DC's official retailer pitch about the "reboot"

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=33078





...in case y'all want to see more official news.


Agreed.

The entire irony is that DC is CONSTANTLY focusing on the past in terms of stories.

Since that has been found wanting, the new cash grab is re-branding.

Man, I hate to say it, but I am almost getting excited about this. Gonna pick up Action Comics and Superman, Batman and Detective Comics, JL and Hawk and Dove. Hopefully it will give me a chance to jump back in with some characters I've followed in the past.

"Some yes, some no. But many of the great stories remain. For example - Batgirl. The Killing Joke still happened and she was Oracle. Now she will go through physical rehabilitation and become a more seasoned and nuanced character because she had these incredible and diverse experiences."



In other words, you're retconning Barbara's past so that she wasn't paralyzed and the events of "The Killing Joke" happened at a different point in her career (and presumably you've retconned out her time as a congressional representative and her retirement) --- essentially making it a reboot.  Why not just be honest about that?  Bastids.



The other thing that I sincerely don't believe they've thought of, is keeping most of Batman's past in continuity fraks up the rest of the DCU because it's a shared universe. 

Sounds like a reboot to me.

MarkRobinson - Sounds like a reboot to me.

 Exactly.

From http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=33100

So let me get this straight: "The New 52" will feature new stories set in the past in continuities where some things no longer happened where characters may change "appearance, origin and age," but it's not a reboot. In a reboot, all previous stories are jettisoned, only to be retold again. I'm beginning to think this "relaunch" is more of a reboot than an actual reboot.

Let's look at DC's pitch:

This is a new beginning which builds off the best of the past. For the stories launching as new #1s in September, we have carefully hand-selected the most powerful and pertinent moments in these characters’ lives and stories to remain in the mythology and lore. And then we’ve asked the best creators in the industry to modernize, update and enhance the books with new and exciting tales. The result is that we retained the good stuff and then make it better.

So they're hand-picking which stories "counted" now and then spinning out from there on a character by character basis?

Can we just call this what it really is? The DCU is forking itself.

Look, DC can do what it wants to do and I won't light any fires or march in any parades. It doesn't matter to me. Let them do what they think is best and let them tell the best stories they can. But trying to appease the hardcore fans that they're not trying to appeal to by denying the word "reboot" is disingenuous. By making as convoluted a pitch as this is to help explain it by further obfuscating it just leaves the fans wondering if DC, itself, knows what it's doing.

So, yeah, "reboot" isn't a fair term. I'm sticking with "fork."


 

Marvel has started comics over with issue number one before. You recap the origin, or bring the character back from wherever (the dead, another dimension, etc.) giving him a "new" or second origin, and then continue on with everything still in continuity. Gives new people a chance to jump in without alienating the old fans. The recent Thor restart is a good example.

Why doesn't DC just do this? I mean, it kinda sounds like that a bit already.

LOL!

 Additional questions about the reboot from http://everydayislikewednesday.blogspot.com/2011/07/follow-up-qs-id-like-to-dcs-faq.html





Here's two examples of the writer's comments



Why not call it a reboot?



It’s not a reboot. A reboot is typically a restart of the story or character that jettisons away everything that happened previously.



This is a new beginning which builds off the best of the past. For the stories launching as new #1s in September, we have carefully hand-selected the most powerful and pertinent moments in these characters’ lives and stories to remain in the mythology and lore. And then we’ve asked the best creators in the industry to modernize, update and enhance the books with new and exciting tales. The result is that we retained the good stuff, and then make it better.
But that’s what you always do, and you keep doing it with increasing frequency.



How will this really differ from the last handful of partial reboots, aside formt he numbering, media push, same day digital release and the many, many terrible costume redesigns? Or did I answer my own question?



Also, and not to be a jerk or anything here, but the vast majority of "the best creators in the industry" that you've asked to "modernize, update and enhance the books," keeping the good stuff and making it better, are the same dudes who have been working on your books for the last few months and the last few years. Are they really capable of doing better than they have been doing? If so, why haven't they been doing it?





Does The New 52 undo events or continuity that I’ve been reading?



Some yes, some no. But many of the great stories remain. For example – Batgirl. The Killing Joke still happened and she was Oracle. Now she will go through physical rehabilitation and become a more seasoned and nuanced character because she had these incredible and diverse experiences.
You know that none of your existing readers—like, none—like events being undone at all, right?



It's basically the worst of both worlds, isn't it? You keep some continuity in place, so you still have some level of barrier between new readers and the characters and stories, but you jettison much of it, to the irritation of old readers.



And since you bring up Barbara Gordon, is she a grown up in her early thirties* going back to being Batgirl then? Isn’t that kind of weird? Why not Batwoman or Batlady or Batperson or The Bat? Why Bat-anything, instead of coming up with her own branding? Isn’t Barbara Gordon supposed to be kind of smart? Wouldn’t she be smart enough to realize, like everyone who's ever read any comics featuring her as Oracle, know that she does much, much, much, much more good as Oracle than as Batgirl? I'm sure tons of people could wear a tight Batman costume and crouch behind graves, preparing to throw Batarangs at guys with guns—I can think of two young ladies right off the top of my head, at least one of whom could destroy Barbara Gordon with a single blow—but being the Superman of information, communication and computers, while simultaneously being a Batman-like leader/tactician?



Oh shit, you think I'm thinking about this too much now, aren't you? You think I sound overly fannish, don't you? You're dismissing my questions completely now, aren't you?




 this sounds awful.

As per usual they are hitting the reset button and undoing things that have worked for years now, like Babs Gordon as Oracle. Suddenly she can walk again!

You know we're all acting like the Comic Book Guy, here. We complain and complain but will still read these comics. lol "Worst! Cosmic! Wars! Ever! I will only see it three more times."

Er, why am I blue?