DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
Not surprised by the books listed but frankly am surprised that neither, or both, Voodoo or Grifter are on that list. Must be Jim Lee's pull in affect.
Glad to not see Frankenstein Agent of Shade on there or Captain Atom.
I have no urge to sample any of the new titles replacing them either.
Still no Captain Marvel title, jeez.
Glad to not see Frankenstein Agent of Shade on there or Captain Atom.
I have no urge to sample any of the new titles replacing them either.
Still no Captain Marvel title, jeez.
Down with Hawk and Dove! Suck it Liefeld!
Earth 2 sounds interesting, but that's basically because of the title and the very limited gives the title a sense of both mystery and anticipation. Honestly, this title could go anywhere. More info is needed. Personally, I'm hoping for a Jay Garrick shout out.
World's Finest sounds dumb. Lets put the two dullest DC characters (who are, essentially, knock-offs of knock-offs) in a team-up book that basically lifts its premise from one of the other, weak-selling current New 52 titles, namely Legion Lost. Then again, I'm not all that much of fan of "OMG! We're exiles!" series.
I never understood that criticism (and never really saw it before the Abrams movie hit). To me, it always seemed that continuity was never was barrier to the storytelling, and, if the Enterprise haters are to be believed, ENT continually broke continuity. Then again, that was more of a case of "It's wrong because that's not how I would do it!".
World's Finest sounds dumb. Lets put the two dullest DC characters (who are, essentially, knock-offs of knock-offs) in a team-up book that basically lifts its premise from one of the other, weak-selling current New 52 titles, namely Legion Lost. Then again, I'm not all that much of fan of "OMG! We're exiles!" series.
I never understood that criticism (and never really saw it before the Abrams movie hit). To me, it always seemed that continuity was never was barrier to the storytelling, and, if the Enterprise haters are to be believed, ENT continually broke continuity. Then again, that was more of a case of "It's wrong because that's not how I would do it!".
That's a good way of describing Batgirl. She's fun, real and is probably the most fleshed out character in the 52 line. Can't wait to get issue #5 today. She's also one of the reasons I've stuck with Birds of Prey. All I have to do is catch up to see if she's as compelling there as she is in her own title. She was also in Nightwing where she was pretty good with Dick. Grayson that is.
Of the new titles "Dial H" sounds interesting.
Dial H does sound interesting. I might also check out World's Finest and Batman Incorporated.
Of the new titles, World's Finest looks interesting; GI Combat will sink faster than Men of War did, I suspect, but I liked the latter and I like the idea of a new take on Haunted Tank, so I'm in for at least an issue.
Mieville on Dial H is ... a sentence I never thought I'd hear.
Mieville on Dial H is ... a sentence I never thought I'd hear.
Hmm, I'm surprised to see them doing another war book, I didn't think the others were doing that well. So does anyone know exactly how Batman Inc. Vol 2 will be work in the New 52verse? It sounded like there was some uncertainty how the last Batman Inc story was related to the new universe.
Other than BIv2, I don't really have more than a barely passing familiarity with the rest of the topics of those series, so until that changes the only one of those that interests me is BIv2. I'll have most likely some JSA stories by then, so there's a good chance at least Earth-2 will be added to that.
Other than BIv2, I don't really have more than a barely passing familiarity with the rest of the topics of those series, so until that changes the only one of those that interests me is BIv2. I'll have most likely some JSA stories by then, so there's a good chance at least Earth-2 will be added to that.
That was because continuity becomes a nuisance and yes, a barrier, to doing anything interesting so ignoring or destroying it is worth doing.
I know some people don't see that, but if one doesn't then one has the choice of either being offended by it (like some of the anti-Abrams nutcases) or shrugging and accepting it - because it will be done by people who are actually trying to create good stuff and who therefore face the necessity. It will be done over and over, forever.
I don't like it when continuity is just ignored. I prefer it when someone can find a creative way to work within it. I remember when Enterprise was on, some thought that they should just ignore "Balance of Terror" and show Starfleet personel interacting with the Romulans. I never found it necessary to do that.
Continuity has nothing to do with the quality of a story. If it's not in the way and the writer has a hobbyist's interest in it, that's fine.
Problem with Enterprise was that it pretty much made up its own reasons to break continuity just for the sake of it, to not be restrained by what is "supposed to happen." The same problems occur with ST09.
I guess in my mind that's like saying you want to write a story set in a pre-World War II era, be about things that lead up to war but don't want to worry about facts or reality and just do your own thing.
Enterprise used the Temporal Cold War thing to get around with mucking up the "past." I can forgive things like the Ferengi or the Borg episode where the name of the aliens is never known, or the aliens are there due to a future incursion on the timeline (the Borg, and First Contact.)
But there was so much interesting stuff already to explore in the pre-Kirk era Trek universe they didn't need to invent the "temporal cold war" or the BS with the Xindi or anything else. There was already plenty to do, they just didn't want their writing to be restricted.
And isn't that what creates creative writing? Being limited by what you can and cannot do?
ST09 did the same thing. There's no reason to make that universe different than the established one, there's already a lot we do not know about what happened in the TOS era, how the crew got together and all of that. So why make up this bullshit about changing the timeline, killing Kirk's dad, destroying Vulcan and all of that? Oh, because you don't want to be restrained by continuity?
Horseshit.
I guess in my mind that's like saying you want to write a story set in a pre-World War II era, be about things that lead up to war but don't want to worry about facts or reality and just do your own thing.
Enterprise used the Temporal Cold War thing to get around with mucking up the "past." I can forgive things like the Ferengi or the Borg episode where the name of the aliens is never known, or the aliens are there due to a future incursion on the timeline (the Borg, and First Contact.)
But there was so much interesting stuff already to explore in the pre-Kirk era Trek universe they didn't need to invent the "temporal cold war" or the BS with the Xindi or anything else. There was already plenty to do, they just didn't want their writing to be restricted.
And isn't that what creates creative writing? Being limited by what you can and cannot do?
ST09 did the same thing. There's no reason to make that universe different than the established one, there's already a lot we do not know about what happened in the TOS era, how the crew got together and all of that. So why make up this bullshit about changing the timeline, killing Kirk's dad, destroying Vulcan and all of that? Oh, because you don't want to be restrained by continuity?
Horseshit.
An era that is part of reality. The endless attempts to treat that and the continuity of a fantasy world as equivalent are non-starters.
And BTW, there are stories written and set in every real time period of history that take liberties with the actual history, culture and technologies of the times. Has no bearing on whether they're good or not.
This is going to continue (heh) to be a game of Creators - 1, Continuity Freaks - 0.
Discounting character arcs and events which were series-specific, I never got the impression that the Trek writers were all that concerned about the continuity other than in vague terms. Anything they referenced it, it was more of a fan-wink than anything else (DS9 did this a lot).
The only exception that I can think of is Enterprise's 4th season where they intentionally played with Trek continuity, but that was more to do with the fact that TPTB knew the writing was on the wall and went "Fuck it. Lets have some fun".
Not that I'm complaining about Trek '09's "remake, but not really" approach. It is a perfectly fine way to revitalize a franchise.
The only exception that I can think of is Enterprise's 4th season where they intentionally played with Trek continuity, but that was more to do with the fact that TPTB knew the writing was on the wall and went "Fuck it. Lets have some fun".
Not that I'm complaining about Trek '09's "remake, but not really" approach. It is a perfectly fine way to revitalize a franchise.
Dial H sounds the most interesting. But then that property had some of the best writers. Anyone remember Will Pfeifer and Dale Eaglesham's fantastic run on it?
I'll get Earth-2 and Batman INC since they have Morrison and Robinson. Rest sounds terrible.
Morrison compressed about 70 years of Batman continuity into around 20 years of Bruce's life. I don't see how this is any different.
Have you read Batwing?
It's actually very well written in how Winnick fleshed out his background and his motivations.
I'll get Earth-2 and Batman INC since they have Morrison and Robinson. Rest sounds terrible.
Morrison compressed about 70 years of Batman continuity into around 20 years of Bruce's life. I don't see how this is any different.
Have you read Batwing?
It's actually very well written in how Winnick fleshed out his background and his motivations.
Similar threads
- Poll
