The DC Reboot Shit Show
So its been known for a while that in September, DC is rebooting all of its series. So if you think that its too late to get into Batman because you'd have no clue whats going on, you have a chance to get the new Batman #1, a new clean slate, and you know everything you need to know. Right?
I'm not opposed to it, I mean if we didn't reboot after the golden, silver and bronze ages we'd miss out on a lot of good comics and re imaginings. A lot of things have been improved upon. But as more and more information comes out, some things seem like bizarre changes. Like, no Lois and Clark. None! They aren't married now! And the costumes... http://www.comicbookbin.com/artman2/.../action1_4.jpg http://www.harley-quinn.com/news/hqrelaunch.jpg Yeah, thats Harley Quinn. Wonder Woman's pants/no pants status keeps changing, but it seems to be that she'll be going back and forth, and hopefully Superman is also going back and forth between I'm-so-working-class-my-jeans-have-patches costume and the more classic suit: http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm...zyxso1_500.jpg But it also seems a lot of superheroes are getting the boot, particularly female characters. And The Killing Joke remains canon, but Barbara Gordon is going to get "better" (because paralysis is just like a cold! You get over it eventually), cease to be Oracle and become Batgirl again. Oh, and she's much younger too. Because over 25 is the new 50 apparently. Also looks like the first few issues of Catwoman at least is just going to be her having sex with Batman and being "dirty". And apparently, they axed most of their women writers. DC's writers prior to this reboot would have been 12% female, but its being reduced to only 1.9% of their writers being women. Quote:
And with Didio apparently being a total dick at Comic Con when asked about this and acted like the reason they have so few female writers is because there aren't any, and asked women to send their stuff in (which DC does not allow, does he not know this?) I'm conflicted whether to keep reading DC. On one hand, I'm pretty excited about Batwoman and Voodoo, who are gay and bisexual respectively and that's pretty cool. But the attitude seems to be is that yes, they'll inject some diversity if they don't think it'll interfere with them trying to turn on their target audience of heterosexual men ages 18-34. And they seem to have weird ideas about what youth today like. |
This bodes ill.....
If they want to do something groundbreaking and exciting why not make Superman and Batman gay and bisexual, respectively? |
At Comic Con they said they didn't want to change the personalities of any superheroes drastically, they're rebooting and changing the costumes but not really who they are.
Although I think if they made Wonder Woman gay it wouldn't be a huge stretch. She hasn't gotten very serious with any man before, I think her fling with Nemesis was the closest we got (I hope they bring him back, though, I enjoyed that pairing). She's been pretty virginal. Batwoman is pretty neat though, originally she was created in the fifties when there was a lot of criticism towards Batman and Robin's relationship as being homosexual, so Batwoman was created to be Batman's "I'M NOT GAY" girlfriend (been there! I relate to her already). So by reintroducing her in this continuity as a lesbian is pretty redeeming (they're technically not changing her personality though because its an entirely different woman, Kate Kane). I'm drooling over the artwork as well, I really want her comic to be good and successful. There are other gay superheroes, but none as prominent and I think she's the only one to have her own comic series, Voodoo will be the second queer superhero with her own comic (Batwoman #0 came out last year, its pretty short and just kinda sums up the character so if you skip it you're not missing much). I gotta admit I am more nervous about Voodoo, biphobia is rampant even among LGBTQ people, I'm kinda worried her bisexuality will be used to pander to a male audience and just have her sleep with everything that comes her way until she gets a good dicking, you know? I tend to be paranoid about that kind of thing though. |
Actually, some wikipedia-ing lead me to realize that Starman was probably DC's first openly gay superhero with his own series. He doesn't seem to be part of the reboot though.
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, Midnighter is gay and he had his own series way before Kate, probablly some other characters too. And talking about Midnighter and Apollo Quote:
Anyways, don't do that. Changing a characters sexual orientation looks terrrible and awful when done to gay characters, it's just as bad when done to straights. |
Quote:
I'm going to blame the blogosphere for saying she was the first. Maybe she's the first lesbian? |
Quinn looks stupid. I bet she's also wearing heels. You know, cause nothing says function like HEELS when you're planting bombs and running from the cops.
|
There are oh so many problems with this. The twitterverse has been blowing up over it. Like the fact that if Superman was the first superhero, that means there never was any JSA. Powergirl doesn't appear to exist. And other meaningful characters are MIA.
But more importantly, some whole sections of history are FUBARed. For instance, in the Newsarama article titled Canon Fodder: 10 Possible Story Casualties of the DCnU they indicate that the planned changes could un-write the entire Grant Morrison run on JLA. And this section of that article is particularly troubling: IDENTITY CRISISI love Identity Crisis. The trade paperback is one of my favorite comics of all time. This really messes with the continuity of that story. And there are more timeline troubles because of this reboot. Also, there was a move by DC to change Wonder Woman's issue numbering a while back. Fans started a petition to get the numbering restored, and so a little over a year ago DiDio agreed to restore the numbering to issue 600 (the number it should have reached at that point) and even made some statements about "having heard the fans." So apparently, even DC's direct response to the fans will be undone when they renumber her to #1. And, this blogger thinks There Are Actually LESS Female Characters In The DC Relaunch Than There Are Now. (I threw that one in for you, Saya.) I don't like it. It's a naked marketing ploy, and unnecessary. If any of the logic behind this applied, then I would never have picked up a copy of Action Comics in the first place. |
Actually, do you have anymore info on how this is going to kerfuffle up Batman's history? Apparently, he still has a son? So how is it that Superman is young and starting out but Batman is still old enough to have Robin as his son?
Far as I heard Dick isn't going to return as Robin, which is messed, why does Oracle have to go back to Batgirl? PS http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/ is my new favourite blog, and has an awesome interview with the Batgirl lady who was asking questions about women characters and creators. She got booed and Didio was a total dick to her, but Gail Simone and Paul Cornell went out of their way to talk to her afterwards, which is pretty nice. |
I don't follow the comics you guys are talking about. Hell, I don't follow DC or Marvel for that matter.
So what I want to know is: Why would there be a need to reboot? |
Quote:
That is a question I often ask myself of so called `re-boots`, personally I feel that reboots are nothing more than a poorly disguised marketing gimmick to fool us into thinking that its a new and exiting (read marketable) to todays audiences. Is there such a lack of imagination in todays entertainment industries that they cannot create something new, or adapt something that has cult status that has yet to be adapted for TV or Cinema ? The same goes for all the various re-makes the film industry regurgitates at us now and again !!!. |
A reboot can be a good thing (example - the recent Star Trek movie, which opened up an entire new universe of storytelling ideas) or a bad thing.
My sense is that since this is basically just a naked marketing ploy, it's bound to be a bad thing. Saya, I don't know more about how the Batverse will be affected. I was reading some online, but there's so much speculation that it's hard to separate fact from fiction. Here's another of my complaints. This YouTube clip from May of 2008 features an interview with DCU publisher Dan DiDio, from the New York Comic Con, talking about Power Girl: Dan DiDio talks Powergirl "You know, Power Girl is the one character that people have asked the most about, for why we haven't done an ongoing series with her." - Dan DiDio, 2008 Three years later (after an interesting ride for the character and an unusual story arc which is going to come to an unnatural end due to running out of time), not so much now. Straight up, DiDio pisses me off, and I don't trust him with the DCU any more. |
Also, Saya, I think you'll get a kick out of this:
DC Comics Listens To Batgirl, Makes Changes From the San Diego Comic Con - "Thanks to one woman (known as Kyrax2 on Twitter) dressed as the Stephanie Brown Batgirl who went to all of the panels to ask question, then follow up question, then follow up question, creating a narrative across the show, asking about the lack of female creators in the new DCU and the lack of prominent independent female characters, something snapped. By the the last panel, Dan DiDio seemed visibly frustrated – this was not the way the narrative was meant to go." I admire her tenacity. |
Oh, they aren't off the hook, but I can't say I'm not heartened by that. And yeah, I really admire her. I'd be so intimidated if I asked a question like that and got such a bad reaction from Didio AND fans, I probably wouldn't have the courage to get up two more times!
If they really wanted to, they could totally turn this around and realize what a potential market they have with women readers. And, yeah, the whole reboot thing is mostly about sales from what I can tell, DC's sales have been in the shitter, generally. Superman was hard hit, I think, which is probably why he got a total reboot and Batverse, which sells really well (Batgirl: The Flood sold spectacularly) isn't getting a entire reboot, just getting changed without undoing a whole lot. |
But they're invoking the same formulas. Look at Quinn there. She's just MORE titillating. This obviously in my mind, doesn't make much sense. There are PLENTY of artists out there just as good as the comic artists who can actually DELIVER a nude or full blown pornographic depiction of any of our comic characters. So I don't see how sexualizing the female characters like that would actually increase sales.
Am I wrong to assume that the reader base has changed? Would it not make sense that because of our generation and because of what we were taught as kids, it's time for Marvel and DC to reflect the values WE grew up with? Are we not generally more feminist? I seriously can't see how rebooting a franchise and then doing more of the same is something that would work to boost sales. |
Haha, well I guess it creates controversy but I don't think they were expecting it.
And you're right, a lot of it is going to be rehashing unless they make serious changes to the plot and continuity. Breaking up Lois and Clark (well, not breaking them up, just going back to before they got together), who are the fooling? We know they're going to end up together. At most, they'll just want Superman to sleep around for a bit before he "settles down". Which is sad. And its why I'm mostly looking forward to the new heroes and comics, although I'll probably keep reading Wonder Woman, not going to lie. Depends on what they're doing with her, haven't heard if she's completely rebooted or not either. I don't know why they're so afraid of characters getting old. Well, Wonder Woman and Superman and Barda don't age (or does Superman age very slowly?) so its not really an issue. Let your younger superheroes grow up and have new young ones come in to appeal to the younger crowd! Yeah Bruce Wayne no longer being Batman would be sad, but it worked for Batman Beyond. ETA: slightly off topic, have you seen the preview of Talia in Arkham City? She's looking awfully...whitewashed. |
I haven't seen it. I actually enjoyed Arkham Asylum. City should be cool. The graphics kinda screw with me though.
|
Oh... wait... That doesn't make sense. Why is she blonde? Didn't she have like... brown or reddish brown hair?
|
Quote:
Ben, The Star Trek film was good, and made a very good prequel, and it had Leonard Nimoy !!!. :) |
Quote:
I will be the first to admit, that while the Star Trek film was a good re-boot and exceptionally well made, it is an incredible rarity. Most (and I do mean most) re-boots go sadly awry. * As a side-note: There was recently a plan to do a new Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie, with an entirely different cast and no involvement from Joss Whedon, because other people own the rights to the property. But the fan backlash was so great that the concept was abandoned pretty quickly. * The DCnU re-boot is not about creativity (although recent story lines like Superman walking across America make one wonder if the well hasn't gone a little dry for the folks at Detective Comics.) It's about marketing. Dan DiDio and his cohorts believe 1) that people are intimidated by comics numbering in the 500's and 600's, as if they won't buy the comic because they are thinking "I'll never be able to figure out what all has happened before if I pick up this comic now" - which is absurd because then no one would have picked up a copy of Action Comics in the last couple of decades if that were the case, and 2) that renumbering every comic with the number 1 will be more inviting to new readers, as if to say "Hey, I can get in at the start of the story!" - which is an absurd thing to proclaim at the same time you're making all these promises about how much of the backstory you're going to save for these characters and what history has already passed at the point where the number 1 issues are introduced. But I don't actually have a problem with the numbering. Heck, there's speculation that the comics could go to an annualized format where they have issues 1-12 (volume 2011), and start over with a new number 1 each year. It seems unnecessary and a bit of psychological trickery, but I really don't care that much. And DC has re-invented its universe many times in the past. I've never had a problem when they've done these massive brand-spanning events that corrected and consolidated the DCU history, WHEN THEY MADE SENSE ("Zero Hour" was pretty lame.) But this is just a random-reshuffling of the history, arbitrarily deciding what events did and didn't happen, and most annoyingly ... it seems it will obliterate some really great stories and characters that people love. It makes no sense. |
...Shit show. Hahahahaha.
|
Pointing out how much I hate Harley's new design. She has always been one of my favorite comic book characters, and I hate to see her in a terrible new costume.
There's not enough double sided tape in the world to make that shirt stay up right, and I doubt it would allow much flexibility. By the looks of her costume, sexualization aside, I think they're trying to further her from The Joker (although maybe not, since they just got back together in Sirens). She does have to have some kind of clown element to her costume though or there's no point to her name. The cape has that ruffle thing, but the costume doesn't come off as harlequin like to me. /rant over. |
She looks like what I would imagine a hooker at an ICP concert would look like.
|
Oooooh it gets worse. Now, this is a Flashpoint comic so its not canon, but LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO ZATANNA:
http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/files/2...sajdkhfas9.jpg |
Well I thought I had seen the lowest low riders that anybody could think of but I guess I was wrong. At least she has on some panties, otherwise she just wouldn't be the classy lady she clearly is.
|
...
Fuck DC. |
She's usually pretty good, depends on who's drawing her of course. Normally when she's overly sexualized they just inflate her boobs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nna-hughes.png http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0...anna_super.jpg Now you see them, now you don't! Magic. |
Would it kill them to give these ladies some actual functionality in their costumes when fighting crime?
|
Well, as a guy who doesn't mind some fan-service in his comics, I have to say that all the feminist concerns about whether the costume looks functional should recognize that none of this is real. When the scarlet speedster runs around the speed of sound, his clothing doesn't burst into flames because of some technology. When Wonder Woman throws a rope around someone and it compels them to tell the truth or when she stops bullets with her bracelets, it's because of magic.
Most of the superheroes have uniforms that defy standard functionality, but that's okay. They're mythical beings wearing mythical, iconic outfits (not that I like the latest designs coming out of the house that Detective Comics built) and they don't have to make logical sense. ------------------------------------------- In further news related to the thread topic: Con-Fused? 10 Lingering Questions About the DCnU from Newsarama.com Story includes - 10) Will "Story X" be canon?6) Whatever Happened to Wally West?4) Will Dead Characters Stay Dead?3) How Much Does a Reader Have to Participate in Making the New Timeline Work? Quote:
How Long Did Batman's Career Predate Superman? Quote:
Does the Justice Society of America Exist Anymore? Quote:
|
You know, you're right, Ben. Let's go whole hog with it. Make all the females totally nude. None of it's real, so it's okay.
|
The issue isn't just functionality, I don't mind Zatanna's regular costume anyway because she uses magic, she doesn't need to be able to kick or run like Batwoman needs to.
The issue is sexual objectification. In a universe where all women dress like what little clothes they have would tear away easily, and most men are covered except for face and hands, what does that tell you? Women don't get the same kind of cheesecake. DC Women Kicking Ass did a bit on Nicola Scott, and this is what they consider cheesecake: http://girlsgonegeek.files.wordpress...eg?w=392&h=960 I don't think a lot of heterosexual men would pick up on the fact that this is pandering to female fans, but when Zatanna is fighting in her underwear and Harley's top looks like its going to fall off any minute, its pretty obvious they're appealing to men's dicks. You can be sexy and subtle at the same time, like Nightwing or Batwoman. |
Quote:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lb...5lrqo1_400.png And the different variations: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images...ds/taliaal.jpg http://comicsmedia.ign.com/comics/im...25979_640w.jpg But I've never seen her as a blonde. |
Quote:
2) If you want your male heroes to be of a more subtly sexy nature, encourage that. But don't say "this is how we like our male heroes portrayed, so the female heroes should be portrayed the same way." 3) Fan service has been selling comics for decades, and I have yet to see anyone prove any harm in it other than general complaints about objectification. Years of young men finding female heroines blatantly sexy and even seeing them portrayed in a way that openly "panders to men's dicks" has never been a problem. The way many men treat real women HAS been a problem, and such has been the case since long before comics or centerfolds existed. In fact, maybe it all started with those cave drawings. 4) You say "sexual objectification" as if it's a bad thing. ;) Until we develop telepathy, all sexual relations are an objectification of some sort. Do you want a sexless race? By the way, I'm not completely disagreeing with you on some costumes being ridiculous. I don't care for the Harley Quinn or Zatanna looks presented previously in this thread, but because of the lousy aesthetic, not because of some faux concern about functionality or cheesecake. And remember, we all made fun of the bat nipples in Batman & Robin. |
I'm saying you can be sexy without being overly sexually objectified or mostly nude. Catwoman has been like this, although in the reboot she'll be showing a lot of skin all the time and popping out of her suit.
No, it doesn't really hurt anyone, but its hard to read a comic as a woman when all women are displayed in one way. I don't normally mind Catwoman's tight suit or Zatanna's legs, but when it gets to the point where their boobs are physically impossible or they look like they're about to star in a hentai, its ridiculous. And when its all of the characters getting this treatment, what does that say about women? What about Vicky Vale's ass taking up the whole box when she's talking? Why do they act like men would not like a female character unless she's half naked? Its insulting. |
Saya wins.
/feminism |
Also, just in case you missed it, there were gender bending cosplayers at comic con who pretty much pointed out the difference between male and female costumes in DC:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecounc...mb-550x366.jpg http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecounc...mb-550x406.jpg The only lady who was scantily clad was Martian Manhunter, who as a man is dressed like that also. Although definitely not in a sexual way XD More here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecounc...ice_league.php I wish there was a male Black Canary XD |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Ben. WHY must you see female characters be sexualized in order to enjoy the comic? Are the comics that bad that tits and ass and getting your little soldier to stand at attention must be the only way to sell that comic?
You're talking as if the females didn't look non sexual, you yourself as a comic reader would be disappointed. That's... really quite pathetic. |
Honestly, Comics need to get away from this oversexualized shit, and do you know why?
Because we have the internet. There are plenty of artists out there drawing hard-core porn of these characters and giving it to us for free. Superhero comics managed to survive on fanservice and adolescent power-fantasies for years and years, but now that's over. If little timmy wants to feel like a badass he doesn't have to read wolverine, he can go play a wolverine video game. If he wants to fap to cat woman, he can google "Catwoman Porn" With print dying and the rise of digital media, comics need adapt and stand on the strength of their stories, and their artwork, NOT by ridiculously over-sexualizing women, because guess what? The market on that has already been cornered. Evolve or die. Print comics are dying. |
Interesting you'd bring that up, which was a part of my original post. Ben seems to just be apologizing for the hyper sexualization because he has his head stuck in the 90s.
With web comics on the rise and their diversity, ideas presented, and what they do to accomplish a lot of badassery, it's essential for DC or even print comics in general to be a little more intelligent with how they handle their universes. Matter of fact, I just got done looking up Emma Frost porn. So her sexualization would have nothing to do with why I would buy a comic about her or weather I liked it or not. DC is rebooting. And as I said before, it looks like they're just doing more of the same and that shit can't compete with strong writing and stronger art. |
Quote:
Quote:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...rth%29_010.png I think the only one who that I can think of that I haven't seen overtly sexualized is Oracle, and thats probably going to change when she's Batgirl again. Quote:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6134/...16d196e198.jpg Quote:
Quote:
|
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/65...le-armor-sucks
Ben. Saya. This is why Saya is mostly right and Ben is being silly and wrong. |
Ha ha ha! Right in the shiny part!
That was hilarious! Saya, I was meaning all incarnations of Black Canary, since I first started seeing her in comics in the 70's. Which includes some considerably more conservatively dressed variations than the one you posted. As far as Catwoman goes, I've enjoyed the all the stories of all the versions (and all varying degrees of sexualization) until they came up with the goggles look. The one you like. The one I really hate. Also, I thought Fray was outstanding. (But your comment that all DC heroines are large breasted is belied by the two pictures you posted. Fray is flat chested ... not average. The recent version of DC heroine Black Canary that you posted is a little bit above average in bust size, but not excessive.) By the way, I never said that the female comic characters had to be hyper-sexualized for me to enjoy them. But there are some that I do like that way, and I'm tired of people saying they should be changed to meet some feminist ideal. |
One more thing: I agree with Despanan that DC needs to stand on the strength of their stories. But I've been saying for a while that the house of the bat has been largely bereft of imaginative writers capable of creating new, intriguing story-lines (Superman Walks, Wonder Woman's history forgotten - yes, I'm picking on Straczynski as the most obvious culprit). With rare exception, they have largely been left to hyping the product with marketing ploys, and this renumbering reinvention is just more of the same.
Countering my concerns about this relaunch only slightly, Bleeding Cool reports: DC Relaunch: Nicola Scott And James Robinson’s JSA #1? |
Quote:
And I'm not really interested in silver and bronze age incarnations, most characters were more conservative back then, we're talking about how they are now. Black Canary has become one of the more sexualized characters of DC. And really, you stopped enjoying Catwoman because you stopped enjoying her appearance? I can't understand that. I hate Mister Miracle's costume with a passion but he and Big Barda are one of my favourite DC couples. And I get it, your feminism ends when you're dick is entertained. Its not changing the characters, its giving their costumes a little dignity. If most DC men were half naked I wouldn't be able to complain, but since most women in DC are, what does that tell us about how they think women characters should be, and how they target men audiences? |
I actually knew Fray was Dark Horse ... I was just mentioning her because you posted her picture.
If the only measure of sexualization was how much clothing characters wear, then the women would clearly be getting the short end of the stick. But the over-exaggeration of male muscles has been going on at the same time. Bigger biceps and ridiculously defined washboard abs to go with those increasing boob sizes. (By the way, did you know the breast size of American women has been increasing over the time I've been reading comics ... from an average of a B cup to a C cup. Not due to plastic surgery so much, but largely to increasing amounts of estrogen and to a lesser extent, increasing amounts of obesity. Just mentioning it as a fun fact.) I actually was annoyed by the goggles and the look, but I truly thought the Catwoman stories got hijacked by an agenda about the same time, and I stopped being entertained by the stories. My feminism ends where the real world ends and fiction begins. |
So what does Fray have to do with my comment that DC doesn't like small tits? And exposed skin and huge tits are not the only measure, and men still have far less skin exposed, and muscle isn't sexualized like breasts are. Unless they're on a woman, Women Woman's muscles come and go, because muscles on a woman aren't sexy. Its fine to be a kinda ugly man in DC though.
But, I think I found the perfect comic for you: http://tinyurl.com/3co9jyt |
Lllloooollll!!!
|
Quote:
|
Huh.
Here's what I think it says about me: that I believe works of fiction cover everything from Margaret Atwood to the Marquis de Sade, and perhaps further extremes. I don't apply the same values to fiction, because it's not real. It can make a point, but it doesn't have to. It doesn't have to serve society's better good. And usually, when someone determines that it should be changed or censored because it's not meeting a value standard, it's a mistake. I hadn't planned on saying that, but I felt like I had to respond to your comment, Solumina. I actually came back to this thread because I'd been thinking about this conversation a lot lately. And I just wanted to say that I respect Saya and Ashley O's opinion, and as buyers in the marketplace they have a right, and probably an obligation, to let the producers of the product know what they want. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 PM. |