Thursday, October 6, 2011

The Content of DC's 52 Relaunch

Doug: As you may know, I've sworn off new comics. I've been on the wagon for well over five years -- could be quite a bit more. I'm middle-aged now -- losing track of time is what I do. So since I'm not reading any of the new DC's, but am always intrigued to keep somewhat abreast of what's happening, I was very interested to read a blog via CNN yesterday. The author decided to read each of the first issues of the 52 new DC books, and gives his report and general feelings about it. You can check it out here. When you're done, come on back over here and start a conversation with your own opinions.

Have a great Thursday!


Dougie said...

That litany of gratuitous violence and salacious content is just depressing. DC's output has been,in the main, tasteless and wrongheaded since "Identity Crisis" in 2004 and this confused 90s-flavoured "relaunch" sounds like more of the same-and worse.

dogspunk said...

I've only read 4 of them, but none of these used terrorists. Animalman was compelling. Wonder Woman mythic and exciting. Batwoman was fortunately not rebooted, just re-numbered. And Action comics was the first time that I actually felt like Superman really is a man of the people, not a holy icon.
I've never been a DC fan, but each of these left me wanting to read the next issue.

Doug said...

I'll echo Dougie's sentiments. I'll watch an R-rated film if I want this sort of "entertainment". I mainly just want the good guys to be good guys, and the bad guys to be interesting. A lot of the stuff that makes up today's television fare -- you can have it. I have a mind -- I am perfectly able to handle subtleties and implications on my own. Good writers/artists know how to get the point across without being in-your-face. I'll always reference "Jaws". That movie was full of suspense, and you didn't see the shark until it was 3/4 over. But Spielberg got the point across quite well.


Dino said...

I'm a DC fan of long standing,30 years or so, and my tastes are much more rooted in the 70's and 80's. That being said, comics are a business, and I understand DC's need to 'update' their line. If they want to make characters more appealing to kids, more relevant, changes have to be made. Most of its not for me, but thats ok. All the stories I like won't be going anywhere, I can re-read them whenever I choose.
television, film, and music is much more sexualised and violent than it used to be, so I guess comics are just reflecting that as well.. (and Image in the 1990's were the main culprits for extreme violence and t&a way before DC)

Dougie said...

I completely get what Dino is saying.Of course this material isn't marketed to me.But my point is I don't think DC IS making its characters more appealing to kids.

Yes, mass media is more sexualised and violent and adolescent. Is it entertaining though? Is it acceptable that my five-year-old nephew can't read Batman comics because they're marketed to 30-year-old men? I have nothing new to add to this old story but I beleive DC isn't having a party with its New 52: it's a wake.

Related Posts with Thumbnails