Missed opportunity with New 52?

[enyawd72]

DC has had no problem making drastic and often disastrous changes to their characters, but I was thinking about one thing they actually could have changed that might have benefited the entire DC universe.

Namely, ditching the fictional geography.

No more Metropolis, Gotham, Central City, etc. It's always been a point in Marvel's favor that their heroes exist in the "real" world.
DC's world has always caused confusion and raised lots of questions. For example, how can the Statue of Liberty be in Metropolis and Gotham City at the same time?
In Smallville, Metropolis is only a few hours drive away from Kansas, but yet it's clearly a coastal city. It's always driven me nuts. I literally have no idea where these places are supposed to actually be.

Thoughts?

[The Toyroom]

I think the geography is the least of their worries as far as the New 52. The longer this goes on, the more apparent it becomes that it's not the "hit" they made it out to be...

[MIB41]

You make a strong argument for that. Good points. They could keep those cities if they gave them their own distinctive look and actually gave them a location that shows where one correlates with the other in that fictional world. I know in the movies, Gotham is mostly given it's own flavor, devoid of any strong references to New York, except for Batman Forever, where the helicopter carrying Two Face actually nails the Statue of Freedom (if we use the comic reference). Of course you also have the bridges, but those can be explained away a little better. But this actually leads up to the next question. How will that be handled in the Justice League movie? Since MOS is suppose to be a little more grounded, who's to say those questions aren't addressed? I mean if it's true that Supes is suppose to meet Batman at the end of the picture, how would that happen unless they share the same city? I think you've tapped into something here. Good questions!

[Earth 2 Chris]

I disagree. Gotham and Metropolis are part of the appeal to me. To me it makes it more believable that it's happening somewhere similar to the world we live in, but not quite. An alien invasion in Metropolis is easier to swallow than one in New York, for instance.

Metropolis being close to Smallville is mostly due to sloppy writing for convenience on the Smallville series.

Chris

[madmarva]

I'm with Chris. The fictional geography is part of the character and charm of the DC Universe. The settings of Gotham and Metropolis reinforce the characters of Batman and Superman. Metropolis is thematically New York at its best, while Gotham is New York at its worst. Those settings help define the characters and are archetypes in and of themselves.

The DC Universe is not the real world and that's part of it's charm. The fictional cities are part of the reason why I have preferred DC to Marvel since I was a kid.

Certainly, the predominant setting of New York for Marvel comics worked to its favor, but the two universes are different and the companies should use those differences as strengths. Just because it worked for Marvel doesn't mean it would improve DC.

I think DC has run into trouble when it has attempted to emulate Marvel. The New 52 is basically an Ultimates version of DC on a larger scale with lesser talents behind a majority of the books.

The original crisis was basically an attempt in many ways to Marvelize the DCU in the 1980s and while many good things came out of it, it also created issues DC is still dealing with.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

It's not a bad idea, but I'm against anything that makes any of the nerdly arts less unique. I'd prefer to see DC keep their own cities, and instead make them more unique from each other.

>The DC Universe is not the real world and that's part of it's charm.

Plus, the DC characters are more iconic and less characters, so dragging them into the real world feels wrong. I think that's something a lot of the writers have a hard time dealing with.

Don C.

[hedrap]

From a company standpoint, they won't do it because of the trademarks and how they effect the characters.

From a creative position, I wasn't aware that they hadn't cleared up the geography issues. It might actually be tied into the trademarks. New York City has tried to claim "Gotham" as a trademark in the past, and look at all the towns that claim to be the "real Metropolis". So it can't be a decision born out of ignorance. Someone higher up must have made the decision based on a few factors and it's now part of the DC bible.

Problem with DC in general, beyond New 52, is they're risk-adverse. They claimed 52 was a realignment, but it's become a rehash of what Zero Hour was supposed to fix. As I've written before, I totally believe this was dictated by WB's execs to make the comics story boards for the film/TV division because the comic division is a loss-leader for WB and has been for decades.

So, instead of doing DC Ultimates, they scaled back titles and now play a game based on sales and intellectual property. Think about how nuts it is to introduced Earth 2 after claiming 52 is a rebirth, and then allow Morrison to do his multi-Earth symphony, when what they claim drove them to do New 52, was how convoluted things had gotten last decade with all of the Crisis "events", leading to the biggest fanboy creation ever, Superboy Prime.

But if they don't re-introduce the multi-verse, they will lose all the associated copyrights and Trademarks. So they have to bring it back,

Which, is what I think they want to do with CW and the film division. Back in the day, I always felt the only way to translate Smallville to film was through the multi-verse because of all the legal issues surrounding Superboy/Superman. Maybe Abrams Trek made the multi-verse concept palatable for film/TV execs now.

[enyawd72]

I'm with Chris. The fictional geography is part of the character and charm of the DC Universe. The settings of Gotham and Metropolis reinforce the characters of Batman and Superman. Metropolis is thematically New York at its best, while Gotham is New York at its worst. Those settings help define the characters and are archetypes in and of themselves.

I considered that point, and I agree with you to an extent but at the same time, I feel that's always been part of what holds DC back. Their characters are more archetypes than actual characters, and that makes them less relatable to both readers and moviegoers.
To give an example...I feel like I know Peter Parker. He's like a real person to me. Yet, as much as I like Batman and Superman, I've never felt that way about either of them. I feel detached from them both, and the fact they live in places that don't exist doesn't help.

[boynightwing]

I love the fictional cities. In the current Nightwing series, he's moved to Chicago. I don't know how I feel about that. Actually I do. I don't like it. I would have preferred Bludhaven. Real cities work in Marvel because that's what they started with. If there was no Gotham, I would be less inclined to read Batman. Gotham City is very real to me at this point.

I've been writing and drawing my own comics for awhile now and I went so far as to create my own city. It was fun to sit down and figure out the geography and where all the important places are etc.

[Earth 2 Chris]

A great example of a fictional city really working within a series is Robinson's Starman. Opal City felt like a living, breathing entity. If he'd set it in say, St. Louis, it just wouldn't have been the same.

To me, having everyone in New York or real cities makes it LESS personal. I don't live in New York, but Gotham COULD be my city. I like it when they keep the locations of the city more nebulous. Saying Smallville is in Kansas is fine, since that mid-western upbringing is so important to Superman's core values. But when they say Gotham is in New Jersey, etc, it kind of limits it the way I feel Marvel is.

Chris

[enyawd72]

^I suspect there are a lot of fans like you and boynightwing out there, and that's probably why DC has never changed it.

I thought Detroit would make a good city for Batman. It's about as crime ridden as you can get, and the architecture sure fits.
Part modern, part industrial graveyard.

[thunderbolt]

I agree with the keep the cities view point, it makes it all more unique and not so beholden to what goes on in the real cites like New York or whatever.

[BlackKnight]

Green Arrow Hangs out in Seattle from Time to time ...

[kingdom warrior]

I disagree. Gotham and Metropolis are part of the appeal to me. To me it makes it more believable that it's happening somewhere similar to the world we live in, but not quite. An alien invasion in Metropolis is easier to swallow than one in New York, for instance.

Metropolis being close to Smallville is mostly due to sloppy writing for convenience on the Smallville series.

Chris

Yup.....Plus you then Have the Problem when something Happens, the First thing you say is, so where is so? and why is this team not responding.....

I like those cities makes it a magical place where Superheroes live....I live in the real New York, they Ain't no Spiderman webbing about......

[madmarva]

To give an example...I feel like I know Peter Parker. He's like a real person to me. Yet, as much as I like Batman and Superman, I've never felt that way about either of them. I feel detached from them both, and the fact they live in places that don't exist doesn't help.

Enyawd72, I respect that the above is the way you feel, but others may feel that Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson or Hal Jordan are more enjoyable or relatable to them than Peter Parker or Bruce Banner or Tony Stark. Your points are subjective.

While you like Spider-Man because the character has more trappings of reality, I like Spidey because he can climb up walls, pick up a car, develop web shooters and webs overnight in his room. What I find tedious about Spider-Man, particularly Stan Lee and Gerry Conway scripted stories - which I freely admit are classics and were somewhat revolutionary in terms of comic book storytelling -is the hangdog, why me, never-catch-a-break vibe. Now, that's just me. If you take take that melodrama away, I totally admit it wouldn't be Spider-man or at least not the same. Similarly if you take Gotham or Metropolis away Batman or Superman, you take something vital from the characters.

Do you take Bilbo out of Middle Earth or Alice out of Wonderland or Aslan out of Narnia? I don't think so. Nor do you rewrite The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to name the Mississippi River, Freedom River.

But I've read other people argue the same topic In fanzines and books before and while I see the point, I think such a change would hurt the characters and the brands more than it would help.

But everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking something, and their own ideas on how to improve things. And those differences keeps things interesting.