DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)

[Professor Zoom]

the G-man wrote:

---

And to make matters 'worse,' this is arguably a retread of what Marvel did with Ultimate Spidey

That's true.

On another somewhat related note: Earth 2, just from the first issue is one of the more interesting books to me in the nu52. I like having a single book that might be telling lots of different stories, following lots of other people that's not a "team" book. (though I'm sure they will all form a team at one point.)

[Guy Gardener]

I glazed over reading Earrth 2. It was sure pretty, but there was something about it that just felt the same... I didn't come out of my funk till half way through Worlds finest when i realized that the girls had swapped Earths, and i love all that Shakespearian shit when they play three card Monte with secret identity.

Damian is going to be super pissed at this girl stealing his Thunder.

Before that I pummelled through 9 curious issues of Supergirl this evening.

Wow.

I've almost forgotten what a winy useless sack of piss Kara was on Smallville.

[Derishton]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Does Morpheus exist in the nu52?

That's a really good question. Several titles I'm reading seem to be making oblique references, but they could be implying that the series didn't happen as much as it implies that it did. They made sucha fuss about Death appearing in Action's Luthor run that I thought perhaps it still counted as preliminary to the full merging that took place in Flashpoint.

But from the viewpoint of OUR universe, I wonder if we as readers have seen it since in the "regular" universe. Sandman still took place in the regular DC universe when Morpheus confronted Destiny.

[Hound of UIster]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

So the new major gay character is one limited to an alternative universe? Way to go, DC! Way to take a stand!

The original Alan Scott was also from an alternate universe.

[Professor Zoom]

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

The original Alan Scott was also from an alternate universe.

So? How does that change my point? DC stated an iconic character would be gay. Regardless of where the original Alan Scott came from, he's still 1. Not particularly iconic 2. from an Alternative Earth, not the "Prime Earth."

In other words, it's SAFE for them to do that. It might appear to be "forward" thinking, but, it's really not.

[theenglish]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

So? How does that change my point? DC stated an iconic character would be gay. Regardless of where the original Alan Scott came from, he's still 1. Not particularly iconic 2. from an Alternative Earth, not the "Prime Earth."

In other words, it's SAFE for them to do that. It might appear to be "forward" thinking, but, it's really not.

Once again though, DC has a number of gay characters (or had in the old universe). Making a big deal of adding yet another gay character just reeks of a sales grab. They already demonstrated their "forward thinking" ten years ago.

[PsychoPere]

So I've started reading some of these New 52 relaunch titles, and I'm a little confused on how the timeline is working out.

Nightwing #3 opens with a "five years earlier" flashback to when Dick Grayson was still with Haly's Circus (so presumably the events in the flashback occurred before his parents were killed). I'm not seeing how five years is a plausible timeframe in which Bruce could train Dick to be Robin; Dick could shed that identity and become Nightwing; Jason Todd could be trained and be killed; and Tim Drake could both be trained as Robin and then take on the Red Robin identity so that Damian could be Robin.

[Hound of UIster]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

So? How does that change my point? DC stated an iconic character would be gay. Regardless of where the original Alan Scott came from, he's still 1. Not particularly iconic 2. from an Alternative Earth, not the "Prime Earth."

I was responding to the main thrust of your argument in the above post: that he was from an alternate universe, but Alan Scott was always an alternate universe idea in the DCU. In the Silver Age he was from Earth-2, in the post-Crisis he was a character folded into the composite Earth and now post-FP he was is back in Earth-2.

[Professor Zoom]

theenglish wrote:

---

Once again though, DC has a number of gay characters (or had in the old universe). Making a big deal of adding yet another gay character just reeks of a sales grab. They already demonstrated their "forward thinking" ten years ago.

Absolutely. If I was the writer of Batwoman, I would be pissed at DC editorial...

Hound of UIster wrote:

---

I was responding to the main thrust of your argument in the above post: that he was from an alternate universe, but Alan Scott was always an alternate universe idea in the DCU. In the Silver Age he was from Earth-2, in the post-Crisis he was a character folded into the composite Earth and now post-FP he was is back in Earth-2.

Yeah, I know. That has very little to do with my argument. Which is: All of this what to do about a gay character, and he's not even a part of the "prime" DC universe. He exists in Earth 2... Not a particularly BOLD statement... THAT'S the thrust of my argument.

If it was Tim Drake, or Booster Gold, or Green Arrow, THEN, all of the hullabaloo might MEAN something. Hell, Batman, that would be Brave AND Bold.

But, a character that is hardly iconic, in an alternative universe that only has 1 book... Come on...

[Derishton]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Absolutely. If I was the writer of Batwoman, I would be pissed at DC editorial...

I agree with most of your points, but I don't get this one. Should writers be pissed off when someone at DC invents yet another heterosexual character? "Crap, Superman being straight was totally MY thing!" Or did you mean that Batwoman's orientation is her key selling point in terms of advertising, which I could see as a problem.

The loss of Secret Six is a big problem here, too: as you're all saying, DC had interesting LGBTQ characters who weren't defined by their orientation, and nixed three of them for no good reason.

[Professor Zoom]

I mean they should be pissed (ok, a strong word, maybe not the best) because of all the press when, in fact, they've HAD a major character who is gay for years, who in the press release seems to be ignored at the moment. I think Batwoman's main selling point is the quality of the work, but how she cut through the noise initially was the orientation.

[Derishton]

^ Yeah, I see your point. It is interesting that the major hoopla that surrounded Batwoman years ago has clearly struck with the mainstream media: almost every recent report noted her status. I think we forget that there was such a hoopla surrounding her, because it took so long for DC to really follow up with a consistently-published set of appearances.

[Guy Gardener]

Waaaay before Batwoman I remember this bloke at the comic shop I worked at saying, "Why do they keep putting gays in Green Lantern? Why can't they have their own comic books and leave my comics alone."

I remember thinking that it looked like he probably couldn't even pay for sex.

[Hound of UIster]

Derishton wrote:

---

^ Yeah, I see your point. It is interesting that the major hoopla that surrounded Batwoman years ago has clearly struck with the mainstream media: almost every recent report noted her status. I think we forget that there was such a hoopla surrounding her, because it took so long for DC to really follow up with a consistently-published set of appearances.

That was because they scrapped her first book by Devin Grayson, which apparently had cheesecake and then commissioned Rucka and JH Williams to do their own unique version after 52.

[Admiral_Young]

@Pyscho Pere the compressed timeline has been an issue fans have brought up and complained about from the start. It's completely silly and implausible IMO, even for a comic book timeline.