COMICS: Relaunch Of DC Universe Is Apparently NOT A Reboot!

Interesting. . .
Now I have another topic to nerd out about while waiting in line for First Class.

that guy has 12 penises. "it's not a reboot, its an all new DC universe where the previous one doesn't exist!" Jack monster pies, I have no idea what to think of this...

i only read two dc books so i'm not that bothered how this turns out.

if i don't like it,i won't read it.

simple!

thank god, lol.

LMAO @Intruder - that's correct. A lot of people have been harping something about what's Marvel done so far and it's supposedly DC's move... Some of the titles do need the relaunch/reboot though - DC don't have Superman 100 percent now so it makes sense to make some changes. I never liked him with Lois Lane anyhow - with the sun powering him, he's basically immortal and she's not.

How the heck is Lane still alive anyway after having sex with him? :P

@ToughGrappler: Marvel with realism??? LMAO, for real??? What comics have you been smoking boy??? Wanna talk boring (yet inconsistent) "realism", take a look at TDK.

Someone find a pic of the new Superman from this.

@Nephillim

That is as valid a prediction as any at this point but the only problem is why do Batman and Green Lantern not look like their movie versions in the above pick?

Yeah I wanna see Superman's new costume. Instead of giving him a new costume, they should work on his lame ass disguise.

i thought this was clear, it's not a reboot, the current arcs and stories that are going will continue as they normally would. the next issue is simply going to be a different number.

And I'm still confused...

Ollie Queen or GTFO.

@ToughGrappler - I'm not that much of a die hard Marvelite. While they do tend to try to "ground" their characters with some realism despite the fact it's impossible to do so, they still don't over-reach too much... at least not when I was an avid reader until work and RL bogged ME down. I've always like most of the '90's and early 2000 adventures of their more SCI-FI characters like Dr Strange, Silver Surfer, Thor, and Fantastic Four. The only realism I see Spider-Man having back then was the human part of him and his problems with how his double life stressed him out and more often than not... the tragedies he went through that built him up into the hero is was in a coldly brutal universe. From what I can see - despite the tones, it wasn't too bogged down with "realism" - at least not the way I think you mean - there are TONS of fantastical elements in it. Having actual Gods mucking about doesn't say much about realism. It's pretty much how Intruder explains it.

I don't know what you mean about TDK. If you mean by unrealistic as a defined "Super Hero" in a movie, then yes it was. They bogged it with too much "realism" as TDK fanatics say... and left no room for comic book fantasy. It got way too serious and turned part of itself into an explanatory film monologue about their personal ideologies. As a film in general, it was OK - the acting was close to top notch as can be - Ledger's performance was creepy great. There were a few plot holes that weren't explained very well and defied common sense (some of which has been discussed here a ton of times already, so you probably know what I'm talking about).

The part that bored me was the fact it moved way too drastically away from what Batman was as a mythological figure that the parent comic book always portrays. There was barely anything in it that screamed to me that he was someone "larger than life" except in the end and it came from Gordon's mouth. That was the only time that it felt like a "Super Hero" movie to me.

Despite the great acting, Ledger was just a guy who was a frigging psycho wearing makeup in the end - and Bale (with a voice that ruined Batman's mystique in the movie with a sound that would have gotten him laughed at in the real world in that getup) ended up looking like a guy wearing a batsuit trying to be Batman. Most of the time when he was in the suit felt rushed, IMO. Even in Batman Begins (which seemed to be a better film as the story flow wasn't as jarring as it's sequel), they missed out on one of the most important aspect of what Batman was other than an ass-kicker: a Detective. That side was rarely (if it ever really was) shown and glossed over. More than once, he had relied on Lucius Fox and stuff laying about in R&D storage for backup. I've seen the film for a total of three times - first for pure entertainment, second to get the feel of the story, and third to break it down and analyze it technically... it was at the third time I saw it in that light that I realized it wasn't all that.

For DC as a whole (disregarding TDK), I agree with you about it's ideas on fiction. Compared to Marvel, most of their characters ARE larger than life... and rightly so. Marvel looks into the human condition and trying to make it better while living in it, while DC looks into the human aspiration of something better and aiming for it.

@earz - some of us would rather suck on boobs and vagine - but whatever floats YOUR boat, it's your preference. LMAO

DC ultimates!

Hey ToughGrappler, can you [or anyone] tell me who drew that Hawkman cover? That pic looks bad ass!!!

Thanks!