TF Views

Dominic wrote: Wait, weren't you the guy who was praising the old US/UK comics as being a golden age for TF media?!?!?!?!?

IMHO,Compared to IDW & DW TF comics,Marvel had better written TF comic stories,Especially all the UK TF G-1 Comics simon furman wrote.

IMO,Even the badly written Marvel TF G-1 issues/arcs were leaps & bounds better than all the "so called" great written DW/IDW TF comics issues/arcs.

I never said the TF comics/media was better than non-TF comics/media.

Dominic wrote: It really is not limited to TFs thought. We saw it with "Star Trek" in the 80s and 90s. (Ironically. by the time that "Enterprise" came along, the complaints were valid. But, that was after nearly 20 years of pointless fantrums.) Comic books and sci-fi fandoms are lousy with this sort of thing.

There is something to the idea that many of those fans have issues with change and are not mature enough to accept something new. But, catering to those fans at the expense of bringing in new (and hopefully better) fans is a mistake. If nothing else, we get worse comics for our trouble.

I suspect this is why the TFCC fan club TF comics are so horribly written because their done by fans for fans.

I stopped reading the IDW TF comics 12 months ago after the Chaos saga ended. after simon got taken off the IDW TF G-1 comic,that's when it all went down hill.

I don't buy any other comics,I just buy the transformers comics. Sadly I haven't bought a newer TF comic in over 12 months. I might be buying the 2013 Trade paper backs of Simon furman's TF Regeneration series from Amazon.com.

The only toys,I buy are Transformers. I don't own any other non-TF toys.

IMHO,Compared to IDW & DW TF comics,Marvel had better written TF comic stories,Especially all the UK TF G-1 Comics simon furman wrote.

IMO,Even the badly written Marvel TF G-1 issues/arcs were leaps & bounds better than all the "so called" great written DW/IDW TF comics issues/arcs.

Any run of comics is going to have high and low points. In Marvel G1, we had Optimus Prime allowing himself to be killed over a poor showing in a video game (and having his mind saved on to a 4.5 inch floppy disk), the "Carwash of Doom" and other great stories. But, we also had "Warrior School", "Shooting Star", "Return to Cybertron" and other before even getting to the Furman run.

The same principle applies with DW or IDW or *any* run of comics.

I have even found good comics from the 90s, published by Marvel no less.

I never said the TF comics/media was better than non-TF comics/media.

I am still afraid to ask what qualifies as a good comic/other.....

I suspect this is why the TFCC fan club TF comics are so horribly written because their done by fans for fans.

I suspect that you are partly right on this point. It is also a question of which fans got hired by the club. (Don Figueroa is a damned good artist who got a start as a TF fans. But, he is talented and pushes himself.

The Fun Publications books are very fan-centric. And, they are guided almost entirely by the most inward looking elements of the fandom. The current comics read like the kinds of explanations that I came up with 20 years ago to reconcile G2 with the cartoon. (And, I knew most of that was a bad idea even then.)


Dom
-still suprised by how good that "Regeneration 1" has been so far...

Dominic wrote:Odd to hear that from the guy who was all about "Flash: Rebirth" and "Green Lantern: Rebirth".

How am I all about those stories? I have never read "Flash: Rebirth". And bringing back Hal in "Green Lantern: Rebirth" I thought was a mistake until "Sinestro Corps War", which I read before going back to read "GL: Rebirth". With Hal's return, I've felt like they've justified it by building on things that happened. Barry... not so much, considering they used him to pretty much undo a lot of things in Flash's history.

And, yes, I will blame the fans for complaining. Even putting aside the possiblity of reprints and flash-back stories, fans need to get the fuck over their damned favourites. Changes should be expected in an ongoing story. Kyle Rayner has been around for nearly 20 years. It is time to kill him and move on to another character.

Coming from a guy who has said he doesn't think characters are important, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that comment. But guess what? Not everyone feels the same way about the characters that you do. And they're not going to want to see their favorite characters killed off or altered so dramatically. Yes, change is inevitable, but that doesn't mean they have to like it at first, or at all. You can't fault someone for having feelings.

And, Prowl is arguing that "those changes result in a whole new timeline/canon/whatever.

And as I've pointed out he's wrong, it's not a whole new timeline/canon/whatever. It's the same canon that has been altered, not unlike any of the Crisis storylines.

Guess what? They are fucking gone now.

Not gone, but it is a question on how much of it still counts as canon post-"Flashpoint".

But, comics fans are spoiled, so they want to have it all. They want the original characters *and* the replacements/successors. And, if something happens to change that stasis quo, they pitch fantrums and complain and bitch and whine.....despite the fact that their favourites represented a change for an older fan.

Again, can't fault someone for having feelings.

And, if there is no in-context explanation, it is easier to just assume "editorial directive" and move the hell on.

No. If Barbara Gorden getting shot and paralyzed still counts, then that isn't something you can just go "oh, assume that's an editorial directive everyone, nothing to see here, she magically got better"... That doesn't work. Sometimes you do have to explain how things were changed.

Now something like Carol being made Queen of the Star Sapphires shortly before the reboot, that's not such a major thing that they might be able to sweep under "editorial directive", but the question still remains how does it change in the *context* of the story? Did it simply not happen or did she quit the role somewhere off panel? Personally, I prefer the latter given Carol's really not that interested in being a Star Sapphire except for when Hal is in trouble.

The trouble I go through just to express an opinion about what I'd like to see them explain in a story around here....

Except for the fact that said "behind the scenese" reasoning is the whole reason that the changes are/were made.

Yes... as I explained, what happens behind the scenes might be the diving force for changes but that still doesn't have any relevance to how that change is explained *in-context* of the story itself. Behind the scenes reasoning =/= explanation in the story.

Shockwave wrote:You absolutely can blame anyone for anything. I can blame you for the bubonic plague if I wanted to. I'd be wrong, but that's a completely different debate, the point is, I could still do it. It's a free country and I have the right to be wrong.

...And this is why we go in circles. Sure I suppose you have the right to be wrong... but that'd be irrational to blame someone for something they had nothing to do with or cannot help, such as feeling a certain way about something.

Prowl was saying that complaining fans can go back and read previous stories. I was just citing Anderson as an example. That was the only point I was making and is as far as I'm willing to contribute to the original debate.

And as I've pointed out that was only part of it. The rest is that he was saying fans shouldn't get angry when they make changes, which andersonh1 did get angry about it as well.

Onslaught Six wrote:Dom has the best point in the world on this one.

Here's a great way to look at this from the TF perspective: The current series is always replacing the last one.

Yeah, not so much. The difference being: DC didn't simply replace the the last series with a new one. This is a continuation of the same canon they've always had that was somewhat changed by a universe altering event. In TF terms... That's more like if Megatron had successfully altered the timeline during Beast Wars.

How am I all about those stories? I have never read "Flash: Rebirth". And bringing back Hal in "Green Lantern: Rebirth" I thought was a mistake until "Sinestro Corps War", which I read before going back to read "GL: Rebirth". With Hal's return, I've felt like they've justified it by building on things that happened. Barry... not so much, considering they used him to pretty much undo a lot of things in Flash's history.

I recall you defending the return of both Barry and Hal at the relevant times.

And as I've pointed out he's wrong, it's not a whole new timeline/canon/whatever. It's the same canon that has been altered, not unlike any of the Crisis storylines.

How much did pre-"Flashpoint" carry over? Aside from obvious visual changes, there are changes that lack in-story reasons, even if we assume "time went kookie". Why would Earth 2 have changed so fundamentally? (As much as I am loving that book, I am not going to pretend that any of the changes are based in anything other than "editorial mandate". CoIE wiped out most everthing. Most of issue 11 focused on that.

Not gone, but it is a question on how much of it still counts as canon post-"Flashpoint".

Uh, actually, aside from possibly Grant's run on Batman in the 80s, my examples are gone. Byrne's run on "Man of Steel" was substantially over-written by "Infinite Crisis". And, John's changes were largely over-written by Morrison during the new 52 era. For good or ill, Byrne's run, as defining as it *was*, is out. Ditto for Dixon's run on "Robin", given that Drake was never Robin.


The 5 year timeline requires that much of the pre-existing history gets tossed. We know that there was one "Crisis" following the "big fight" where Darkseid's trooops attacked Earth. (And, the only direct "Crisis" reference that I know of was in a "Hawk and Dove" story. Make of that what you will.)

Barbara Gordon's recover does have an on-page explanation. (It is stupid. But, it is there.) But, for stuff that does not have an on-page explanation, (such as "Earth 2", how to reconcile stuff like Byrne's run on "Man of Steel" or possibly Carol Ferris' history, it is best to just assume "editorial mandate wiped some stuff out".)


Dom
-will post some actual comic reviews tomorrow.

Dominic wrote:I recall you defending the return of both Barry and Hal at the relevant times.

Maybe the idea of Barry's return given he had gone to the "speed force" as a way to come back. And Hal becoming Spectre instead of being totally out of the picture. But as I said, it wasn't until "Sinestro Corps War" that I began to like Hal's return. And Barry... can't say that I've seen any reason they really needed to bring him back.

How much did pre-"Flashpoint" carry over? Aside from obvious visual changes, there are changes that lack in-story reasons, even if we assume "time went kookie".

Impossible to say for sure seeing as how DC has not been clear as to how much has carried over. But we have seen plenty of things have carried over so far or have been referenced to, so regardless, it has been more than well established this is not a new universe/canon.

And just because they haven't given us in-story explanations for somethings yet doesn't mean they wont. Granted, I wouldn't hold my breath for that, given some of the inconsistencies, but we have seen them slowly filling in some gaps over the last year the New 52 began... as well as raising some new questions.

Why would Earth 2 have changed so fundamentally? (As much as I am loving that book, I am not going to pretend that any of the changes are based in anything other than "editorial mandate". CoIE wiped out most everthing. Most of issue 11 focused on that.

Because Earth 2 is a brand new Earth 2 universe. The original was destroyed in CoIE. This Earth 2 is a new canon, unlike the main DC universe.

Uh, actually, aside from possibly Grant's run on Batman in the 80s, my examples are gone. Byrne's run on "Man of Steel" was substantially over-written by "Infinite Crisis". And, John's changes were largely over-written by Morrison during the new 52 era. For good or ill, Byrne's run, as defining as it *was*, is out. Ditto for Dixon's run on "Robin", given that Drake was never Robin.

I meant DC in general, not specifically those particular stories. And it wasn't that Tim Drake was never Robin, they just had him start out calling himself "Red Robin" at the start of his super hero career instead. New 52 Teen Titans even establishes he still wore his post-"Infinite Crisis" Robin costume. So it is possible at least some of Dixon's run still counts here.

The 5 year timeline requires that much of the pre-existing history gets tossed. We know that there was one "Crisis" following the "big fight" where Darkseid's trooops attacked Earth. (And, the only direct "Crisis" reference that I know of was in a "Hawk and Dove" story. Make of that what you will.)

There in lies a problem with the New 52. DC has not been clear on the changes. Some events don't count anymore while some storylines that came out of them still do. It's confusing, I wont deny that. But you can't just make assumptions about what gets tossed or is "mandated" when we obviously don't have a clear picture on any of that.

Barbara Gordon's recover does have an on-page explanation. (It is stupid. But, it is there.) But, for stuff that does not have an on-page explanation, (such as "Earth 2", how to reconcile stuff like Byrne's run on "Man of Steel" or possibly Carol Ferris' history, it is best to just assume "editorial mandate wiped some stuff out".)

Once again, just because they haven't explained something *yet* doesn't mean they wont, so we shouldn't just assume "editorial mandate". We only just found out Carol is no longer Queen in the most recent issue so that is easily something they could get into more depth on later. And, "editorial mandate" doesn't always explain the change in-context. Just because editorial wanted it to happen doesn't tell us how it happened in the story. Earth 2 is easy enough to figure out is a new universe since there really is no other way to explain where it came from. Things like Carol no longer being queen on the other hand could be explained in one of many ways.

Shockwave wrote:

Sparky Prime wrote:But andersonh1 was clearly angry about the changes they made to the Earth 2 characters wasn't he?

I dunno, I never really got the impression that Anderson was actually pissed off about the changes (we never saw him go into some fanrage tirade about it or anything) I get the impression that the changes were so far removed from what he liked that he just decided to give up on the new coke DC. That's the impression I got, but he will have to sound off on that himself.

But the underlying point is that fans can always still go back and read the versions of characters they like, changes don't cause someone's collection to automatically explode when shit gets retconned. The only reason I chimed is was to cite Anderson as an example of someone who did go back and read the versions he liked.

Angry, no. Unhappy, disappointed, found the changes not to my liking, yes. Very much so. I felt pretty strongly about it, and I think that came across in previous posts on this subject. Although it's certainly saving me quite a bit of hobby money every month that I can spend on other things now that I'm not really buying any DC comics regularly. Which is not to say that I won't buy any in the future, just that for the moment I'm not interested in anything they publish. And so it's back issues for me when I get the urge to read about the versions of Superman, GL, the JSA or whichever characters I care about. Because I won't find them in DC's current lineup.

I was generally happy with characters as they were pre-Flashpoint. Meaning I didn't want any major changes, though if improvements had actually been made (a subjective judgment, I'll admit), I could have lived with it. And to reiterate, I tried 14 different titles featuring characters that I enjoyed before Flashpoint. Some books only took 1 issue for me to decide that I didn't like them, some took 3 or 4, a few lasted 6 or 8 months, and a couple lasted a year. But I find that the New DC is largely the same old plots and runarounds with new, in-name only versions of characters I used to enjoy. I have no emotional investment in these new versions of old characters.

Onslaught Six wrote:Yeah...and he stopped reading because of it. The logical solution, I guess.

Exactly. What else can I do? It's either stop reading, or keep buying publications I don't enjoy any more.

Dominic wrote:-been reading comics for over 20 years.....

I've been reading comics off and on for almost 24 years, you young whippersnapper.

Once again, just because they haven't explained something *yet* doesn't mean they wont, so we shouldn't just assume "editorial mandate".

At what point does "yet" become "never?" Two months? Six? A year? Two?

The fact that we even have to have this debate is why I'm with O6 in saying "Comics are stupid". Basically, DC is telling a story and it's like they can't get it straight. For some reason, I've been watching a lot of Investigation Discovery and I'm here to tell you that if a suspect was ever this inconsistent with a story cops would have them locked up immediately. And for good reason. Anyone that can't keep the facts of a story consistent isn't a good story teller. And really therein lies the problem with major ongoing comics.

In fact, I'm starting to think certain titles should just be retired after a while.

Onslaught Six wrote:At what point does "yet" become "never?" Two months? Six? A year? Two?

It's not unheard of for things to go years in comics with out explanation or release. Here it is a year after the New 52 began and they just went back to explain some of the altered history/origins of several character in the Zero issues. Grant Morrison's "Multiversity" as another example, set to explore the new DC multiverse more in-depth, was originally announced in 2009 for a 2010 release. Here it is another two years after that and DC, not that long ago, just announced it (again) for a 2013 release. So there is no never, they could always go back to explain something, unless they have another retcon/reboot that renders it moot anyway.

Shockwave wrote:The fact that we even have to have this debate is why I'm with O6 in saying "Comics are stupid". Basically, DC is telling a story and it's like they can't get it straight.

I'd agree it's terrible that there has been so much contradiction in the stories from DC since the New 52 relaunch, but that doesn't mean "comics are stupid", that means editorial needs to get their act together. It's surprising to me DC has been so ramshackle with this reboot... I remember reading in interviews how with "Infinite Crisis" they wanted to avoid that type of mess and mapped out everything on a wall at the DC office to make sure they kept everyone on the same page with everything in that reboot. Yet with this one, they seem to be changing their minds about some story points after they've already established something about it.

I've wondered for some time why live action superhero movies can make millions, but comics based on the same characters can't. Why does DC's Facebook page have over 700,000 likes, while very few of their books crack 100,000 copies sold in a month? Why are these characters so marketable and all over books, cards, school supplies, etc, and yet the comics book market itself is tiny? Where's the disconnect?