean slate that could be the template for adaptations, compared to what was going on right before Flashpoint. The 2016 Suicide Squad, Aquaman, Shazam, and Justice League movies feel like the result of this.
DC will never be able to recover from the damage New 52 had done
The reboot felt dated even at the time felt like some 90's hero reborn shit and redesigns felt 90's too.
I don't know why DC insists on rebooting and revising their own continuity so often. I feel like a sliding timeline would've been the better approach.
because redoing the same stories slightly differently is the only thing they know
>I don't know why DC insists on rebooting and revising their own continuity so often.
Crisis on Infinite Earths.
The got it right ONCE, and have kept trying to recapture it ever since with each attempt failing worse than the last. Just like how they keep making CoIE sequels that try to ignore or downplay other CoIE sequels.
They "rebooted" three times and all those "reboots" were only partial.
>Earth 2 to Earth 1 switch in the 50's
>Crisis on Infinite Earths
>New 52
That's it.
There's also the soft reboots that are there to make universe wide retcons.
Zero hour
Rebirth
Death Metal
>I feel like a sliding timeline would've been the better approach
Why, because you arbitrary decided that reboots mean failure?
Yes
New 52 had some great stuff. Aquaman, action comics, dial H, S.H.A.D.E, Animal man and swamp thing (its not moores we get it, but it was still decent) somewhat jonah hex and a few others.
But sadly it was recieved poorly and handled worse.
Especially bats and green lantern.