DC Comics #1 & The CB Vs Forum

Originally posted by Mr.Mxyzptlk
I vote we continue business as usual until every character has enough feats to be argued as separate.

Originally posted by Cogito
Until feats and any changes have some time to become established, I would just continue the status quo with post-crisis to pre-reboot being the standard.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
I think we should wait until the #1 issues are all released and it'll become more obvious what approach to take. It could be more like Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis retcons, where histories are fudged (sometimes majorly) but more or less preserved. It could be more Crisis on Infinite Earths retcon, where nearly everyone has a clean slate.

If it's Zero Hour/Infinite Crisis, then we do what we've always done: ignore it completely out of convenience. If it's Crisis on Infinite Earths, then we denote the pre/post Flashpoint eras. Right now, it's looking like the latter. If that's the case, then so be it.

But I do think it'll be obvious when the #1 issues are released. With Brand New Day, it was obvious from the get-go that they fudged things but insisted that Spiderman has had his adventures, just not his marriage. And it was obvious with the Heroes Reborn #1 titles with it's fresh new take/clean slate history.

If we have to decide now, just do what we always do: We already differentiate "classic/current JMS" Wonder Woman. "Kid" Loki doesn't have any feats yet really, so we always debate about "classic" Loki. Same thing with "classic" Juggernaut. It's not like this concept is new to us or difficult to put into practice. We already do it more or less.

And then as time goes on, take a look at characters an implement what's been posted below?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I think we need to consider this a completely new continuity delineation like Pre and Post Crisis. Some characters are going to be relatively untouched by the change, but how to we as readers supposed know the minutia of what is or isn't excepted canon? Batman for example is supposed to be more or less the same... but Tim Drake is pretty much a completely different character, which by extension changes Batman's continuity and I really doubt DC is going to take the time to explain which parts of their shared mythos actually matter now. And it isn't like Drake is the only rebooted character that ties heavily into the Batman mythology. Unless it is printed in the pages of the new issues, we can't be sure of anything.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think they should be argued as separate characters, just like pre vs post crisis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well that's exactly what we should rule out, by having separate versions.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Seem simple enough to me.

DCnU canon vs. New Earth canon. Specify which version of the character (and virtually everyone should be effected by the revamp, GL's included) and go from there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Q99
This is going to be a headache of course.

You still get people regular do threads staring "Batgirl!" without specifying which one, and often meaning Cassandra even though Steph's been BG for two years.

Which turned out to be kinda needless- Odyssey WW is a one-storyline wonder who never stayed on one power level long enough to debate until she's practically back to classic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by King Kandy
I hate the term classic. To me classic means the oldest version. It wouldn't call post-crisis "classic" when most of the characters had already had decades of history by that time... Hell, superman was over 50 years old when the crisis hit. Hardly "classic".

I think we should always tie it to a specific event. That way there is no confusion where one starts and one ends.

I have an alternate idea that carries this goal out, with four designations:

pre-1956 (golden age)
pre-1985 (pre-crisis)
pre-2011 (post-crisis)
post-2011 (rebooted)

with this system, there would be no vagueness in which showings are valid.

Originally posted by Badabing

Does everyone agree with KK's post above?

I think that works fine.

I'm about to like the new reboot. I already ordered the 52 titels 😄.

Yeah, I agree too.

If the "retcon" turns out to be short lived and brings back most of what came before the soft reboot, maybe we can reconsider later...

Although if I had my way, I'd make GL's an exception. Even between the pre and post crisis eras, they hardly got affected at all, and it looks like they're going to be largely unaffected by this new reboot as well.. (Maybe some of the feats were a little crazier, sure, but compared to Pre Crisis Superman...?)

Originally posted by Badabing
Does everyone agree with KK's post above?

Aye

^ I think it's best.

See you guys in 24 years when it's re-rebooted

A character's origin ALONE shouldn't necessarily change their other history. I think they should be argued as the same UNLESS or UNTIL clear evidence points otherwise.

Otherwise, we would have 100's of duplicate threads instead of using the same ones. Plus I'm pretty sure that most characters are going to keep the same power set and power level anyway (maybe not all though).

Lastly, just for the sake of having good debates on KMC, it would probably be best to at least allow the character's post crisis feats, at least in the beginning (until enough time has past for the character to build enough feats on their own). Otherwise, no D.C. character wouldn't have a leg to stand on for a debate. It would be an automatic win for a Marvel character or at least a inconclusive debate until months to years pass building up the D.C. character.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think they should be argued as separate characters, just like pre vs post crisis.

This

Originally posted by h1a8

Lastly, just for the sake of having good debates on KMC, it would probably be best to at least allow the character's post crisis feats, at least in the beginning (until enough time has past for the character to build enough feats on their own). Otherwise, no D.C. character wouldn't have a leg to stand on for a debate. It would be an automatic win for a Marvel character or at least a inconclusive debate until months to years pass building up the D.C. character.

Why should this matter?

It goes for any character with few established feats vs one with a larger pool that the latter may have a distinct advantage.

What does it matter if its an entire company's worth just because it's DC? A DC vs Marvel debate doesn't have to be 'fair' just because they are both prominent.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Why should this matter?

It goes for any character with few established feats vs one with a larger pool that the latter may have a distinct advantage.

What does it matter if its an entire company's worth just because it's DC? A DC vs Marvel debate doesn't have to be 'fair' just because they are both prominent.

I agree with this. I also think that DC needed this reboot...badly. I think everything will go well and I also believe that this will give q lot of other characters the spotlight to shine.

H1 is just angry because he can't use 50 earth weight anymore.

^Actually it have been 257+ Earth weights, he forgot the Sun and the Moon in his calculations, also he didn't consider the Dark Matter and the influence of the Dark Energy and earth rotation....

I'd say that every character not pertaining to the Batman or Green Lantern family of titles, should be considered as a new version entirely and none of the prior 'feats' to be admissable. But for the other two, an emphasis was put on nothing changing for them so at the very least, the last few years of their titles should still be in continuity. Even in the reboot, they're literally continuing where they left off (Sinestro as a GL, Hal banished after killing Krona, Kyle making a team of the 'ranbow' corps, Dick back to Nightwing, Batman Inc. relaunching from where it left off etc.). Not to mention that, again, it's the same writers who've been prior to the reboot on the titles (Johns, Tomasi and Tony Bedard for the GL, and Morrison, Scott Snyder, Tony Daniel for the Bat-family) and both sides have said everything stays the same. None of the JLA or other type of appearances should count in any way, though.

When is Marvel doing a reboot? They don't need it as bad but it would he helpful.

Originally posted by carver9
When is Marvel doing a reboot? They don't need it as bad but it would he helpful.

EDIT: Actually I like the DC reboot because now I can directly get into the new universe ad don't have to read a shitload of issues that I missed over the years before I liked DC.

Just read the new JL, and i got to say am ****ing pump, especially when Darkseid name was mentioned and Superman made his appearance by busting through Hal shields.

But i was let down when Batman for some ****ing reason was able to remove Hal ring. I was like, really, ****ing really.

Originally posted by carver9
When is Marvel doing a reboot? They don't need it as bad but it would he helpful.

Marvel needs one MORE.

Originally posted by carver9
When is Marvel doing a reboot? They don't need it as bad but it would he helpful.

Hopefully never.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Hopefully never.

I agree with the KK (but not the KKK). I didn't read it before my other post though.

^ lol wtf?