FLASHPOINT - fixing DC continuity forever?

[s l i k]

Blackest Night supposedly fixed "Death" forever in the DC Universe (though I think that thought/concept will mellow out in Brightest Day).

Will FLASHPOINT fix continuity in the DC Universe?

Will "dead" really be dead...and will the timeline really be the "timeline"?

[neal]

It's still comic book stuff, so no.

[s l i k]

it's at least an attempt on Geoff Johns part?

[Bub (BLM)]

Jan 26, 2011 1:51:46 GMT -5 @neal said:

It's still comic book stuff, so no.

Bingo.

The original Crisis was a way to straighten up continuity in the 80's, but look at things now. It's just a result of too many hands in the cookie jar. Comic companies need to run a tighter ship, and not let every hot-shot writer that comes along do whatever they want.

[AFN: Judge Shred]

The story is actually about Barry Allen's brain and powers being transferred to a hunting dog.

[neal]

Jan 26, 2011 1:58:44 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Jan 26, 2011 1:51:46 GMT -5 @neal said:

It's still comic book stuff, so no.

Bingo.

The original Crisis was a way to straighten up continuity in the 80's, but look at things now. It's just a result of too many hands in the cookie jar. Comic companies need to run a tighter ship, and not let every hot-shot writer that comes along do whatever they want.

That could be good AND bad. Limiting the creators leads to bland comics. Letting them do anything they please leads to confusion. DC did the impossible and did both at the same time depending on the title and year.

An easy fix would be to have less crossovers. Let each title stand on their own. When they do have crossovers, let it be in a neutral territory comic like the old Brave and the Bold comic that featured Batman, so the continuity sticklers can choose for themselves if that particular issue is "cannon" or not.

This kind of thing wasn't a big problem back in the pre-Marvel comics days. The only DC characters that regularly crossed over was Batman and Superman (mainly in World's Finest) or in team books. If DC didn't try to keep up with Marvel was doing (crossovers all the time, which they could get away with since they were working on one earth, instead of the many DC was working with) and continued with keeping the titles seperated except for very special occasions, things wouldn't be such a mess.

How many reboots has DC done since Crisis? How many readers did they lose with each reboot?

[Bub (BLM)]

Jan 26, 2011 2:15:06 GMT -5 @neal said:

Jan 26, 2011 1:58:44 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Bingo.

The original Crisis was a way to straighten up continuity in the 80's, but look at things now. It's just a result of too many hands in the cookie jar. Comic companies need to run a tighter ship, and not let every hot-shot writer that comes along do whatever they want.

That could be good AND bad. Limiting the creators leads to bland comics. Letting them do anything they please leads to confusion. DC did the impossible and did both at the same time depending on the title and year.

An easy fix would be to have less crossovers. Let each title stand on their own. When they do have crossovers, let it be in a neutral territory comic like the old Brave and the Bold comic that featured Batman, so the continuity sticklers can choose for themselves if that particular issue is "cannon" or not.

This kind of thing wasn't a big problem back in the pre-Marvel comics days. The only DC characters that regularly crossed over was Batman and Superman (mainly in World's Finest) or in team books. If DC didn't try to keep up with Marvel was doing (crossovers all the time, which they could get away with since they were working on one earth, instead of the many DC was working with) and continued with keeping the titles seperated except for very special occasions, things wouldn't be such a mess.

How many reboots has DC done since Crisis? How many readers did they lose with each reboot?

I totally agree. I also think that they need to stop jumping from one giant event to the next. When I was growing up reading comics, there were often story arcs that only lasted three issues. The book kept progressing and one story typically lead to the next, but you could get a beginning, middle, and end to one specific story in three or four issues.

I feel that in going back to that set-up, it would make it a lot easier to hook new readers. I can't imagine how daunting it would be for a new reader to want to get into Green Lantern or Batman right now.

[mattperiolat]

I'll be impressed if they can fix Flash's shipping schedule forever. SHEESH!

I am interested in the event (heck, any combo of the words 'Geoff Johns' and 'event' have had my attention since Infinite Crisis), but the book has real problems getting out on time so I am excited, but wary.

[hollywood]

Jan 26, 2011 2:21:59 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Jan 26, 2011 2:15:06 GMT -5 @neal said:

That could be good AND bad. Limiting the creators leads to bland comics. Letting them do anything they please leads to confusion. DC did the impossible and did both at the same time depending on the title and year.

An easy fix would be to have less crossovers. Let each title stand on their own. When they do have crossovers, let it be in a neutral territory comic like the old Brave and the Bold comic that featured Batman, so the continuity sticklers can choose for themselves if that particular issue is "cannon" or not.

This kind of thing wasn't a big problem back in the pre-Marvel comics days. The only DC characters that regularly crossed over was Batman and Superman (mainly in World's Finest) or in team books. If DC didn't try to keep up with Marvel was doing (crossovers all the time, which they could get away with since they were working on one earth, instead of the many DC was working with) and continued with keeping the titles seperated except for very special occasions, things wouldn't be such a mess.

How many reboots has DC done since Crisis? How many readers did they lose with each reboot?

I totally agree. I also think that they need to stop jumping from one giant event to the next. When I was growing up reading comics, there were often story arcs that only lasted three issues. The book kept progressing and one story typically lead to the next, but you could get a beginning, middle, and end to one specific story in three or four issues.

I feel that in going back to that set-up, it would make it a lot easier to hook new readers. I can't imagine how daunting it would be for a new reader to want to get into Green Lantern or Batman right now.

Here's the thing...

Reboots are inevitable. Comics have the daunting task of taking a single cast of characters and giving them stories that continue indefinitely. Television shows all end sooner or later. Book series, movie serials...they all have an end point somewhere down the line. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man...they don't. They're supposed to continue with new stories on a monthly basis. After a while, you can only take the character so far. I was among the group complaining about Spidey's One More Day fiasco, but looking back at the point he'd reached...there really wasn't much left to do but kill him off completely.

Also, reboots can be an effective means at bringing in new readers by removing all the old continuity and making it simpler to start following a new series again, as some have suggested.

As for crossovers, it's not so easy a fix as you might think. The problem is they make money, and lots of it. In fact, both big companies' financial models pretty much bank on them. So you only read Green Arrow comics? Great! Did you know he's appearing in Wonder Woman this month? And presto, they just doubled their revenue. An epic crossover that brings in every single character in the universe generates purchases from each series' regular readers, boosting the company's revenue exponentially. Comic readers fuss over the endless crossovers, but they continually fork over the cash for them all the while.

[Michael Coello]

Unless Death in DC can be fixed by killing practically everyone in the Universe, how in the hell did Blackest Night fix death in comics?

[Kevin Hamilton]

Nope and nope.

Within five years, it'll all be thrown out the window.

[Baixo Astral]

Aw, let the creators do what they want.

Five Flashes? Sure, why not - just make new universes to house them all.

Gorilla version of the Seven Soldiers of Victory? Of course. Just palm them off as a mistake Sir Justin made.

Extrano now a member of the JLA? COOL!

[Kevin Hamilton]

They're never gonna improve on the original Crisis anyway. Not anything of that scope and reach anyway.

Plus in a way people are TOO concerned about continuity. As long as a good story is told, it doesn't matter to me that much anymore. With serial fiction that spans decades, with various creators every year, your're inevitably get continuity gaffes and 'refreshing reboots' since nothing significant is ever going to change for long with the core characters. The trick is, in a way, to sorta have your own continuity to the characters. Don't like a certain story, don't have to read it of consider it cannon personally.

Once I was ok with the that, it's helped my enjoyment a whole lot more.

[hollywood]

I agree with Jackrabbit. I just try to enjoy the small number of series I follow, without getting too caught up in continuity issues.

And I usually just pick up the "big events" in TPB format later. Since I don't buy many comics anyway, it's not that great of an expense for me.

[FinalGwen]

Death needs to be fixed in the DC Universe? I thought Neil Gaiman did a good job of that a few decades ago.

[jamofpearls]

I thought this was more of a "what if" story line. Not actual canon.

[Magnus the Magnificent]

Is it continuity fix #68492348?
I can't wait to read Crises Crises on Infinite Final Zero Earths!

[BRAINFADE]

Jan 26, 2011 11:37:29 GMT -5 hollywood said:

And I usually just pick up the "big events" in TPB format later. Since I don't buy many comics anyway, it's not that great of an expense for me.

Same here. It saves a ton of money.

[Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!!]

hmm... I don't really mind continuity tweaks, as long as they don't tweak things too much, or try starting from scratch and invalidate a character's entire history. if it fixes/explains incongruencies then I don't mind. if it's used to undo a widely hated story (e.g. killing off 5 year old Lian Harper, any time Marvel tried rebooting Spider-man) then it's fine, too. they just have to be careful that the "fix" isn't worse than what it was fixing in the worst place (see Chuck Austen and Chris Claremont's mishandling of the Xorneto situation, James Robinson[s bungled attempt at making Prometheus threatening again).

[eJm]

Jan 26, 2011 13:09:41 GMT -5 jamofpearls said:

I thought this was more of a "what if" story line. Not actual canon.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what it is considering how it looked like it would lead from the last issue of Flash.