For example, Newsarama.com, whenever posters with similar views like yours and/or mine put their two cents in regarding either Barry Allen being the Flash again or a recent poll for who should be Batgirl, its the very same aging fanboys you mentioned that become ignorant and makes a poor attempt in ripping one or more posters a new one for trying to state the obvious. Despite the fact that folks like Geoff Johns, Judd Winick and Grant Morrison are good writers, they're only adding to this type of problem and it's not doing DC any favors when it comes to sales and readership either (i.e.Infinite Crisis, One Year Later, Final Crisis,etc.).

I've been reading comics for ten years now and, yes I never grew up with Barry Allen nor Hal Jordan, but I did buy some old back issues featuring them. They were cool before my time, but years later (including the 90s and today), not so much. I grew up with both Wally West and Kyle Rayner. Hell, I even adore Dick Grayson as Nightwing a lot more than him Robin, Cassandra Cain as Batgirl and with Marvel, the Spider-Man/Mary-Jane marriage. I feel that people like Dan Didio and Joe Quesada are destroying the stuff that worked post-Crisis or other events before they were promoted like DC's post-Crisis continuity. Dick Grayson shouldn't be Batman, there should't be a "New Krypton" nor bringing back the Multiverse , and Spider-Man/Peter Parker shouldn't make a deal with some devil by throwing his marriage to MJ in favor of keeping Aunt May alive, making him some kind of "Mama's Boy" or in that case "Auntie's Boy".

You summed it up perfectly when you stated that things are back to the way they were when we were growing up, and that makes us comfortable and the rest of you(including Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and the rest), suck it. Even though I never grew up with the Multiverse, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan and eveything else before I was born, doesn't mean I really want those stuff back and ruin it for those who were interested in new modern age stories. Thus, I stopped reading mainstream DC and currently reading other comics like Hellblazer(DC/Vertigo) and (from Dynamite) The Boys.

Those type of aging fanboys is making every fanboy like you and/or me look bad in the long run. Sad,but true.

It briefly crossed my mind when I wrote that bit about aging fanboys, I might tick somebody off but I went for it anyway. I thought it was obvious that, yep, I am an aging fanboy, so much that when I was typing that, I had a big ironic grin on my face--which you would've seen if you had just bothered to hack into the streaming webcam I keep pointed at me from on top of my monitor at all times (just kidding). I'm not going to say exactly how aging I am, mind you, but from the things Greg Hatcher posts in his "Friday" column, it looks like he and I were shopping in the same sort of places at pretty much the same time.

My point was that aging fanboys have gotten a bad reputation, and quite a bit of it is deserved. It's not all of us, heck, it may not even be most of us, but it is enough to give the rest of us a bad name. Not all of us want to see "realistic" grim 'n' gritty in our faces all of the time, not all of us are bitching that our childhood is being raped, and not all of us want things to always be exactly the same as when we were growing up.

I've often heard of the 10-15 Year Rule, the illusion of change, that stories and characters in comics always start to recycle about that time, and when you notice it, it's time for you to quit reading funny books, grow up, move on, and let the younguns take over. I think that's hogwash, and if it is true, then it is very lazy and cynical on the part of the publishers and creators who follow it. It also does a disservice to the medium as a whole. While it is important that some comics always be suitable and available to kids, it doesn't necessarily mean that all comics should be that way. Much is made in America that in many places over the rest of the world, there is no stigma to adults reading comics or (don't hurt me, Eddie Campbell!) graphic novels, or whatever you want to call them. In places other than America, comics aren't just a medium for kids, we whine, but then accept the 10-15 Year Rule as gospel and snicker at the grownups caught looking at the funny books. It's a self-defeating standard.

Of course, there are those who insist that it's not the medium itself that is the problem, it's the aging fanboys who are still reading mainstream corporate comics about super heroes who should be ridiculed. This is also a view I reject. It is true that there is much more to the medium than stories about people wearing bright costumes hitting other people in bright costumes, and it is well worth your time to seek some of it out. After all, not to do so would be like eating every meal at Pizza Hut; yes, Pizza Hut is yummie, but gee, don't you ever wonder even a little bit about what's over at El Pollo Loco every now and then?

That still doesn't mean that super heroes should be collectively dismissed as juvenile. If stories about super heroes should only be created for and read by children, then why was one of the most universally praised fantasy stories of the past few years written by Grant Morrison, illustrated by Frank Quitely and Jamie Grant, and based entirely around Superman, the quintessential super hero?

Unfortunately, it really seems that the portion of aging fanboys who would rather look backward than forward, the ones who insist on merely the illusion of change, are the ones who are running things right now at DC and Marvel. The characters worked better the way they were back then, they say. The readers can't identify with the characters the way they are now, they say. The continuity has just gotten too complicated for everyone, they say--and then fix it by making things even more complicated. It's magic, they say, we don't have to explain it. Things are back to the way they were in 1976, Thor is in his Asgard, and all is right with the world. In short, things are back to the way they were when we were growing up, and that makes us comfortable. The rest of you, suck it.

That is why aging fanboys have gotten such a bad name, and that is why, even though I grew up with Barry Allen as the Flash, I still never particularly wished for him to come back, and would have instead much more preferred to simply have new and better stories told about Wally West. Thank you, and good night.

And I am new to hobby so can I call you an aging fanboy?

I already called myself one.

And WE are the ones who use "pretentious grad school dissertation language"? And I am new to hobby so can I call you an aging fanboy?

And I think Morrison comics read less like pretentious grad school dissertations and more like stories written by the world's smartest kindergartner. By which I mean they are insightfully imaginative.

What made the Broome-Kangier-Infantino stories cool was how they captured the Jet Age. The world was in the process of becoming smaller because it was moving faster. That had all the displacing effects that you would expect. People from strange cultures showed up and “normal” people got weird ideas. The Silver Age Rogue’s Gallery was packed with those stories. Captain Boomerang was from Australia and Abra Kadabra was from the future. Golden Glider was a “good girl” turned into a “freak” by her boyfriend The Top. Barry Allen was the country club duffer trying to reconcile the hip and square worlds.

I'm sorry, but the last thing I want is more Morrisonish comic books that read like a pretentious grad school dissertation. Kids who loves Broome/Kanigher/Infantino books for all the cutting-edge sci-fi commentary, they liked them because they were wacky, fun, brightly colored and had lots of asskicking and superpowers. The intellectually masturbatory commentary is what adult self-described intellectuals have to reframe the old work as to justify their need to still consume such stuff as grown men.

Put like that, it really does sound a lot like that Aging Fanboy Syndrome.

I am really getting sick of the whole "aging fanboy" and "fanmen" criticisms that keep getting tossed at people by elitist progressive superhero comic fans. How are you NOT an aging fanboy yourself? Unless you are a teenager or someone new to the hobby, you are an aging fanboy yourself. We all are. We are grown men who got into a kids hobby as kids and could not let it go as we entered into adulthood. So one group of us calling out the other for being stuck in the past, unable to grow up and move on, etc, is ridiculous. You know what growing up and moving on means? Being like superhero comic book fans of yesterday and just staying in the hobby during our adolscence, then moving on to traditionally adult pursuits and leaving the childhood hobbies intact for the next generation of adolescents to discover and enjoy the way we did. We are ALL aging fanboys and fanmen, whether we are Busiek reading Silver Age fetishists that like books recycling our childhood or Morrisonites that love throwing out grad school dissertation language and techspeak buzzwords when discussing something as ridiculously simple and fun as a superhero book.

With all due respect, I don't see why. The vast majority of people who know the Flash from both comics and the "Justice League" cartoons know him as Wally. A very good argument could even be made that the lead character in the 80s "Flash" TV series was a lot more like Wally West despite being named Barry Allen.

"Seriously, with all these similarities, why are people making this out to be such a jarring change? They’ve become interchangeable. So why not just bring the real Barry Allen back instead of the watered down Barry Allen?"

If the characters really are that similar, why go through the continuity hoop-jumping required to bring Barry back? It would be a heck of a lot simpler to just concentrate on telling new and better stories with Wally than to have to explain why Barry would want to give up his being-oneness-with-all-of-Creation (or whatever) for another throwdown with Captain Cold or Gorilla Grodd in front of the Third National Bank in Central City.

Adding insult to injury, Wally has now apparently been demoted from the JLA back to the Titans, a team originally formed of teen sidekicks, which is kind of like growing up, getting a cool job, and then giving it up to move back in with your parents, read comic books and complain about how things aren't as good as they used to be. Put like that, it really does sound a lot like that Aging Fanboy Syndrome. That, or the Byrne Board.

Sorry, but that is not true. Kyle was given his power ring by a Guardian of Galaxy, which connected him directly back to Hal’s back-story and antagonists. Kyle was new only to the extent that he had his supporting cast. The basic concept was the as it had been since Julie Schwartz was editing the title. Couple that with the fact Ron Marz was a cosmic writer at Marvel and you have limited appeal for people who weren’t already Green Lantern fans. The title was remarkably successful all things considered.

It was pretty different. He was picked totally at random, not because of any big search for a noble, courageous or fearless individual like the past Lanterns were. He was just the guy who was in the right place at the right time. He had no contact with the Guardians, just with one Guardian, who was pretty much an atypical Gaurdian to begin with, Ganthet. And he wasn't an "employee" of Ganthet either, he was pretty much a free agent. He barely knew Hal and didn't meet him until later in the run. His connections to Hal and the Guardians were as superficial as you could make them and still reasonably call the title Green Lantern. He was a sole Green Lantern in the universe rather than a part of a Corps, and his ring had no yellow weakness. His constructs were hip and avant-garde things like manga creations, fancy guns, tanks, and cool ass robots rather than bubbles, big hands and things like Hal used to use. I mean you have to have SOME connection to the Guardians if he's going to have a power ring and some connection to Hal if he's taking over the job as GL of earth, but they made the connection as slight as they could.

I love both the Silver Age Marvels and DCs, but calling them “radically different” is an over-statement.

I didn't mean that the Marvel characters were radically different from each other. I meant that in the early days of Marvel, their books were radically different from DC's. Marvel's characters weren't radically different from each other, but they were certainly unique. If you read the dialogue from a Fantastic Four comic with any reference to names and powers removed, you can still spot when the Thing is talking, when Johnny Storm is talking, when Reed is talking, etc. This was not the case with the pre-Marvel DC Silver Age books.

As for Stark and alcohol, I think I would be placated if we actually saw a struggle beyond that initial mention at the beginning of Fraction's run. As it is, his not drinking doesn't seem heroic, because the issue isn't being addressed.

And for anyone curious, I didn't see the white coat lady today--but a combination of one bus being early and another being a little late meant I caught the previous bus on the schedule coming home...

I’d like to get back to that way of thinking– a new Flash, a scientist, maybe a hadron collider or a tachyon drive or a quantum something-something, a bolt of lightning, an accident– and you’ve got a new Flash for a weirder future.

I was, in fact, quoting Alan Moore talking about his Steam Punk series, "Tom Strong". It probably turned up other places as well, but it is really apt when discussing The Flash.

What made the Broome-Kangier-Infantino stories cool was how they captured the Jet Age. The world was in the process of becoming smaller because it was moving faster. That had all the displacing effects that you would expect. People from strange cultures showed up and "normal" people got weird ideas. The Silver Age Rogue's Gallery was packed with those stories. Captain Boomerang was from Australia and Abra Kadabra was from the future. Golden Glider was a "good girl" turned into a "freak" by her boyfriend The Top. Barry Allen was the country club duffer trying to reconcile the hip and square worlds.

I'd happily read new stories set in the late-50s and early 60s addressed those themes in a more adult fashion. However, that isn't what DiDio is doing. He is trying to wind the clock back, but set everything in the "present day". Like the Green Lantern de-imagining, it might work short term. Adult comic fans love nostalgia after all. Sadly, it forecloses the prospect of doing anything new.

It is a shame, because the internet is making the world smaller yet again.

I disagree. I would not say it could never happen. Similar things have happened in the past, and recently to boot, so why couldn’t they happen again? Kyle Rayner was a hip new Green Lantern for a new age, with no ties to the past Lanterns and hipper, trendier ring constructs thanks to his job as an artist.

Sorry, but that is not true. Kyle was given his power ring by a Guardian of Galaxy, which connected him directly back to Hal's back-story and antagonists. Kyle was new only to the extent that he had his supporting cast. The basic concept was the as it had been since Julie Schwartz was editing the title. Couple that with the fact Ron Marz was a cosmic writer at Marvel and you have limited appeal for people who weren't already Green Lantern fans. The title was remarkably successful all things considered.

Silver Age Marvel and Silver Age DC WERE radically different. ... Personalitywise Batman and Superman and Flash were interchangeable and dull as dishwater. Barry Allen was late all the time, Bruce Wayne pretended to be a fop and Clark Kent pretended to be clumsy.

I love both the Silver Age Marvels and DCs, but calling them "radically different" is an over-statement. Reed Richards, Tony Stark, Don Blake and ... even... Bruce Banner were all very much alike as written by Stan Lee. Jack Kirby and co. drew them very differently, but that is not the same as giving them different personalities in the script. Both DC and Marvel were working from the same four basic templates: the scientist, the soldier, the teenager and the girl. The big innovation of Stan Lee was mixing and matching the roles, which created an illusion of depth.

Conversely, saying that Marvel was about character and DC was about ideas under-rates Stan Lee as an idea generator. Lee, Kirby and Ditko created dozens of totally fresh sci-fi ideas. There were differences, but the character-idea dichotomy just doesn't hold up for me.

Furthermore, if alcohol is used to cloud the mind to avoid thinking troubling thoughts, then the neurological degeneration that's been progressing since Tony performed brain surgery on himself covers that problem in a way that Jack Daniels never could. At the very least, a Flowers for Algernon scenario gives Tony much bigger things to worry about than staying on or off the wagon.

Need to watch the youtube clip when I'm not at work. Edge and Cena are great on the mic and don't need much to rekindle a historically hot feud. WWE lost me at WM - never been a fan of Edge with Vickie, or The Big Show, and I refuse to support McMahon-driven storylines any more.

Young Liars is a phenomenal work.

What Richard said about Stark. The best part of Fraction's work on the character (and on Henry Hellrung from the Order) is his realistic addressing of his addiction.

Aside from being cool-sounding Morrisonesque or Millaresque taglines or interview soundbytes, what exactly do these things mean?

I think "science hero" was a Moore term, actually. In the Silver Age, all the DC heroes had sci-fi origins and sci-fi adventures; they were stories about ideas. I'd like to get back to that way of thinking-- a new Flash, a scientist, maybe a hadron collider or a tachyon drive or a quantum something-something, a bolt of lightning, an accident-- and you've got a new Flash for a weirder future.

RIP Wally West unconnected, diagonal lightning belt. RIP.

Agreed. Everything incidental to the core character (wife, job - although I'm pretty sure Wally's back to just being a hero - financial status, etc.) may be similar to Barry (and, has been joked about several times, to Jay), but Wally himself is a much different character than Barry once you peel back the surface layers. That's largely down to Waid's tenure, starting with Year One (and likely the narration, complete with the catchphrase). The pre-Waid era was about differentiating Wally, but unlike when Marz did it with Kyle, Wally wasn't a blank slate and didn't really need that differentiation to begin with - he was ALREADY a different character, no matter what accouterments you placed around him.

It's not as though you could go into a Waid / Johns script, replace all references to Wally with Barry, and wind up with a product that's indistinguishable from a Barry story. All you'd get would be a story that had people asking "why is Barry so strange?"

[And I still think bringing Hal back was a mistake, it's just that Johns came up with a concept (the Sinestro Corps) that a lot of people got excited about... but one that could've been executed just as easily with Kyle as lead as Hal. GL's current success is largely based on that storyline, and it's one that's pretty much independent of the lead character.]