TF Views

andersonh1 wrote:Without the Henshaw/Cyborg Superman, none of Reign of the Supermen or Emerald Twilight could have happened in the same way. Nor could Sinestro Corps War, or some of Johns' early GL issues. Really, this idiotic "it may have counted/it happened but not quite the same way" handwaving is yet another of the New 52's major problems.

Yet, there are references in both Superman and Green Lantern to indicate those stories still happened without any such significant changes to them. Even though I don't see the problems you do with the New 52, I'd have to agree that's been one of DC's biggest faults post-Flashpoint. They want to make some major changes to the history in some areas, yet maintain it in others. And it simply doesn't make sense to have it both ways when some key characters are missing or so altered.

As it is, everything's a mess. How do four Robins fit in five years, anyway? Or five Green Lanterns in five years, for that matter. Did Guy and John get their rings from the Guardians' Cracker Jack boxes?

I think the Green Lanterns are understandable. Guy we've seen was selected as Hal's sector partner in the New 52. John I'm assuming was still selected as a backup after one (or both) of them had been injured. Kyle we've seen was still selected after Hal's rampage as Parallax nearly destroyed the Corps. And Simon of course was the result of a malfunctioning ring that was allowed to remain a GL.

"The Star Wars" issue 1 - this is the comic book adaptation of the first draft of Star Wars, (the shooting script was the 4th generation I think). This is unfortunately dull as dishwater, it's poorly paced and far too political, it reeks of the prequels and spends too much time with wink-wink stuff like names and armor pieces and the Stardestroyer small fighters - "hey, it's DARTH VADER but only in name and a few armor elements so why do we care enough for you to put his goddamned name in bold???" sorts of things. This proves why that was a FIRST DRAFT and why Lucas threw it all out in later drafts, it's not terribly compelling. Now I have to decide if I'm really going to continue with the later issues.


Watched Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, both parts. Part 1 is drawn and voiced unevenly, but holds up and gets a lot done. Part 2 really drives it home for a satisfying experience. While the art is not remotely Frank Miller, it captures enough of the essence to work on that level while also feeling like an extension of BTAS (even Peter Weller sounds enough like an older, grittier Kevin Conroy to make that work). Recommended!

Sparky Prime wrote: Even though I don't see the problems you do with the New 52, I'd have to agree that's been one of DC's biggest faults post-Flashpoint. They want to make some major changes to the history in some areas, yet maintain it in others. And it simply doesn't make sense to have it both ways when some key characters are missing or so altered.

To me, the whole history of DC is such an interwoven tapestry of character interaction that it's hard to see how any character or story is even remotely the same when you start pulling threads. The New 52 works as long as the history is kept vague, but a little digging raises a lot of questions. I'm not sure how sustainable the whole thing is. It's like the Hawkman continuity snarl applied to 95% of the DC universe.

JediTricks wrote:Watched Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, both parts. Part 1 is drawn and voiced unevenly, but holds up and gets a lot done. Part 2 really drives it home for a satisfying experience. While the art is not remotely Frank Miller, it captures enough of the essence to work on that level while also feeling like an extension of BTAS (even Peter Weller sounds enough like an older, grittier Kevin Conroy to make that work). Recommended!

I'm not a fan of TDKR, so I keep debating whether or not I want to watch this. I'm still undecided, particularly since it's spread over two DVDs and would cost me twice as much as the average DC animated feature.

I think that's hard to say... Lately DC has been using events to set up for the next event. Like how the Trinity War ended by introducing this Forever Evil event. While Marvel has been more about making a change and then undoing by the end of the same event.

Marvel's cycle is typically that the changes last 2 or 3 events. (I started right after "Secret Invasion" and did not see things really "go back" until around "Fear Itself".) But, you are largely right in principle.

It might be too early to know what DC's pattern (post "Flashpoint") is going to be.

I really doubt that Grayson being unmasked is going to stick though.

andersonh1 wrote:To me, the whole history of DC is such an interwoven tapestry of character interaction that it's hard to see how any character or story is even remotely the same when you start pulling threads. The New 52 works as long as the history is kept vague, but a little digging raises a lot of questions. I'm not sure how sustainable the whole thing is. It's like the Hawkman continuity snarl applied to 95% of the DC universe.

I can agree with that to an extent, but I do think it's possible for stories to remain relatively unchanged. I don't think Allen Scott and Jade missing would really make a big impact on a story like Rebirth, for example. Where as how would they explain how Hal became Parallax in the first place if Hank Henshaw didn't become Cyborg Superman and thus wasn't the one to destroy Coast City?

Dominic wrote:Marvel's cycle is typically that the changes last 2 or 3 events. (I started right after "Secret Invasion" and did not see things really "go back" until around "Fear Itself".) But, you are largely right in principle.

I was thinking more in terms of Age of Ultron, where they tried to use time travel to fix things, only for that not to work and be undone by the end of the story. And then broke the multiverse.

I really doubt that Grayson being unmasked is going to stick though.

You said the same thing about the Emotional Spectrum and it has stuck. But yeah, unmaskings and deaths hardly ever stick.

Dominic wrote:As much as I hate the Syndicate characters, I fully expected them to appear in the New 52 at some point. Despite being some of the most worthless and cliched characters in fiction (not just comics, all of fiction), DC just cannot seem to get enough of them. At least two iterations of them have died. But, they still keep coming back.

DC Direct just unveiled super-special action figures they're producing of the New 52 Crime Syndicate. They're gonna be making a big deal with these guys, and they'll likely stick around.

This thread has gotten pretty lengthy, so time to start a new one: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1594