How is any new reader supposed to pick up a DC (or Marvel) comic now and even have a clue. Batman as an example:

-4 Robins; 1 who's now Nightwing, 2 dead, 1 back from the dead, 1 a female, 2 Batgirls, 1 in a wheelchair, 1 gone bad, now good?, 1 Batwoman who's a lesbian, Batman with a son (originally held by editors for years to be out of continuity), Ra's dead now alive, multiple Gotham protectors in Huntress, etc., Gotham burned, earthquaked, plaqued by virus, back broken and healed, numerous love-affairs in Silver St. Cloud, Shondra Kinsloving, Vicki Vale, etc.; how many peolpe have discovered the Cave, know Bruce is Batman, how many have filled in as Batman, Alfred gone and back, Commissioner Gordon old young, old, young, old, retired, back?: Joker dead, reformed, escaped how many times?

And this is a short list. You clould go through Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Flash as well.

Nothing makes sense and everything is weighed down. It's senseless to continue a habitual program of "bold new directions" followed by "back-to-basics" crapola.

If you want your product to live you need to seek new readers and this is the only way. Sales-wise, yeah some people would find it a perfect jumping-off point, but most people would be intrigued.

The biggest thing they need to do is PLAN! My personal view is that a comic universe should start from scratch every 20-25 years. This would do a number of things: you can re-imagine and make characters entirely relevant for a new era, you attract new readers, you can wrap up storylines without loads of conflicting continuity.

The big thing is not repeating storylines. I entirely agree with the comment about "how long until Dick Grayson becomes Nightwing?" This must be avoided at all costs. It's a new universe and you can't have re-writes. Nobody wants to read about Jason Todd getting killed by the Joker again.

I, for example, wouldn't even want to see a Batgirl again.

One of the problems nowadays that I see is that certain stories that were purposely written out of continuity were done so well that they have adversely affected the day-to-day writing of too many titles. The Dark Knight Returns comes immediatle to mind. Batman became as jackass happened because too many writers looked at this story as what "will happen."

Kingdom Come has also had a very detrimental influence as it seems the future of the DCU is being purposely shepherded in this direction despite the fact that that was never the original intention.

I was happy years ago when old characters were aged and replaced. Kyle Rayner as the new Green Lantern and Connor Hawke as the new Green Arrow for example. Then they undid it all and put the originals back. Now they're doing it all again with Blue Beetle, the Question and others.

Who can follow this? Blow it up and start over. Focus on self-contained 3-5 issue story arcs and focus on just telling a good story.
-
"Epic"-writing is a huge problem and I'm sick of it. I always look at something like 10 Nights of the Beast. Do you really think that would be 4 issues today? Oh no. It would be 10 issues. Get it? GET IT? 10 nights? 10 issues? GET IT!!!???? And consequently it would suck.

I hate decompressed story-telling. DCU is just a soap opera. Leave for a few years and come back. Tons has happened and yet nothing has happened. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Also go back to putting stories into regular titles. I'm sick of Prestige-format stories for stuff that should be in the regular titles. The way Year 1,2, and 3 were.

I really think Marvel nailed this perfectly with their Ultimate line, and if rumors are any indication, J.J. Abrams may be about to nail this perfectly with his new Star Trek film.

Ideally, Infinite Crisis would have ended with a multiverse and a "new" DC universe that starts with Clark Kent becoming Superman. The "old" DCU would have gone on, perhaps to end with this Final Crisis, perhaps not; regardless, it's there for fans who want to wallow in their continuity.

The new DCU is there to give us all these classic characters in a fresh, uncluttered context. Done well by the right team, this is a great notion; there are expectations to play with, but also a full open field for new stories.

From a sales perspective, you basically get to keep all your current books going, maybe trimming some fat, and then launch an all NEW set of books that can sell alongside the current books.

(I also think it'd be neat if for Supes and Batman, the split was signified in their flagship titles; maybe Detective Comics is the home of the "new" Batman, and Action Comics is the home of the "new" Superman, with either continued numbering or (gulp) new number ones.)

Anyway. I agree with those who say neither DC nor Marvel has the guts to do this, but more importantly, they don't have the need. They're selling plenty with their current game which can only end badly.

Now when that next market crash comes, and I think more and more that it will, we'll see a creative gamble like this one seem appealing to the powers that be. Until then, there's no reason to risk anything, because the rewards just keep on coming regardless.

FGJ - True, but DC has done a lot of things with their timeline, and they may have ended Superman's story...but then Superman's story was retold with John Byrne's "Man of Steel" storyline, and then retold again with Mark Waid's "Birthright." I'm talking about truly ENDING a title - no more Spider-Man as an ongoing, for instance. Like, maybe some ten, twenty or thirty years from now...the saga of Peter Parker as an active superhero - DONE. Sure you could go back and tell out of continuity stories every so often, but the ongoing title is finished.

Rohan - I think those are supposed to be hypothetical/non-canon deals. I can't say for sure because I barely pay attention to them.

I took at peek at the books after the restart, for nostalgia's sake, but gave up when I discovered the slow decompressed story-telling and lateness.

But on the other hand, I think the Marvel Universe is unique in a way that the universe ITSELF is more important than the heroes/villains/characters that inhabits it. What I mean to say is, if it were done right, you could conceivably phase out one generation of characters, bring in a new generation of characters and people would still enjoy it. Much like what happened w/ Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Actually, DC has had much more success with that then Marvel ever has.

"If you really want novelty, kill off the current universe, and then start from scratch with all-new characters. No Batman, no Superman, nothing that came before. It wouldn’t sell for crap, of course, but hey, it’d be new!"

I kind of agree with this, but I think that approach would be something I'd be willing to try with the Marvel Universe. Because I think the DC Universe is defined BY its main characters: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, along with there being A Flash, and A Green Lantern, etc.

But on the other hand, I think the Marvel Universe is unique in a way that the universe ITSELF is more important than the heroes/villains/characters that inhabits it. What I mean to say is, if it were done right, you could conceivably phase out one generation of characters, bring in a new generation of characters and people would still enjoy it. Much like what happened w/ Star Trek: The Next Generation.

It would take a lot of courage and dedication - that is to say, make the decision and DON'T LOOK BACK - but I would love to see Marvel in particular, at some point, and with just some of their characters...END THEIR STORY.

And each individual title would tell you whether or not their story has a finite end. Their endings have pretty much written themselves. I could see Spider-Man having himself a happy ending - and thanks to a title like "Amazing Spider-Girl," the story of the Parker family gets to continue. Daredevil is just a tragedy at heart, so eventually I could see Matt Murdock's story ending in death and heartbreak. Titles like the Avengers and X-Men on the other hand could keep on going, because so long as there's a group of heroes willing to band together to fight the good fight, there can always be Avengers. And as long as we live in a society full of bigotry and discord, there can always be X-Men.

And the way that this happens would take probably the biggest act of courage in today's atmosphere: you let the characters age. But you do so, naturally, at a MUCH slower rate. Which is kind of in place in a fashion, even if it isn't official.

For example, you could easily suppose that if Peter Parker were 15 in 1962 - like he says when he unmasked himself in Civil War #2 - judging by the way he acts in 2007, you could easily see him as a man in his late 20s to early 30s now. Roughly, you could say he's aged something like 3 years in comic book time for every 10 years of real time. If you keep that kind of 3:10 ratio, you've still got PLENTY of stories to tell with these characters, and plenty of time to create new characters that can both endear themselves to fans and move t-shirts.

And there's no reason why the first generation would lose any marketability. Take a look at Dragon Ball. There's a story that ENDED, but there's no shortage of merchandise there, right?

This would take a great deal of commitment, and there's any number of reasons why it won't happen. But I bet it would go a long way towards making comics fun again. I know I'D sure like to see it.

Having said that, my personal preference runs toward the completely OTT Bond movies. I get that they're not really faithful to the books, but they just make for a great time at the movies. I can't go past the tank scene in 'Goldeneye' or the parachute scene in 'Moonraker' for sheer entertainment.

I understand the argumentation for a reboot but it wouldn't matter, alround repetition would soon be the case. Plus, you already have these self-contained 'reboots', AllStar and Ultimate are, as you mentioned, very much like that. So why cancel out the regular line? Disregard your investment in the character if you don't like the comic, pick it up again when they start telling a story that interests you. There are far too much good comics to stick with the shitty ones. Just stop reading it if you stop enjoying it, that's the only real answer. Bring your bucks to a title you do like.

Anyway, because nobody asked, here's my list of the bonds in their best film...

Sean Connery - You Only Live Twice
It's a toss up between this and From Russia With Love, but I think the Rold Dahl script just pushes it over the line - and even watching it these days, the volcano base still seems fresh.

Roger Moore - For Your Eyes Only
Really bloody good, which is odd if you see the films either side of it.

Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights*
Even though he disappears to start a plane up for like 10mins in a big action scene, one of my fave Bonds - it's got a good mix of everything.

Pierce Brosnan - Die Another Day
I'd liked Brosnan as Bond, but apart from Tomorrow Never Dies, the actual films themselves left me cold - this one was so fun, that even once he rejoins with the secret service and it starts to get silly, I really didn't mind at all, not even surfing the giant wave (and it takes a lot for me to overlook silliness)

*This depends on my mood though - Living Daylights is more enjoyable as a whole, but License To Kill ruled my teens with it's portrayal of a rouge Bond with nothing left to lose.

I can see why you say that Bond readers liked Dalton, but it was different to me. Being a young'un in the 80's and 90's, I really loved Bond films, back then it was Roger Moore who I loved.
However, when they had TV repeats, in the dark years before the Brosnan films (seeing a trailer for Goldeneye almost made sitting through Water World worth it), it was the Dalton films that had Bond as I remembered them.
As a kid you missed that a lot of the Moore stuff was corny and tongue in cheek (and often very sleazy), and so I remembered them as cool spy flicks, and on re-watching was very disappointed, where as the Dalton films were exactly what I remembered watching a Bond film to be like (even if my memory was wrong).

Dalton is easily the best of all the Bonds, and most interesting to watch as well - watch the Living Daylights and see how he takes a script written for Moore, and totally changes the character...

No argument from me. My personal theory is that Dalton is the favorite of anyone who came to the character through the Fleming books and THEN found the movies; at least, that's why I like him. He is the closest to Fleming's Bond. Though I adored Casino Royale, and I admire Daniel Craig a great deal, I think Dalton made for a better Bond overall. Dalton can do the warmth and charm along with the ruthlessness. Though, again, they're both very good. And I like Brosnan too. The trouble is that the Bond actors I like best are almost never in the Bond movies I like best. If I had some magic way of inserting the newer Bonds in the older movies, I would have loved to see Dalton's Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, or Brosnan's in Goldfinger. Sigh.

If the better-received comics are the ones that don't rely on shared continuity at all, why not do more of those? Just say "From now on, the Flash (or Aquaman or Iron Man or whoever) is not going to do any crossovers." And then reboot the character (or don't, I'm not sure if it matters) and see if it helps. (In terms of sales, I'm not sure it does at this point, but I do think we'll eventually reach that point.)

Rebooting would cost DC way too much money because of the sheer amount of titles that would have to be cancelled for the plan to mean anything, and deprive way too many people of their favourite characters for way too long while they wait for them to be re-introduced into the new DCU.

You have to be able to have your cake and eat it too for this sort of thing to work, which is what makes the Ultimate and All-Star lines so cool.

I don't want to read the introduction of the joker over and over.

All books should just first be released as trades.

If i'm not into my mainstream comics at the time, then I switch to indie, and vice versa.

Rebooting doesn't sound like a good idea, continuity is repeating itself, so lets just embrace repetition anyway seems like too sad a defeat.

The characters are fine the way they are, they just get taken to places where they ought not have gone in the first place, or maybe where they should have gone.
Human Error.

With James Bond - I just had to wait until a better creative team came on board, or in his case, an old creative team who did a pretty good job the first time around.

People don't remember continuity, but they do remember good stories. Catching up is simply a matter of Wikipedia.

This IS the solution. Period. But, unfortunately, Marvel and DC just don't have the balls to do it. They are both corporately owned bitches, who answer to their stockholders and board of directors, not the fans and retailers.

A move like this would, in the short term, probably cost them money, as some of these older fans left the books out of resentment/disgust/bordom. And to rekindle the interest of the new and younger audience would take some time and a lot of effort (not to mention a few bucks). The stockholders aren't going to wait around to see a return in their investment, because the company is trying to right itself. And Marvel and DC know this.

So, they will forego doing what needs to be done, opting instead to grab up the quick short-term gains they can to keep stockholders and the board of directors happy. As to the damage they will be causing from such short-term thinking? Heck, we'll worry about it when it happens (and hopefully I won't be the one in charge when it happens). That's the mentality of things today and I don't see that changing any time soon.

There’s one thing that might work, though. What if what happened right before the reboot was - like ‘Whatever Happened To the Man of Tomorrow?’, only more so - the ultimate tie-up-loose-ends happy ending? All the bad guys in the clink, all the relationships resolved, no more stories to tell with these characters? That might not be so bad.

That was actually my idea. Sorry, should have made it clearer; I've tidied up the original text a little to clarify the idea. Finish, THEN re-start. Because the best example of when this worked RIGHT was that Superman instance. Hordes of new readers and also newly-interested older ones.

Reboots alienate readers because they just STOP the old stories, cut them off and don't finish them. "Reboot" is probably not the best word for what I'm describing. I mean really END, put as much talent into the ENDING as companies currently do toward a re-start, then BEGIN ANEW. Decide what you keep and what you don't. You know, like you actually had a plan. Think about the marketing possibilities and the reader interest you can generate by milking the idea of A) letting everyone know that this is where everything resolves, and then B) making sure everyone knows this is the chance to get in at the beginning. I think THAT is the real lesson of Marvel's Ultimate line. How many new OLDER readers showed up for that? It stopped being the kid's entry-level line about three months in. Instead it became New Marvel.

I'm suggesting doing it on purpose instead of by accident. That's really all it is.

...although, really, in all honesty I do mostly agree with Mr. Seavey about the superhero audience, too. But I already did that column.

Seriously, the biggest mistake DC and Marvel have made over the last twenty-five years is in chasing the older dollar. Trying to keep increasingly jaded and cynical fans interested in comics, instead of looking to find the next generation of comics fans, has become an insoluble problem (as discussed in this column.)

Ultimately, fans at some point just have to accept the fact that repetition is a part of any long-term publishing venture, and either enjoy the stories for what they are or move on. Because you're not going to get comics written specifically for fans who've read every single comic written in the last 40 years (or at the very least, you shouldn't. It's a disastrous business move for the publisher if you do.) And some people will say, "That's boring! That's formulaic! That's not for me!" To which DC/Marvel should say, "Yep! Sounds like you've outgrown our comics. Hope you enjoyed them while you were a kid. By the way, have you looked at our Vertigo/MAX line?"