Tweet
Say what??
Say Horrible!!!
Say Horrible!!!
-
>at what point does "The New 52" stop being "New"?
When the NEXT reboot starts?
>Seems like a really sad situation for DC to try and copycat like that 50 plus years later.
Marvel and DC have been feeding off each other since the 60's; so this is nothing new. I still think the biggest problem DC has in this regard is that their characters were never intended to be ambiguous, so it never quite feels right when they try. They're archetypes, not characters; so seeing Superman go all emo seems weird.
>this new Shazam also apparently has the power to cast spells, which is a great way to distinguish him from Superman.
That's weird too. I don't think it's entirely unfounded, but definitely weird. Shazam is one of them trickier characters to deal with, since he WAS a Superman rip that core is always there. And since the books are all written by different people, and those people rotate in and out it's difficult to come up with some sort of character personalization that'd distinguish the two.
>Captain Marvel belongs in his own Universe away from the normal DC universe.
That's an interesting idea too, but you'd have to be careful, else it feel like a whole setting biting the regular DC universe.
>will it benefit them long-term, say five years down the line?
Probably not; but I don't think that was ever the plan. Even way back in the day, the reason you can divide Marvel and DC into eras is 'cos each represented a rebranding of the books, a change in aesthetic to bring it more in line with the times, and an adjustment of style to facilitate sales to the contemporary audience. Hence why social issues played more of a part in the 60's books, when fantasy and horror were popular in the early 70's every superhero had a supernatural twist added, hardline attitudes in the 80's made everyone all dark and gritty....
Don C.Comment
-
I have to say, and I'm probably in the minority here, but I wouldn't mind seeing something shaken up with Shazam (Sorry, he'll always be SHAZAM to me). I've only read like 1-2 comics that featured the character. Justice League International (where he was a joke) and an issue of Starman (I think it was a crossover with Power of SHAZAM) where he was kind-of a tool and beat the crap out of Jack Knight. I'd like to see Billy Batson as a "real" person and maybe Shazam as the shining beacon of heroism. Or something. Just saying. (I think, by the way, Shazam has just about the coolest costume, maybe even better than Superman's)
Mina is the world's first Paranormal Petsitter in the new middle-grade book series by Gary Buettner, MONSTER PETS, coming in FALL 2014 from EMBY KIDS. Spooky adventure that's perfect reading for kids 8-12
https://www.facebook.com/monsterpetsbooks?ref=hlComment
-
This Superman will be fighting this Shazam in 2013...wonder how that will go...
Their past brawls were always good though...today, not so much.
Comment
-
Here's an article comparing the previous year through April of this year and clearly the initial hype (and sales) over the "new 52" has died down considerably.
Here's a fascinating chart showing DC and Marvel comic sales from the 50's through the late 80's. Note DC's continuing decline while Marvel saw it's best years, not surprisingly, in the early 70's.
Comment
-
I think DC would have benefited from a better thought-out plan. Perhaps a “refresh” as Marvel is apparently doing, rather than a reboot. Top shelf creators with a clean starting point for readers. What “One Year Later” should have been, post Infinite Crisis. Give the previous creative teams a chance to wrap things up as best they could, and give the new teams a chance to ramp up a good six months worth of material, and work out all the kinks before the titles hit the shelf. As it stands, DC is making edits to their collected editions of “New 52” material to match the ever-changing and equally convoluted history they are establishing.
I think this would have generated the same amount of buzz, and also not have alienated old readers. In fact, it would have pulled many old readers back in as well. Instead they threw the baby out with the bathwater. The characters weren't broken, and did not need fixing. Just a fresh perspective and a little polishing.
ChrisComment
-
^^ I have to say, that while I agree with you, as I would have liked to see that. From a marketing stand-point, the public would have seen it as "no change". Drastic changes have to happen in order to make an impact. I was born in the late 60s, grew up in the 70s, so my concept of TV, comic, etc. will always be stuck there. It really is just a sign of the changing times for us as we get older. Some of us (70s and 80s kids) will like the New 52 and some will not. I think most of the 90s and 00s kids will find the DCnu character more "familiar" than the icons of our youth.
Here is a comparison: I love the 70s versions of Battlestar Galactica, SMDM, etc. I followed the storyline of the new Galactica, but truthfully, do not actively seek out to watch it. For me, the shaky cam, the angst, the faults of the characters were a real turn off. Someone my younger, brought up in a different world, could say the complete opposite. The 70s version looks too plain with camera shots, the characters are not "real", there is no angst....etc.
To throw out a number (maybe 80%) of our generation are not "adapting" to the new comics, but as for marketing and sales, I am not sure we are a target anymore.It's all good!Comment
-
I don't understand why DC couldn't have kept the old universe and done this new one as well.Comment
-
You'd think they'd keep something going.
When you look at Marvel's Ultimates, you can see a plan to make movie versions. It's especially obvious now. I can't say that for the Nu52, I'm not sure what to think actually. Some of it seems smart and long overdue but other things, like this Shazam reboot look like terrible committee thinking.Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions
Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shopComment
-
I actually have liked the updating of Shazam, so far, other than the awful costume redesign. To me that's the greatest travesty of the reworking of the concept. I'm kind of glad DC is not calling him Captain Marvel. I can almost accept him as a totally different character.
Since the 70s DC's tried to make Captain Marvel work in a number of different ways but really only to limited success. Ordway's graphic novel and Smith's limited series are the high-water marks for me, but I don't think I made it past the 20th issue of The Power of Shazam and doubt I would have continued with a regular series based on Smith's work, particularly if he wasn't involved.
I doubt this version of Shazam will be long running either, but from DC's standpoint, it didn't have much to lose by revamping the series, particularly since Johns wanted to do it. I know some like his work while others can take it or leave it and others outright hate it, but he is DC's go-to guy, and his successes with GL, Hawkman, Flash, Justice Society, Justice League and Aquaman speak for themselves.
While I would have preferred a refreshing like Marvel is doing rather than the hard reboot DC has done — and it is clear it's a hard reboot after a year no matter how how DC editorial characterizes it — , I'm attempting to judge the books on what they are rather than what's been changed and yes lost. I'm attempting to view the New 52 as an alternate universe, like the difference between the golden- and silver-age GL, Flash, Hawkman and so forth. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone else take such a view, but it's really the only way I can continue to enjoy my chosen hobby.Comment
-
>I'm attempting to view the New 52 as an alternate universe, like the difference between the golden- and silver-age GL, Flash, Hawkman and so forth.
That's probably the best thing to do, since it's really EXACTLY like those other reboots. DC has an advantage here, 'cos they've had the concept of alternate worlds as a core of their books for a LONG time.... until the original Crisis; but even there, like the preceeding resets, the changes weren't permanent. I think the only real change since the silver age reset is the amount of hype these things generate. Back in the day all you'd get was a cover blurb "The ALL NEW....!" These days you get a year of previews, edits, excerpts, interviews.... and the inevitable nerd rage.
I guess it's like pulling teeth; the best thing to do is just yank it with no fanfare, and carry on. The hurting stops soon enough and you can get on with life.
>Give the previous creative teams a chance to wrap things up as best they could, and give the new teams a chance to ramp up a good six months worth of material, and work out all the kinks before the titles hit the shelf.
That's another really good idea, but I think it goes against current publishing doctrine for the Big Two-ish. WAY back when, the X-Men (a book NOBODY cared about) became super-popular.... mostly due to Claremont's writing, and the fact that they left him alone. (Mostly 'cos nobody cared about the book.) This let him plan things out much farther than superhero books normally were, and allowed for a more naturalistic unfolding of plots, characters and events. It's unfortunate 'cos there's so much precedent as to the effectiveness of the long term way of doing things; the aforementioned rise of stuff from the 80's like the X-Men, and the surge of popularity for the independents and import comics which generally use the longer term method. (Due in no small part to said books being the work of one or two people.)
....but I think that's symptomatic of what I mentioned in another post: that the yearly reboot is seen as the way to go because of the temporary boost it gives to sales; boosts that last until the NEXT reboot. There's no consideration of longer lasting solutions because there's no percieved need for them. The funnybooks sell just fine this way. (Or fine enough the execs can keep their jobs.)
Don C.Comment
Comment