@Nathaniel_Christopher said:
@LuigiBat said:
@vernierhawk001 said:
@LuigiBat said:
@Nathaniel_Christopher said:
@vernierhawk001@LuigiBat that's what i'm hoping. That this is all eventually going to lead into a massive crossover event (Maybe another Crisis...nevermind. Hopefully not. I think Final Crisis showed us that DC doesn't have the talent to pull those off anymore) And that Booster Gold will be the catalyst to setting things straight, and if we're all lucky Donna Troy and Wally West will be right there with him. Because I can understand why DC would want to keep so much of the Batman Timeline, but it simply cannot mesh with the timeline of the rest of the universe. So I say just do away with it all.
To be honest the crux of the problem is not that they wanted to keep most of the Batman timeline intact, the issue is that they wanted to cram everything into 5 years which just doesn't make sense. I know there are sites with theories on what the 'actual' timeline length could be, some speculated that Bruce could've been active as Batman for another 5 years or so before going public (around the same time he adopted Dick and the JLA was formed) but was simply an urban legend type figure. The recent issue 0 from Snyder does support the idea that Batman operated for some time as an urban legend, hence why Jim Gordon is seen with a brand new Bat-symbol-light-thingy and talks about showing people that Batman isn't just a myth. However in the latest Detective issue 0 it shows Bruce, 10 years ago, still in training. So really I don't know what to believe. I certainly find it very hard to believe that Bruce became Batman 5 years ago and has been through all the pre-flashpoint events (more or less) in that space of time, if they'd have given a 10 year timeline for everything to happen (that includes Bruce becoming Batman and going through all the Robins etc) it'd have been easier to believe but still a tad fantastical. Personally I'd have gone for a 15 year timeline, with Bruce becoming Batman at the start of that, adopting Dick (at the age of 12) in his second year, spending years with Dick at his side and so on.
10 to 15 sounds good to me as well. I guess you'd get into the age issues but...he's Batman! Regardless, if they made the "5 years" thing just since he has "gone public" then I could deal. Add another 5 for the urban legend thing before that, as you said, and I could accept this! The Robins would have to be spread throughout the 10 years as you said but I think that could work. I think the urban legend idea is one that is important for the Batman character (perhaps even underrated)---I hope they don't/haven't done away with that
I guess the over-arching issue with the whole reboot thing is that when it comes to Batman they really didn't reboot anything at all when it came to the content of the universe. Having a 10-15 year timeline makes sense but if it was in place I'd have to ask whether a reboot would even be worth it in the first place. I kinda feel that if you want a reboot to make sense then it has to be a proper reboot with the slate being wiped clean and no extra crap. This wouldn't necessarily mean losing series about Nightwing, Red Hood, Batgirl etc, all DC would have to do is launch them with little backstory/origin info and have the Batman series eventually working towards the set point in the timeline where each character took on that mantle. This would mean DC doesn't lose out on titles but can still alter origins and such like.
Well I completely agree. A reboot is washing away everything that came before a start from scratch. So anything that happened within the specific continuity is gone. The point of this (and the point DC used for why the New 52 needed to happen) is to end continuity lock-out, which is when there is so much in the universe that it has become hard for new readers to jump in. This is why for the Bat Family there hasn't been a reboot. All the old stories apparently still happened, but there have been minor tweaks here and there that have been revealed, not particularly well, as we've gone along. For the Bat Family this is basically just a bunch of mini retcons taking place throughout their history, that have pretty large effects, and in many cases just confused things that were clear before. This leads me to wonder how exactly new fans are supposed to jump right in an understand it if even us old fans are confused.
I could live with a 10 year timeline, and a 15 year one would be even better, as I could then honestly believe all the old stories did indeed take place. With 5 (Really only 4 as Bruce was apparently dead for a year) it just doesn't make sense.
Well, ironically, I guess you could classify me as a "new" reader (I've only just started actually buying comics and keeping up with them week to week). Before that, however, I kept up with the characters moreso through wiki's and stuff. So I am still not exactly happy with the reboot...but, I also think its a personal thing. I generally hate continuity breaks. I think part of that is because its hard to see a character changed when you have grown up relating to them. And, to a writer with a larger goal in mind, that type of connection may escape their notice/be secondary to sales, etc (which sucks but, oh well). I kind of feel that way with Grayson--especially regarding his relationship to Bruce. I felt that I could personally relate to the whole "heir to the legacy, living up to expectations, in the shadow of your father" thing. And I think that's a big chunk of why I'm against this timeline. The writers would probably argue that those elements are still there with Dick but...they aren't--at least, not as potently as before. As we've discussed elsewhere, the timeline changes the nature of the father-son dynamic. It's a very subtle thing that doesn't seem like it would have so many ramifications to a character's basic psychology but I think it does. Editorial oversight?
See I'm in a similar situation. I only started buying comics after choosing to use DC for a media studies A-level case study (we had to choose a traditional institution and cover how they're trying to adapt to modern times, DC is in the process of doing so and they were an ideal candidate) and subsequently looking into the reboot/comixology etc. Most of my knowledge of pre-Flashpoint Batman is from reading wiki's and other sites (though I've begun buying pre-52 arcs).
I can keep up with most of the continuity but as I said already, why call it a reboot at all if you aren't actually doing a reboot? In a sense all they've done is hire some new creative teams for certain series, continue where the old series left off (to an extent) but simply call the first issue from these new teams "issue 1". DC might claim that the reboot was to allow new readers easier access to their comics but in the case of the Bat-Family titles they've hardly made it easier (one might argue they've made it harder) for new readers. I mean for starters in one of the first pages of Nightwing issue 1 Dick says he's spent a year as Batman when Bruce was 'missing', anyone new to Bat-family comics is going to read that and be very confused. Then you factor in that these new readers are being told that everything that has ever happened did so in the space of 5 years, its not easier for new people to start reading Bat-family titles, its gotten harder and more confusing than ever.
Log in to comment