While villain month sounds cool in theory, we've seen it done a hundred times over before. Villains usurping the heroes, yada yada. It's the same thing every time with the Crime Syndicate. They come to the DC Earth, they wanna take over, they get stopped. Every......... Single........... Time. The difference this time? It's VILLAINS fighting them Freddy VS Jason style. You know the whole "Evil will fight Evil" thing?

You see? They aren't doing anything DIFFERENT with the Crime Syndicate, they're just changing dance partners for them. Now call me crazy, but I thought the New 52 was meant to allow creators to do stories they couldn't previously do. Yeah Forever Evil confirms otherwise. They haven't done anything that couldn't be done without the reboot, in some cases you can't even tell there WAS a reboot, and somethings that HAVE been done shouldn't have been done at all(I'm looking at you The Culling).

In short I'll let a certified expert tell you my thoughts on Forever Evil. Take it away Mermaid Man

DC's current business plan: "Why spend time and thought on fresh original ideas when you can rely on gimmicks and rehashed idea to make money?"

@rdclip: I mean I LIKE the Crime Syndicate well enough, they aren't on my favorite team's list or anything, but they're kinda cool. It's just that every single story with them is the same!! The ONLY time I've seen it done differently is the movie Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths where the Justice League went to the Syndicate's universe to clean things up instead of the standard reverse procedure.

The only thing at all different is the fact it's villains VS the Syndicate............ which is really just them VS their usual enemies only with the most likely probability of them getting killed by them.

@smart_dork_dude: supposedly CSA is here for something else other than taking over the world

Yeah... I sort of had the same feeling. I don't think we've seen much new material from DC lately. Especially not in their big events. I'll see Forever Evil through until the end but just going by the first issue, there's really nothing groundbreakingly original.

I haven't read Forever Evil, I have all of Trinity War and the first issue of FE sitting on my desk waiting for me to have time to get to them, but with that in mind I have to disagree. Your right that the premise is a boring rehash but in theory Forever Evil isn't a premise story, it's something that's supposed to be fun because of how it plays out not what actually happens. It's kind of like I say that I'm going to shoot a basket, of course that's boring but if I throw it several miles across town, make it bounce of someones head onto the bus where it travels to downtown then rolls off the bus into a construction site gets hit by a steel beam and flies into the basket then that's worth watching. Technically I still only did what I said and shot a basket but it's the way I did it that matters. The ball still left point A and ended up in point B but ideally it went to midpoints nobody has ever seen before.Yes the Crime Syndicate is going to show up and try to take over the world, yes they are going to be defeated, that's how this is going to play out but what makes this event worth it on paper is the character interactions and developments for the villains and the twists along the way that are supposed to give it purpose. It's still the same thing happening but it's the way that it happens that is supposed to be unique and innovative. Of course I haven't read it so maybe it's not going like this at all but that's why they're are justified in doing this if they do it right. You can tell the same story a million times but if it changes every time you tell it then it's still worth telling

well said I couldn't explain it better

Neither could I.

that's exactly what snyder said. maybe that's why dc loves him so much.

Oh, another thread with the word "proof" in the title, or some variation of it. As if you could "proove" something about fictional characters and an art form in the business world.

@matteopg: how long have you been reading man? out of curiousity.

@thetimestreamer: not as long as other people, but I would say about 10 years now. Still, I also read tons of stuff from before, of course, to try and have a more comprehensive background on the universe.

How does that have anything to do with my observation? I only meant that it's a little silly to say that you can "proove" anything regarding comics, especially comics quality, since it's an inherently subjective matter.

The reboot plagues me day and night.

@matteopg: it matters because people that are new to comics are easily entertained by nowadays stories, they dont know that this has been done 15x before. they dont have the knowledge. and it's not silly to proove today's comics are mostly crap or recycled. there will always be people that dont know any better or are fanboys or play the 'change is good' card or are just too dumb to see it. the comic industry is slowly but surely heading for a plunge, due to high prices and oversaturation. after that, quality shall return.

@thetimestreamer: I don't think you understand what "proof" means. It means an objective evidence that cannot be denied after direct observation. You can't "proove" the quality of an artistic product because its enjoyability is subjective.

@matteopg: yes, you can. take snyder's run on batman. dribble, mediocre storylines ripped-off from classic batman stories. can you denny that? no you cannot. there is a difference between quality and 'enjoyability'. some people enjoy crack. is it bad? yes. do they enjoy it? yes.

@thetimestreamer: We are talking about art, not drugs, that's a specious and out of topic example.

But see, you're not making sense. I mean, you didn't like Snyder's run. Ok, more power to you. But there is no way to say "this is objectively bad". You can't proove something in art is absolutely good or bad. You can do it in science and everyday life, but not with art. Proove means real evidence, not your judgement of the run.

I don't understand if you're being so closed up on purpose or you don't really understand the concept of evidence.

@matteopg: ok. comics are not only art. they are art + stories. they can both be prooven bad. liefeld - horrible art. lobdell - horrible writing. that is all i am going to say on the matter with you because you are annoyingly dense.

@thetimestreamer: I'm dense? Namecalling is the last resort of the unskilled conversationalist. I was trying to debate with you the validity of asserting that one's opinion of something subjective can be absolutely true. You were the one who didn't want to hear me.

So, back on topic (I mean, talking to everybody). If half of the people likes what DC is doing now (and I can see people of all ages), it can be that objectively bad, now, can it? It's a little insulting to our intelligence saying that it is obviously bad.

@matteopg: you insulted my intelligence 3x. i am just tired of talking to you. all you say is: 'well somebody must like it'. you dismissed my comparison and continued to blabber on. you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. i have nothing more to say to you on the matter. it's my fault for engaging you.

@thetimestreamer: I am sorry if you feel insulted, but if you look at your posts, you made an out of topic comparison (drugs) and just said that you don't like it so it must be bad, and people that like it are either childish or stupid or ignorant.

You didn't actually say what you think prooves objectively that, for example, the Snyder run is bad. If you care to elaborate I may change my mind, but just saying I'm stupid (while I never said anything like that to you) is not very convincing.

If it seemd like I repeated myself is because I asked a question 3 times (what constitutes objective proof of badness in a story) and you didn't answer. Maybe I should have been more clear about that, and I'm sorry, but the reason I was repeating is because I expected you to elaborate on your thesis. After all, you're the one making the claim, and since you state you are a much more experienced comic book reader, I would love to hear your arguments.

Again, sorry if I seemed offensive, I didn't mean to (and if you go back in my posts you won't find any direct insults directed at you). I am just contesting your thesis about being able to prove a story to be absolutely bad. But if you don't answer that, of course the conversation is going to stall. Also, you can't get mad if someone doesn't agree with you right off the bat. I ended up changin my mind on a lot of stuff while in this forums, but only after a mutual exchange of ideas.

Am I forgiven? Can we talk?

@matteopg: ok i might have come on a little strong, thugish even. i'm sorry. lets talk about a specific story in the new52. you want to propose one or should i?

@thetimestreamer: No problem, as you wish. As I said, I don't agree with the fact that something can be objectively bad. I mean, some people like the hell out of stories I absolutely don't get, but it doesn't mean they are idiots.
I think that you are entitled to not like the new 52: of course if I believe that nothing can be absolutely bad, it would be hypocritical of me to say it can be absolutely good ;)

Yes, give me an example of what you think constitutes actual objective badness. Since you brought it up and I enjoyed them, give me an example with one of Snyder's stories (not Year One, though... still have to start that). Then, if I decide I don't agree, we'll just agree to disagree :)

@thetimestreamer: I hate to tell you, but @matteopg is 100% right about the subjectivity of comics. What you consider good, bad, recycled, dribble, anything, someone else may see as the exact opposite, and this goes for literally anything that you feel that way about. For instance, the movie Avatar is, imo, a complete steaming pile of awful movie. It took forever to make because of the focus they put on the special effects, and they still ended with a script that is almost identical to Dances With Wolves, but with "Unobtanium" ffs. I mean, come on. They had 12 years to come up with anything else, and that's what they went with. And despite this, Avatar received great reviews, won awards, and James Cameron is once again celebrated.

So from where I'm coming from, there seems like an overwhelming amount of "evidence" for what a bad movie that was, but realistically, this is all opinion. Someone else could look at that and say "Unobtanium? It's genius how simple that is. Isn't it great that Cameron can spend so long on a project and not get caught up with the details like that?" To which I'd probably respond with somethng along the lines of "NEVER SPEAK TO ME AGAIN," but the point is, neither of us is right or wrong, as we're both speaking about personal opinions. This is even more true for storytelling, because there is no formula or code that will result in a good story every time. What works in one place or for one writer may never work anywhere else again. So the only way we have of determining which stories are good or bad is your personal reaction to them, or your opinion.

@hecktate: thank you, I felt I was a little alone in that discussion. I repeat, it's pointless to take issues with people disagreeing with you over what products they like and don't like. Furthermore, one sounds a little close-minded if he claims to know what constitutes evidence of something being bad. Evidence means un-ignorable, like gravity and death. You can't have evidence of how good something that is made up can be.

And we totally agree on Avatar ;)

Well we had heroes vs heroes for a really long time in Marvel....maybe villains vs villains is the in thing now :P

@blackarmor: BRAVO BRAVO took the words out of my mouth

@matteopg: I've been involved in too many arguments over characters or story arcs. Those things escalate quickly.

@hecktate: I have to get smarter and recognize people who like to argue. I hope it will come with time.

Very well said

@jwalser3 said:

Do you know that that is what many people do for both DC and Marvel?

And if an Indie comic did the same thing,they'd all just let it slide....

I mean,I am pretty sure that when DC or Marvel does a (for example) heroes vs heroes thing,it's AUTOMATICALLY shrugged off and looked down upon (even when it hasn't come out,yet). Valiant does the same thing,it's freaking praised. (although Valiant is pretty good,just not as good as DC or MARVEL to me)

But as said,it's not what is done,it's how it's done. No idea is really original in it's essence,but it's just HOW it's done that really makes it unique.

I am pretty sure BOOM studios is doing a gladiator match-type thing.

and true.

Do you know that that is what many people do for both DC and Marvel?

And if an Indie comic did the same thing,they'd all just let it slide....

I mean,I am pretty sure that when DC or Marvel does a (for example) heroes vs heroes thing,it's AUTOMATICALLY shrugged off and looked down upon (even when it hasn't come out,yet). Valiant does the same thing,it's freaking praised. (although Valiant is pretty good,just not as good as DC or MARVEL to me)

But as said,it's not what is done,it's how it's done. No idea is really original in it's essence,but it's just HOW it's done that really makes it unique.

I am pretty sure BOOM studios is doing a gladiator match-type thing.

What are you getting at?

@jwalser3: I think @cameron83 is saying that if DC and Marvel make an announcement about how they execute an event or storyline, people jump on the bandwagon to criticise it. Like with Forever Evil doing an all villains event. But if an Indie title does a storyline that's been milked to death, people praise the hell out of it for its originality. Something like that IMO.

1.What I mean is,if DC were to do some type of hero vs hero thing,(some) people will say how much it sucks and how "overused" it is and such and such. And if an Indie print were to do the same thing, no one would dare bat an eye.

1A. But that doesn't mean that either comic is bad. It's not what concept is used (no concept is really new),but HOW they use it. What is being done to get from Point A to Point B. We all know that Batman is not gonna die in his own book under the force of a new/old threat,but we want to see how he wins or escapes. So basically,a concept that is reused isn't exactly a bad thing. Not at all. People just need to quit this ultra-pessimism of dismissing a comic before it even comes out.

2. I don't hate Indie comics...not all,at least.

3. Some people automatically assume that Indie>mainstream.

4. Personally,I just personally like DC (old DCu) and Marvel over Indie or anything else,but that's just solely my preference.

That's basically it.

Yup.

Although it obviously doesn't go for all people :)

@cameron83: Ookkay. Haha, I was just making a joke early. But I get what you mean.

oh okay :)

But that doesn't speak for all Indie comics,though...

And again,no concept is really new. It's just how it's used. A concept can be used again and still be a fresh take on something

@cameron83: Plot twist. It's actually the Justice League and they trick all the villains onto a teleporting pad that sends them to the phantom zone.

Fresh and new. :)

I like that idea better! :D

@cameron83: They'll be line "Oh my lord! That guy was right!"

lol I would give you all of my money in my bank account if you were actually right XD

@jwalser3 said:

This was hilarious!