@The_Tree: You know what progress is? Progress is when a publisher recognizes that one of their great characters isn't being utilized as much lately, and they decide to move them up the status tier. Progress is making the publisher's premier team more appealing to the collective audience that reads the product. You would also be hard pressed to find a person who can say before the reboot, that Alan Scott was their favorite Green Lantern. There were four younger, more exciting characters they could have chosen instead of him. DC made a great move with him. He was an old coot who hardly had business being a hero. Now he is more appealing to people. Who knows; DC may even have plans for Jade and Obsidian.

You can not call something a new and fresh take on the norm and expect to read the same thing. This is what is dragging the comic industry down. Fans are not willing to see change.

As I see DC right now, they are making some good moves, but as fodigg above me said, they still have quite some moves to make.

@Twentyfive: No, that is not progress. That is called retconing. Progress is letting characters age. Not telling the same stories. Not being a hack. Creating new characters and writing new stories for those characters. Oh and most importantly, not shitting on history, but rather building on it.

@Durakken said:

@Twentyfive: No, that is not progress. That is called retconing. Progress is letting characters age. Not telling the same stories. Not being a hack. Creating new characters and writing new stories for those characters. Oh and most importantly, not shitting on history, but rather building on it.

If Progress is letting characters age, Batman and Superman would've been 80 by now. Considering he is as old as Jay, Alan and all the JSAers.

Would you want to read a 80 year old Batman?

@sethysquare said:

@Durakken said:

@Twentyfive: No, that is not progress. That is called retconing. Progress is letting characters age. Not telling the same stories. Not being a hack. Creating new characters and writing new stories for those characters. Oh and most importantly, not shitting on history, but rather building on it.

If Progress is letting characters age, Batman and Superman would've been 80 by now. Considering he is as old as Jay, Alan and all the JSAers.

Would you want to read a 80 year old Batman?

Modern Age and Golden/Silver Age Batman is different in terms of how they should be treated. Pre modern age it wasn't established that all stories happened in the same universe in a linear timeline, where as once we got to the Modern Age that is the case. I would like to have 80yr old Bats, but there should also be the 50yr old Batman of the Modern Age.

@Durakken said:

@sethysquare said:

@Durakken said:

@Twentyfive: No, that is not progress. That is called retconing. Progress is letting characters age. Not telling the same stories. Not being a hack. Creating new characters and writing new stories for those characters. Oh and most importantly, not shitting on history, but rather building on it.

If Progress is letting characters age, Batman and Superman would've been 80 by now. Considering he is as old as Jay, Alan and all the JSAers.

Would you want to read a 80 year old Batman?

Modern Age and Golden/Silver Age Batman is different in terms of how they should be treated. Pre modern age it wasn't established that all stories happened in the same universe in a linear timeline, where as once we got to the Modern Age that is the case. I would like to have 80yr old Bats, but there should also be the 50yr old Batman of the Modern Age.

You think a 50-80 year old batman can do what he is doing? You wanna read about a 40 year old dick grayson? You wanna read about a 50-80 year old superman and lois?

@Durakken: The reason they did what they did to Alan Scott is because if they had already made a new character that was gay, it wouldn't have as much meaning. Alan Scott is iconic as being the first Green Lantern. People know him. People have read about him. And really, when you are talking about something new, you cannot expect or even want to see the same crap. People are only complaining now because they switched his orientation, just like they are complaining about Cyborg. There are more haters Cyborg now than ever. DC is forgoing a character who has been given many chances with fans, but never really made an impact in favor of a more modern take on superheroes, and people are going crazy. Yes old fans ruin things, and it sucks for people who are just coming in, like myself.

@Twentyfive: ... No. The problem is they did it with an unestablished character. I think it's great they have gay characters and such, however, it should fit with the character and it simply doesn't with Alan Scott and while the Alan Scott you're thinking of is established... the one that is gay is not. Nothing about the Earth 2 character is Alan Scott, but whatever...

Cyborg on the other hand is just a dumb idea in every sense of the word. While I'm not saying my reasons are everyones' reason, but Cyborg really has no business being in the Justice League from a team dynamics point of view and from an experience point of view. Everything that Cyborg does is everything that Batman does. That's why he didn't fit in Teen Titans anymore, because Tim does what Cyborg does... When Dick was leader of the Titans Cyborg had a point because he Dick doesn't do the computer stuff or much of the detective stuff. You put Cyborg there because he can play mentor, detective, and handle the tech, plus be bulky and be used "when needed" but not always. Btw He's 3rd or 4th tier characters and doesn't work on his own. When you put him with the other characters he simply does stack up.

Fans just get really worked up about things and they kinda make other people mad. I think that it's a good thing because you can see how much these people care about a character. However, there are some fans that I wish would be willing to let their character change a little and become a little different so their character can be a little more successful.

@Durakken: Oh well. Not everyone will be a fan of a character. All I am saying is that DC shouldn't change because of a few disgruntled fans. I am sure if you give Cyborg some time, and a few character arcs, then you may like him. If you don't, then it's okay as long as DC expands on Cyborg.

@Durakken said:

@Twentyfive: ... No. The problem is they did it with an unestablished character. I think it's great they have gay characters and such, however, it should fit with the character and it simply doesn't with Alan Scott and while the Alan Scott you're thinking of is established... the one that is gay is not. Nothing about the Earth 2 character is Alan Scott, but whatever...

It's not like Alan Scott has never been used to explore the topic of homosexuality before, though. His son, Obsidian, was gay. Since they're dumping the younger JSA characters (or moving them to JLA I guess) it makes sense that without Obsidian they could go ahead and use Scott to deal with that topic more directly by making the character gay.

Cyborg on the other hand is just a dumb idea in every sense of the word. While I'm not saying my reasons are everyones' reason, but Cyborg really has no business being in the Justice League from a team dynamics point of view and from an experience point of view. Everything that Cyborg does is everything that Batman does. That's why he didn't fit in Teen Titans anymore, because Tim does what Cyborg does... When Dick was leader of the Titans Cyborg had a point because he Dick doesn't do the computer stuff or much of the detective stuff. You put Cyborg there because he can play mentor, detective, and handle the tech, plus be bulky and be used "when needed" but not always. Btw He's 3rd or 4th tier characters and doesn't work on his own. When you put him with the other characters he simply does stack up.

Cyborg's worth as a character is not defined by his abilities. The fact that Batman can boot up his bat-computer or build the Brother EYE satellite (also stolen Darkseid tech) doesn't really matter because it's not about power overlap. If it was, you wouldn't need Aquaman, Flash, or Wonder Woman either because hey, you've already got Superman. What is important are the themes each character brings to the table.

That's why Martian Manhunter was cut, not because of ability overlap, but because his archetype had overlapping themes with Superman. And that's why Cyborg is a good addition to the team, because he brings themes unique to the JL to the table: the impact of rapidly growing modern technology on society and humanity itself.

Shortly after the DCnU was initiated, DC hired the market research department of the Nielson Company--yes, the same one that monitors television viewership--- to conduct a survey of DC's readers. Of the 5,336 respondents, 70% were already fans, with a mere 5% completely new to reading comics. 93% of the fan base was male. Perhaps most troubling, only an estimated 2% were under the age of 18. Whether or not the outraged outcries of the older fans are having a detrimental effect on DC's 52 initiative is irrelevant. Clearly, without the majority of that fan base intact, there are not enough new fans to support DC's line. The comic's publishing industry is not in a good place. DC made a bold attempt to boost their bottom line, and reach out to a wider audience. Going by that survey, they failed. There are great books in DC's current line, and there are terrible books. Moving forward with an initiative that is so polarizing to their fan base can only hurt their needed revenue.

@fodigg: That theme is better handled by Batman and what's more it would be better handled if, shockingly, Martian Manhunter was kept on the team. Batman is ahead of the curve which means his tech is advancing faster than anyone else's and he implements it, sometimes causing problems like Brother I, to maintain security and to do detective work. Martian Manhunter contrastingly, even though he comes from an advanced civilization, does use high tech stuff and that dynamic of the two debating on technology from those two positions would be much better for that theme. Cyborg on the other hand brings nothing to the table because he is the exact same as Batman in terms of how he uses technology, but even fails the idea of advancing technology because he doesn't build tech. He uses tech. There is a very big difference there.The theme he'd bring to the table is the "average user" and the "alien tech invasion" theme but we have that them in Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Green Lantern, and Batman, hell even if I was going for the theme you want to go with I'd go with Mister Terrific, but if I had free reign and had to change the character I'd go with a brand new character that was asian/black woman and perhaps was a criminal or something previously and had magical powers. If i was constrained to already created characters I'm sure i could find a better character than Cyborg.

That all being said Cyborg is not the worst character to select...he just doesn't fit.

Note: I'm parsing your post a bit to collect like points for easier reply. It is not my intention to alter your meaning while doing so.

@Durakken said:

@fodigg: That theme is better handled by Batman ... Batman is ahead of the curve which means his tech is advancing faster than anyone else's and he implements it, sometimes causing problems like Brother I, to maintain security and to do detective work. ... Cyborg on the other hand brings nothing to the table because he is the exact same as Batman in terms of how he uses technology, but even fails the idea of advancing technology because he doesn't build tech. He uses tech. There is a very big difference there.

Ridiculous. Batman uses tech, so he's automatically better suited for dealing with the potentially negative impact of tech on our culture? My friend, Cyborgembodies that theme! He is transhumanist in his very nature, at a time when transhumanism and the concept of the singularity are the bleeding edge of sci-fi. Batman could cover some tech themes (e.g., tech run out of control), but without any personal sacrifice for his tech he doesn't really do anything transhumanist. Also, the more you shanghai Batman to cover that theme, the less he covers his core themes: tactics & detective, stealth/ninja, paranoia & control. Batman already has a lot on his plate thematically, diluting him further to cover something that he isn't really tailored for in a book with a large ensemble cast is a bad idea.

... what's more it would be better handled [by] Martian Manhunter ... Martian Manhunter contrastingly, even though he comes from an advanced civilization, does use high tech stuff and that dynamic of the two debating on technology from those two positions would be much better for that theme.

Martian Manhunter does not fit the transhumanist/tech theme just because he's an alien. No more than kryptonian tech makes Superman fit for that theme. You're really stretching their archetypes here, even more than you did with Batman. If anything, the era of Sci-Fi tech they represent (and you can include GL in this as well) is outmoded and stale--of the Silver Age that spawned them. It's exactly why an avatar of modern tech is a good idea.

Cyborg ... brings nothing to the table because he is the exact same as Batman in terms of how he uses technology, but even fails the idea of advancing technology because he doesn't build tech. He uses tech. There is a very big difference there.

That's laughable. It doesn't matter where the tech is from. Would you argue that Robocop also uses tech the same way as Batman? What about Optimus Prime? I mean, Optimus uses a gun so he's the same thematically as the Punisher, right? You must be able to see how these two character archetypes are different. One is a street level ninja-detective on a mission of vengeance against organized crime, the other is an ex-all star athlete (already post-human thanks to experimentation during his infancy) who's been horribly maimed, and the same technology that enables him to live as a hero forever separates him from humanity.

Batman is the ideal human who walks among gods. That's his core archetype. Cyborg is the post-human cyborg set apart from humanity. That's his core archetype. They are fundamentally in opposition. How can you argue they are the same?

The theme he'd bring to the table is the "average user" and the "alien tech invasion" theme but we have that them in Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Green Lantern, and Batman, hell even if I was going for the theme you want to go with I'd go with Mister Terrific,

None of these characters match Cyborg's themes. Mister Terrific and Batman are the closest comparison of any two characters among them and even then, Terrific actually focuses on tech while with Batman it's ancillary. But none of them are transhumanist.

if I had free reign and had to change the character I'd go with a brand new character that was asian/black woman and perhaps was a criminal or something previously and had magical powers. If i was constrained to already created characters I'm sure i could find a better character than Cyborg.

That all being said Cyborg is not the worst character to select...he just doesn't fit.

You've argued above that his themes aren't unique, but then you conclude with "he just doesn't fit." Why doesn't he fit? What is it in his archetype that makes him intrinsically unsuitable for the Justice League? And really, if your concern is that he "doesn't bring anything new to the table," then wouldn't you want him to "not fit" so that he delivers that outside perspective? This is a confusing conclusion for your post.

@fodigg: While Cyborg is a transhuman, he is not a transhumanist, and he doesn't represent tech in the least. He is a "user" of tech and not a "developer" He is the ultimate idiotic jackass that everytime you say something, instead of listening and thinking about what you're saying, he's off checking if you got the date right about when something was done or if you got the specs right for that toaster. You're thinking that that might make him some sort of "interesting thing" but it's not because he's not making the choice, he's not developing the tech. There is no conflict because there is no choice. You're thinking, "Yes there is!" but no, there isn't. We in the real world are living in a world where Cybernetcs are becoming more realistic and every day we move closer to what cyborg is already, both in the comics and in reality. So again, no conflict because people are becoming more like him... and he's just already there.

Your perception of Batman is wrong. Those are not his core themes, nor if they were would is it bad to have many themes.

No I am not stretching them. They all use tech and/or are more used to the higher levels of tech and represent interaction with tech far better. Martian Manhunter doesn't use tech even though he must know how to build stuff that is far more advanced than what we Batman knows and while Superman has his cache of knowledge he didn't grow up with it. Wonder Woman views her tech as magic (yes her magic is technology if know the lore >.>)

You notice how I keep talking about usage of the tech and how they interact with others... that's why those characters, Punisher, Optimus, Robocop, are different.

If you are going to argue is the Mortal who walks with Gods it's also dumb to include Cyborg because Cyborg is just as mortal.

Cyborg isn't unique. He's a guy who has cybernetic implants to hack into systems and research information to play detective. And before Flashpoint he was a mentor. Those roles are unneeded or they already exist within the JL. Even if that weren't the case it is too big of a leap for such a low tier character and not to mention all the other JLers are 7+ years older than him.

And when i say not fit I mean when you build a team you want to have certain dynamics in place so that characters play off each other. There aren't any for him save for 1, and if they went down that route that would be even more of a reason not to have him on the team and make the whole we're putting a minority to not "look" like bigots in the JL thing not work and make them look worse.

@Durakken said:

@fodigg: While Cyborg is a transhuman, he is not a transhumanist, and he doesn't represent tech in the least. He is a "user" of tech and not a "developer" He is the ultimate idiotic jackass that everytime you say something, instead of listening and thinking about what you're saying, he's off checking if you got the date right about when something was done or if you got the specs right for that toaster. You're thinking that that might make him some sort of "interesting thing" but it's not because he's not making the choice, he's not developing the tech. There is no conflict because there is no choice. You're thinking, "Yes there is!" but no, there isn't. We in the real world are living in a world where Cybernetcs are becoming more realistic and every day we move closer to what cyborg is already, both in the comics and in reality. So again, no conflict because people are becoming more like him... and he's just already there.

Where is any of that reflected in the text? I think you're projecting that onto the character. And while we haven't seen him develop tech post-Flashpoint, he has tweaked and upgraded himself in the old DCU. He's never been a "meat head" character either, the whole point of his pre-accident origin is that his parents experimented on him to make him some wonder child and he expressly chose sports over academics to his father's annoyance. If he was just a meat head, it wouldn't have been a choice. And again, I don't see how user/developer matters much. Robocop isn't any less cyberpunk or transhumanist because he didn't build himself. As for "Cyborg is a transhuman, he is not a transhumanist," I wonder if you really understand what transhumanism means. How can one be transhuman without embodying transhumanist themes?

Your perception of Batman is wrong. Those are not his core themes, nor if they were would is it bad to have many themes.

What do you feel are Batman's core themes? What is Batman's core archetype? If you say "tech user," you're horribly mistaken.

No I am not stretching them. They all use tech and/or are more used to the higher levels of tech and represent interaction with tech far better. Martian Manhunter doesn't use tech even though he must know how to build stuff that is far more advanced than what we Batman knows and while Superman has his cache of knowledge he didn't grow up with it. Wonder Woman views her tech as magic (yes her magic is technology if know the lore >.>)

So by your definition, Zatanna is a tech character? Dr. Fate is? C'mon man, seriously? You're drawing the lines of the theme so broadly that it is rendered meaningless.

You notice how I keep talking about usage of the tech and how they interact with others... that's why those characters, Punisher, Optimus, Robocop, are different.

Really? Because you're simultaneously arguing that the fact that someone is connected to tech in any way (or magic now), then they're equally capable of carrying a tech-related theme. And they're all somehow better suited than a guy who is half robot.

If you are going to argue is the Mortal who walks with Gods it's also dumb to include Cyborg because Cyborg is just as mortal.

Post-mortal. Again, this is his fundamental theme that you're conveniently disgregarding. They've already played with this even in the few lines they've given him in Justice League (issue 11), with the "ghosts" presenting the pre-accident version of him as the true him, passed on to the afterlife, implying that he's just an animated corpse:

How could they possibly have gotten that concept across with Batman?

Cyborg isn't unique. He's a guy who has cybernetic implants to hack into systems and research information to play detective. And before Flashpoint he was a mentor. Those roles are unneeded or they already exist within the JL. Even if that weren't the case it is too big of a leap for such a low tier character and not to mention all the other JLers are 7+ years older than him.

He's the embodiment of science fiction from cyberpunk forward to post-cyberpunk transhumanism. He's everything the Silver Age characters lack. He is modernity personified. And the age gap just points out something else he brings to the team. I would argue that's a reason to mix up even more of the other founders age wise. Replace Hal and Barry with Stewart and Wally. Throw Miss Martian in there as the unofficial 8th member instead of Martian Manhunter. Variety is good! Why do a revamp if you're not gonna make changes?

And when i say not fit I mean when you build a team you want to have certain dynamics in place so that characters play off each other. There aren't any for him save for 1, and if they went down that route that would be even more of a reason not to have him on the team and make the whole we're putting a minority to not "look" like bigots in the JL thing not work and make them look worse.

Now, I know you're not saying that his race is what makes him "not fit," so what are you saying here? What is this dynamic that the team otherwise has that prevents him from belonging? You keep saying he doesn't fit but won't say why or explain what the exact nature of the JL is that means he doesn't belong. So far the only noticeable difference you've identified is the age difference, and that's not really a compelling argument.

And what does all that have to do with a need for diversity? Diversity is not the only reason Cyborg got moved into the founder slot or else they would've just switched Stewart in for Jordan or made MM's civilian ID black. Or they could've chosen any of the other minority/poc characters in their pantheon. They chose Cyborg specifically for a reason beyond just a desire for more diversity (although that is a worthy goal).

@Twentyfive said:

@The_Tree: You know what progress is? Progress is when a publisher recognizes that one of their great characters isn't being utilized as much lately, and they decide to move them up the status tier. Progress is making the publisher's premier team more appealing to the collective audience that reads the product. You would also be hard pressed to find a person who can say before the reboot, that Alan Scott was their favorite Green Lantern. There were four younger, more exciting characters they could have chosen instead of him. DC made a great move with him. He was an old coot who hardly had business being a hero. Now he is more appealing to people. Who knows; DC may even have plans for Jade and Obsidian.

You can not call something a new and fresh take on the norm and expect to read the same thing. This is what is dragging the comic industry down. Fans are not willing to see change.

As I see DC right now, they are making some good moves, but as fodigg above me said, they still have quite some moves to make.

I'm completely receptive to change, I just hate pontless and idiotic change. I was a fan of Alan Scott before the relaunch, I'm still a fan of him. I don't mind the fact that he's gay, especially since Earth 2 isn't necessarily New Earth/Earth-0 canon just yet. I don't mind diversity at all, but I hate when it's used as a gimmick, it's almost like DC is going "Hey guys look at how diverse we are, we've got a black guy on the Justice League, a gay Green Lantern, and a Muslim Green Lantern! Isn't that awesome? Now where's my pat on the back?" Just to disclose to you, I do like all three of those characters, by the way. I just hate that DC seems to act like they should be rewarded for diversifying when it's something they should've been doing anyways.

You're a fan of Cyborg, you appreciate his elevated status. I also can appreciate it. But I wouldn't call ERASING his ENTIRE character history progress. I grew to love him for his time being a Titan. I don't hate the character, but I do hate him as a founder. The same thing about erasing character history goes for several characters: Superboy, Supergirl, Superman, Jaime Reyes, Barry Allen, Martian Manhunter, Barbara Gordon, the Doom Patrol, and many, many more. And don't go pulling this card: "But it's not like those stories don't exist anymore, read them for fun and enjoyment." While I will always enjoy those stories, part of the enjoyment of being a comic fan comes from the discovery and reading of these characters' rich pasts, and knowing that what you read matters.

Am I also supposed to be excited about DC making the most ridiculous and pointless changes of all time? Have you read the atrocity that is Catwoman #0? Who in their right mind wanted the Batman Returns origin? No Tim Drake fan in their right mind would be happy about him "never being Robin" either. Scott Lobdell states it as not really a big deal. If it weren't really a big deal, then why make the change at all? Niles Caulder, a character who's been handicapped since his first appearance is now a walking young guy who isn't nearly as manipulative as his past counterparts. Such changes are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the bastardization of characters, and if you'd like to see just a bit more of my thoughts on the matter, you can look here.

I was entirely open to the thought of the relaunch when it began, and I'm not saying good stories can't be told in it. But the constant stupidity and direction the company is being taken in just baffles me, and completely turns me away from them. Most of the stories that are being well received could've been done without the relaunch. It's fine when there's little continuity discrepancies here and there, but DC has gaping holes in its timeline at the moment, and the zero issues aren't doing anything to fix that. Are you telling me that that is progress? Because if it is, it's a joke.

DC is also trying to sell us on this absurd and constricting five year timeline. Am I really supposed to believe that the history of the DCU was crammed into such a short span of time? No, I'm not. Yet DC continues to try and sell me on the idea, and they go and erase characters or teams, or even comic book runs from existence because they don't "fit" this new time-span. You know, for every character they eliminate, they're erasing somebody's favorite. How are Wally West, Stephanie Brown, Cassandra Cain, Donna Troy, and etc. fans supposed to be happy about that? DC has been incredibly mum on the topic of such characters coming back. Why? Because they're just trying to sweep the matter under the rug and hope that we eventually forget about them. F### THAT.

/rant

@fodigg: Wonder Woman is a tech based character. The "gods" in DC cosmology are simply super tech civilization and wonder woman's powers come from that super tech.

Zatanna is magic based, but Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Cyborg is in the JL because he is a minority character and he has a modicum of creditability. They also are likely using John Stewart moving forward.

They not only could do what they did with Cyborg in the Graves arc with Batman, they've done it in the past.

When I say Cyborg doesn't fit I mean, his "theme" isn't unique or can be handle by others or is better handled, AND their role on the team AND when you look at how they interact with each other AND how they stack up in iconography and such. The most important thing when forming a team is how each of them interact. Batman and Wonder Woman thinks of thing in greys for example while Superman often thinks of things as black and white. While at the same time Batman and Superman believe killing is not an option ever, but Wonder Woman thinks there are circumstances where it is ok. Batman and Superman have a very tight bond of trust between each other. Green Lantern and Flash have a bond of trust as well. The two bonds are different because they interact differently. If you look at interaction that Cyborg can have with these characters there is really isn't anything that really works, that makes him part of the team, rather than that guy just hanging around.

@Durakken said:

Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Doctor Fate is magic based. He's an accomplished sorcerer, Nabu was a powerful sorcerer as well. The Helm of Nabu and the Amulet of Anubis are mystical items.

@fodigg: Thank you, fodigg. People will always try to find ways to believe that Cyborg's inclusion in the league was a bad idea, but when you provide examples why he's not, they will apply a double standard. That sucks.

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Doctor Fate is magic based. He's an accomplished sorcerer, Nabu was a powerful sorcerer as well. The Helm of Nabu and the Amulet of Anubis are mystical items.

Amulet of Anubis... Anubis is part of the same category as the Olympian gods (Super-tech Civilization) Don't know about Nabu though and that is his primary source I know that.

There is magic in the DC universe, but not all "magic" is magic. It is technology that looks like magic. Most of it falls under the those that have some relation to the "gods" Alan Scott is for example, is magic based, or at least it was until recently. Maybe it still is if you consider this new "The Green" "The Red" etc as magic then that would make Swamp Thing and Animal Man magic >.>

@Durakken said:

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Doctor Fate is magic based. He's an accomplished sorcerer, Nabu was a powerful sorcerer as well. The Helm of Nabu and the Amulet of Anubis are mystical items.

Amulet of Anubis... Anubis is part of the same category as the Olympian gods (Super-tech Civilization) Don't know about Nabu though and that is his primary source I know that.

There is magic in the DC universe, but not all "magic" is magic. It is technology that looks like magic. Most of it falls under the those that have some relation to the "gods" Alan Scott is for example, is magic based, or at least it was until recently. Maybe it still is if you consider this new "The Green" "The Red" etc as magic then that would make Swamp Thing and Animal Man magic >.>

Uh... he IS magic based. That's like saying Doctor Strange is tech based, or doubting the fact that Superman is an alien. The Amulet of Anubis is named like that because most of his relics come from ancient Egypt.

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Doctor Fate is magic based. He's an accomplished sorcerer, Nabu was a powerful sorcerer as well. The Helm of Nabu and the Amulet of Anubis are mystical items.

Amulet of Anubis... Anubis is part of the same category as the Olympian gods (Super-tech Civilization) Don't know about Nabu though and that is his primary source I know that.

There is magic in the DC universe, but not all "magic" is magic. It is technology that looks like magic. Most of it falls under the those that have some relation to the "gods" Alan Scott is for example, is magic based, or at least it was until recently. Maybe it still is if you consider this new "The Green" "The Red" etc as magic then that would make Swamp Thing and Animal Man magic >.>

Uh... he IS magic based. That's like saying Doctor Strange is tech based, or doubting the fact that Superman is an alien. The Amulet of Anubis is named like that because most of his relics come from ancient Egypt.

Did you listen to what I said? Anubis, as are all of the mythical pantheons of Earth, are part of a Super Tech Civilization. Items that that from them are Super Tech, not Magic. Since the Amulet is Anubis that, at least, is tech based. This isn't that hard to understand.

@Durakken said:

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

@SmashBrawler said:

@Durakken said:

Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Doctor Fate is magic based. He's an accomplished sorcerer, Nabu was a powerful sorcerer as well. The Helm of Nabu and the Amulet of Anubis are mystical items.

Amulet of Anubis... Anubis is part of the same category as the Olympian gods (Super-tech Civilization) Don't know about Nabu though and that is his primary source I know that.

There is magic in the DC universe, but not all "magic" is magic. It is technology that looks like magic. Most of it falls under the those that have some relation to the "gods" Alan Scott is for example, is magic based, or at least it was until recently. Maybe it still is if you consider this new "The Green" "The Red" etc as magic then that would make Swamp Thing and Animal Man magic >.>

Uh... he IS magic based. That's like saying Doctor Strange is tech based, or doubting the fact that Superman is an alien. The Amulet of Anubis is named like that because most of his relics come from ancient Egypt.

Did you listen to what I said? Anubis, as are all of the mythical pantheons of Earth, are part of a Super Tech Civilization. Items that that from them are Super Tech, not Magic. Since the Amulet is Anubis that, at least, is tech based. This isn't that hard to understand.

"The amulet gives the wearer vast magical abilities. It also houses a magical void that can hold people inside it."

Just because pagan deities are usually depicted as having extremely advanced technology doesn't mean they can't use magic as well. Believe me, I've read my fair share of Doctor Fate.

@SmashBrawler: true... like I said I haven't read much of Dr. Fate, but in general anything associated with most deities should be considered super-tech. Though if it's not tech then it is sorta wrong to call it the amulet of Anubis as the power is coming from some other source, not anubis... oh well.

@Durakken said:

@fodigg: Wonder Woman is a tech based character. The "gods" in DC cosmology are simply super tech civilization and wonder woman's powers come from that super tech.

Zatanna is magic based, but Dr. Fate is tech based i believe. I don't know much about the helmet of Naboo.

Cyborg is in the JL because he is a minority character and he has a modicum of creditability. They also are likely using John Stewart moving forward.

That's ridiculous. They could've started with Stewart, they could have made MM black (as they sometimes do), and they could have selected any other poc character for that slot. They chose Cyborg, and they did it for a reason they explicitly gave.

They not only could do what they did with Cyborg in the Graves arc with Batman, they've done it in the past.

Really? When? I have a hard time believing that.

When I say Cyborg doesn't fit I mean, his "theme" isn't unique or can be handle by others or is better handled, AND their role on the team AND when you look at how they interact with each other AND how they stack up in iconography and such. The most important thing when forming a team is how each of them interact. Batman and Wonder Woman thinks of thing in greys for example while Superman often thinks of things as black and white. While at the same time Batman and Superman believe killing is not an option ever, but Wonder Woman thinks there are circumstances where it is ok. Batman and Superman have a very tight bond of trust between each other. Green Lantern and Flash have a bond of trust as well. The two bonds are different because they interact differently. If you look at interaction that Cyborg can have with these characters there is really isn't anything that really works, that makes him part of the team, rather than that guy just hanging around.

You just listed a jumble of conflicting character motivations and you think that means Cyborg doesn't belong? I agree he's been underutilized but again, you're not pointing out any sort of overarching team dynamic that precludes Cyborg from inclusion.

@Twentyfive said:

@fodigg: Thank you, fodigg. People will always try to find ways to believe that Cyborg's inclusion in the league was a bad idea, but when you provide examples why he's not, they will apply a double standard. That sucks.

It's really surprising to me. I think a lot of people just don't like change. Cyborg doesn't belong because "he's supposed to be a Titan" and that's that. Ugh. Why even do a revamp then? Why not just roll everything back to the Silver Age and start from there?

@fodigg: People are resistant to change. And like I have said a thousand times before, that can lead to superheroes not being looked upon as a valid genre of storytelling. That mindset really displays shamelessly the narrow-mindedness of comic readers as a whole.

@SmashBrawler said:

The only thing from the New 52 I REALLY hate is the lack of coordination, and that stupid 5-year timeline. But I can assure you that, in the 80's, most Superman fans weren't happy that Supergirl, Krypto or the old Krypton, among other things, were gone.

lol but they weren't GONE gone. Supergirl was an amorphous pink blob from a pocket dimension. Krypto was a regular dog owned by Bibbo, and the "old krypton" had existed, but centuries before the planet blew.

Byrne era Superman is my favorite.

@SmashBrawler said:

The only thing from the New 52 I REALLY hate is the lack of coordination, and that stupid 5-year timeline. But I can assure you that, in the 80's, most Superman fans weren't happy that Supergirl, Krypto or the old Krypton, among other things, were gone.

lol but they weren't GONE gone. Supergirl was an amorphous pink blob from a pocket dimension. Krypto was a regular dog owned by Bibbo, and the "old krypton" had existed, but centuries before the planet blew.

Byrne era Superman is my favorite.

@Onemoreposter said:

@SmashBrawler said:

The only thing from the New 52 I REALLY hate is the lack of coordination, and that stupid 5-year timeline. But I can assure you that, in the 80's, most Superman fans weren't happy that Supergirl, Krypto or the old Krypton, among other things, were gone.

lol but they weren't GONE gone. Supergirl was an amorphous pink blob from a pocket dimension. Krypto was a regular dog owned by Bibbo, and the "old krypton" had existed, but centuries before the planet blew.

Byrne era Superman is my favorite.

Yeah, I know they were back, but it's clearly not the same. People are already fearing that some of their favourite characters will be brought back in completely unrecognizable forms. And I'm pretty sure Pre-Crisis fans weren't too happy about this replacements.

I love Byrne's Superman as well, BTW. Too bad DC wasn't brave enough to keep him aboard after the Supergirl Saga.

@SmashBrawler: Yeah. Just like you said, the whole thing was probably just a little to odd for long time fans to accept.

Ahh, good times.

@PsychoKnights said:

I wrote a review on Nightwing #0, and some guy left me a comment that said:

"No offense, but fans of the Old continuity are whats killing the new 52, the old DCU isnt comming back, and if you took that out of the picture this was a very enjoyable story :)"

That rather irked me, so I wrote him a response which I believe is worth sharing.

"No offense, but you are completely wrong.

"First, DC has never been dying. Their market share might have been decreased over the last couple of decades, but there is a big difference between a shrinking market share and the dying of an industry.

"Second, DC is certainly not dying now. Rather, it has just made a remarkable improvement in health reaching record sales this past year.

"Third, the DCNU is doing well with the old fans not in spite of the old fans. No industry can survive without its base market. Sure, it was largely new fans which added the larger numbers to DC sales last year, but they would not have been near enough to sustain DC if the old fans had not stuck with the comics.

"Fourth, there were some old fans that were so upset by the reboot that they stopped reading, but those fans were few and far between, and they are already gone. Therefore, you cannot attribute any problems to DC's current operations to those people. They are not strangling the industry by refusing to buy comics; they simply left and washed their hands of the whole thing.

"Fifth, you seem to be under the impression that most fans of the old DCU are not fans of the new DCU. This is not the case. Old fans can like both. From what I've seen, a slight majority of old school fans prefer the old universe, but there are still plenty of old school fans who feel the reboot is exactly what the industry needed.

"Sixth, I bought the comic before reviewing it, so obviously, I am not killing the industry.

"Seventh, I did not even give the comic a bad rating. I said it was okay, and that is the rating it rightly deserved.

"Eighth, critiquing the work of a comic book is not meant to be a slam on the DCNU, DC, or even necessarily the particular writers and artists who made the comic. Rather, it is a way of giving other readers and possibly even the creative staff feedback on the comic. It is not an effort to tear anything down; it is an effort to build things up by saying, "This could be better."

"Ninth, any industry that does die under a little scrutiny deserves to die.

"Tenth, as a presumably new fan, you should be thanking old school readers like me for keeping the industry alive for all the years people like you have been neglecting it. If it were not for the old school fans, there would have been no comic book industry, and you would not have been able to jump onto the comic book wagon after they performed their latest gimmick.

"Eleventh, let's pretend for a second that all the stories you have read in the past year were suddenly wiped from continuity? Hacked off? Now multiply that times twenty-five.

"Twelfth and final, sure there are some fans who will whine about every little change made to continuity, but for the most part, I think old school fans have moved over the shock of the DCNU. We are ready and willing to accept changes in continuity, but they have to be good changes. Undermining the father/son bond between Bruce and Dick is not a good change."

Any thoughts?

*pause* A user wrote that sole line and you a slayed him some knowledge in twelve points of sheer thought and reason? Beautiful.

I think the problem is the open hostility people have shown each other. The comic book industry may be doing a bit better in recent times but it's not exactly the healthiest business out there and it cannot afford to lose a lot of customers. When fans attack each other, whether it's New DCU fans attacking Old DCU fans, or Old DCU fans attacking New DCU fans, it makes it harder for people to continue wanting to read comics. And fewer people reading comics is bad for everyone.

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/09/29/dcs-new-52-poll-dcs-new-52-facebook-poll-backfires-just-a-bit-just-a-bit/

I don't care what new readers think. I simply refuse to purchase any of the New 52 comics. If DC wants my business they'll have to pick up where they left off with the previous continuity. They may keep this new version as an alternate dimension, but only used sparingly. In addition to not purchasing the New 52 comic books I will NOT purchase any other products or services related to the New 52 comics.

The DC Fans? No. The folks at Time Warner are responsible they fumble like children and are crappy caretakers of the DC properties.

@DarthShap said:

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/09/29/dcs-new-52-poll-dcs-new-52-facebook-poll-backfires-just-a-bit-just-a-bit/

I read that about 20 minutes ago but I couldn't stop laughing long enough to post a reply. :D

Well for me is kinda personal, i grew up with the old dcu post crisis on infinite earths.I was a kid when batman´s spine was broken by bane,also the death of superman, and cyborg destroying hals city.I liked a lot kyle rayner as green lantern, that dude suffered a lot.Those moments were a big deal for me.The run of infinite crisis was a great,i liked a lot the revamp of a lot of crisis on infinite earths ideas,And 52 is an all time favorite for me.One of my favorite characters ever is The question,i loved all what he did before his death,and i felt depressed when he died,but he died like a hero.And that is the problem with this new 52 stuff,now when i see superman and batman, i dont see those super heros,and this applies to all my favorite characters,even the villians.To see all that history wiped away just to make a buck, is kinda insulting for a lot of fans.They should have gone the marvel way with the ultimate universe.

@DarthShap said:

In my opinion, the #0 month was a very bad idea. DC should just be going forward, not remind old readers of what they lost by having an entire month dedicated to retcons.

the 0 month was actually a pretty good idea, it just completely backfire on a lot of ways

Personally i thought it was an utter failure mainly cause it showed to me that DC had no clear idea of their own base on continuity which is exactly what the 0 issues were suppose to do

@HammerTron: Why are you being such a little bitch about it, how do you know there not any good if you don't read any of it.

@Marco_Kidd: Stick it where the sun don't shine Kidd. I simply stated what DC was required to do if they ever want my business, patronage, or my cash in any way shape or form.

"No one can make a fool out of a man. He's got to do that for himself."

@Marco_Kidd: No need to insult anyone.

@HammerTron: My point remains that, that your just crying over losing the old continuity and you have no idea if you even enjoy any of the new 52 when you don't read any of it.

@Marco_Kidd said:

@HammerTron: My point remains that, that your just crying over losing the old continuity and you have no idea if you even enjoy any of the new 52 when you don't read any of it.

You really are a little kid. You know what to do with your 'point'. I don't waste time on illiterates like you.

there is different from they're.

your is different from you're.

A story is supposed to have a point. The greatest loss to comics is that it will NEVER end. Ending is a GOOD thing. Climax is a good thing. Character growth is a good thing. And comics, by definition, won't allow much of that, because the industry relys on the same characters we all know. So, giving an ending to those stories the fans are always complaining that "don't matter anymore" is a good thing. Sure, we could have better endings, but that is one complain that isn't being adressed here. Batman, for instance, just would not be doable. I mean, really, a 40 something man in a bat suit? Characters need to grow, for that to happen, time needs to pass. Comic book characters were stuck in time. One possible solution for that, is to have a 'reboot' that ends the story of those characters and starts them again. This is what DC has done. I get that some fans didn't want to lose some characters, what I don't get is the "they don't matter anymore" approach. A story isn't just build up to another story, it is supposed to have an affect on you, show you something, entertain you, shed light on a topic. Those stories did that for all the people that read them. I know this opinion will be a controversial one, but I don't mean to insult anyone. I just don't feel none of us lost anything. It's a new beginning. The old DCU has been 'closed', the story is done. That is a good thing. At least on my eyes.

@Jorgevy said:

Fans in general (old and new alike) kill the things they are fanatic about. It's always like that with anything, be it entertainment or something else.

That is depressing.

@ZEELLO said:

@Jorgevy said:

Fans in general (old and new alike) kill the things they are fanatic about. It's always like that with anything, be it entertainment or something else.

That is depressing.

it's their fault though...

I think there's good and bad in both the DCU and the New 52.

I'm also an advocate of jumping into the New 52 and enjoying it for what it is. There's no point saying "well this used to be ____"

Having said that: The DCU felt more consistent and put together. There was a solid sense of connectivity between the books and characters that seems absent. For me the most disappointing aspect of this is that the New 52 is only a year and a half old.

I hate the New 52.

Seriously, I just do. I have given it many chances and it has some pretty awesome moments but I generally do not like most of their new takes on the characters. They ruined Dick Grayson. No one can deny Dick was so much cooler in the previous DCU. It's not even just him. They ruined several other characters. Jason Todd, Billy Batson, Lois Lane, and the list can go on and on and on.

Making Alan Scott gay instead of a veteran hero supporting and accepting his already established gay son was progress? Wiping out an established gay character with a complex storyline is probably not the kinda progress LGBT society seeks. Increasing the number of gay characters instead of progress by just replacing one would have been progress.

Plus, what has the added layer of gay meant to Alan since the initial press? Not much story wise.

Making Cyborg a founding member of the JLA is less exciting than his depiction in the first two years of New Teen Titans were his character was explored and developed as more than a token fixture and monitor room guy. The world wants him as an interesting character more than just saying that he helped found the JLA. The revision didn't make him interesting when he already was more interesting prior to the move.

This is not progress.