Which is fine by me. I think you have to make adjustments as things move along. Drop a concept if something better comes up. There's no way you can think of everything at launch.
DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
Are people saying that Year Zero contradicts something that has already been established in story in the new 52, or just events from before the reboot?
That's what I'd like to know. I have no recollection of them doing so, but I haven't committed every issue to memory.
I stay up to 6months behind on the "franchise" characters like Batman who don't need my monthly dollar for support. Just all the continued talk about retconning material on a line that was meant to feel like a starting point by others here and about the net seems to reinforce that they just can't stop tinkering with it.
Like I said earlier, tinkering comes with the territory. You can't believe everything you read on the net.
I of course understand things change. The manner in which the pendulum swings and how drastic is what gets me of late with DC is all. I'd have quit the medium ages ago otherwise.
Seriously, some people (not necessarily here, but in the fandom) are acting like Scott Snyder walked into their house and pissed on their copy of Batman: Year One. It's still out there available to read. How much of Batman's almost 70+ year history has been retconned over the years. Batman's origin and early days have been told and retold over and over and over again. What makes Year One the "one true story" other than the fact that it was really good?
Well, I've been reading comics for close to 40 years, so I'm not finding it all that "drastic" or that big of a "swing".
But surely that's true of almost everything?
Right. I have read Batman and Detective since the reboot but I would have to go back through issues to figure out details. I hear talk about Year 1 but that was before the new 52.
As I have said before, readers need to treat anything before the new 52 as if it didn't exist until it is explicit mentioned in the comics. What is important is that the characters remain internally consistent since September 2011. (and I know there have already been some mistakes in other comics.)
So, has there been something in the latest issues of year zero that contradicted earlier new 52 material?
The thing about Zero Year is that it is perfectly named. It takes place before the actual five year timeline starts...thus "Zero Year" at least where Batman is concerned it hasn't contradicted anything established in the 52'Verse, it's added to it. I can't speak for the other titles yet since I've not read the other Zero Year books.
If it's a good story I don't really care why its being done.
He doesn't seem to understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
The point still stands whether it be copyright or trademark.
It's only a problem if you mention them.
Its not like those stories actually took place over the time it took to release them. Some were over in days or even hours in-universe.
The Robins are the only real time related problem. Bats must get a new Robin every year or two. Or he has two on deck at a time.
I like to use the example that one issue generally takes place over one day of continuity (it can often be even less!). Since it ends on a cliffhanger that leads directly into the next issue, two issues is only two days of time and so forth.
So even if you have 1,000 issues of a comic, that's only 1,000 days, which is only 2.7 years.
So even if you have 1,000 issues of a comic, that's only 1,000 days, which is only 2.7 years.
EJA would have hated the 52'Verse timeline LOL.
You have no idea how copyright works.
Similar threads
- Poll
