Has anyone else kind of "peaked" in terms of what you want from TV/movies?

[CyberCubed]

I was just thinking about this the other day how anything I want out of a TV or movie series has either already happened, or was done badly to the point where I don't need to see a continuation.

All the franchises I've followed since I was a kid, like Ninja Turtles, Batman, DC and Marvel superheroes like Superman, X-men, Spider-Man etc, Star Wars, Star Trek, Simpsons and Futurama, various anime like Dragonball Z, Pokemon, movie franchises like Terminator, Jurassic Park, Alien, Ghostbusters, etc....have either all already come back with sequels, reboots, prequels or remakes...and I feel like I've gotten everything I want out of them.

Occasionally I get into new shows, like Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul obviously didn't exist when I was a kid, but then once those shows end I am content.

We've gotten to the point where we have Obi-wan, Boba Fett and Darth Maul actually coming back in canon. A Star Trek series set post-Nemesis. TMNT has had two series like IDW and Nick 2012 cartoon that mixed Mirage characters with Fred Wolf/Playmates characters like people speculated or wanted back when the 4kids series was airing. We have had multiple Batman and Spider-man movie reboots. Futurama already came back from the dead more than once. A Dragonball Super sequel series with Toriyama at the helm which I never in a million years thought would happen after GT bombed.

It's basically gotten to the point where I feel like anything I wanted...has already happened. Or it got botched to the point where I'm content to just move on. Anyone else feel this way?

[sdp]

I posted about this in another thread, as adult you don't get into as much stuff because it doesn't have the wonder it did as a kid, sure it happens from time to time with a franchise but it's rare. It doesn't help that we mostly get reboots rather than new ideas most of the time so there's even less content to go for.

There's still a few things I'd like to see perhaps new versions of or whatever but at this point I don't care about any new superhero cartoon or movies, sure I'll watch them but I can't get excited for Batman Movie 13 knahen I got into Batman Begins in my teens or Forever/&Robin as a kid. Same with TMNT, we've seen so many stories it's hard to get too excited even if I love TMNT. But I'd welcome a new version of Freakazoid for example since it hasn't been rebooted to death but I'd rather have a new show but none have really made me get super excited, I liked Kipo (https://miscrave.com/articles/kipo) and Glitch Techs (https://miscrave.com/articles/glitch-techs/) but not the same as say if I had been a kid.

I'm fine with this as well since as an adult I have other responsibilities and other hobbies which take my time so I don't have time to watch stuff anyway. I'm not all jaded either, if something was surprising enough I'd get hyped up like a little kid again.

Edit:
To add to this I learned from Star Wars and Pokemon that new versions don't ruin what you love, I can still love the version that I liked, I'll always have the things that I love and there's plenty of content from that era for me to enjoy like 90s Star Wars books and whatnot so I can geek out on just that version. A new version won't ruin my childhood, especially if it's a reboot unrelated to it. It hurts more when it was like the sequel trilogy but whatever, I can ignore it, there's more SWs content than I'll ever be able to consume from the era that I do love. Sometimes things just aren't for you anymore. Many hated Episode 1, I was a kid so I loved it, I don't care people who weren't the right age didn't enjoy it, I loved Godzilla 1998 and I feel no shame and I won't call him "Zilla". If I rage over new stuff it's the same exact thing. The SWs sequels suck, who cares, I won't argue with those who like them, I'll just avoid that.


https://i.imgflip.com/6hr6ro.jpg

[Andrew NDB]

Over the past couple of years and the trajectory of the arts and how they've become weaponized by the far left... my hope of seeing truly cool movies of my favorite this or that has become pretty much nil. There would be hope if any of these properties were independently owned still but they're all owned by megacorporations now. Every single one of them. And every one of these corporations can't wait to show you how progressive they are by packing their (largely children's fare) with heroic warrior women talking about their wives or big coming out scenes, changing every redhead to a black person, etc.

[IMJ]

It's actually much the opposite for me. Many of the things that I loved as a kid weren't even remotely in the public consciousness, but are now actually some of the top tier I.P.'s in entertainment. And while that's been really neat in it's own right, the whole thing never peaked for me because I never truly got what I wanted to see.

For me, an Iron Man trilogy with a solid narrative would've been all I could ask for. Iron Man 1, a part two "Armor Wars" and then a Part 3 "Hands of the Mandarin" would've been amazing. We didn't even remotely get close to that.

Another character I'm a hardcore fan of is Quasar. But now it looks like they are putting the Quantum Bands on friggin' Ms. Marvel in that new T.V. show, which is about as bad as it gets for a Quasar fan. On it's own merits, Ms. Marvel would've been fine, but it's that kind of cannibalization and disregard for fans that make the whole thing a sequence of missed beats.

Star Wars came back. And all we heard was "a bunch of 40 year old dudes need to move on". And they did their thing and it sucked.

The list goes on and on. Star Trek. TMNT to some extent. And more.

And so, if I have "peaked" in terms of what I want from TV and Movies, then it's because the peak was in terms of money I'd give these studios because now I don't financially reward them if it even remotely smells of "agenda", "insult", or "disregard" in their output.

[CyberCubed]

For example we've had a lot of Spider-Man live-action movies, to the point where they did the unthinkable and brought Tobey Maguire back, something that would have sounded like ridiculous fanfiction just 5 years ago. The whole Avengers movies in general basically gave people what they wanted when back in the 90's and early 2000's we barely had any "good" superhero movies.

Many TV shows that were canceled like Young Justice, Futurama, etc. all got revived with new seasons that I never thought would happen. We have Star Wars TV shows about Boba Fett and Obi-wan, something that felt like fanfiction.

Ghostbusters Afterlife wrapped up the original cast and was the Ghostbusters 3 people wanted. Terminator is pretty much done into the ground at this point. Jurassic Park is bringing back the original cast for the final movie. Star Trek has been rebooted with movies and a Picard and Pike series.

TMNT has 3 proper cartoons that unless we get a serious Mirage-style show at some point, there's really nothing else they can do but more bizarre Rise of the TMNT type off-shoots that nobody really wants. And after the IDW comic ends, I don't even want to know what they'll do to reboot TMNT comics after that.

[Prowler]

Depends what stuff you're into, I'd say.

As someone who mostly watches anime, there's still some good stuff I have to watch.

Live action TV? Not much into it overall. Movies? Maybe once the whole superhero genre thing dies out a bit I'll find the premises of several major blockbusters interesting agiwn.

The fact the entertainment industry seems to be running out of ideas and making remakes and reboots so often these days doesn't help either. I understand it's very hard to be original these days, but you can still not have the most original and creative plot and premise and still make an interesting piece of work. Having good characters will help.

[Leofan26]

I’d say so, it’s come into full circle actually.

Yet oddly enough the more reboots we get from older franchises the weirder the animation becomes and they keep tweaking the stories.

Ben 10 2016 reboot

Pokémon

Teenage turtles

Scooby Doo

Rugrats

It’s really weird.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

https://i.imgflip.com/6hr6ro.jpg

I love your memes :lol:

As for the topic. Honestly, yes.

While I'm open to new tv/shows movies, I feel like like I could live out the rest of my life with just my top 5 movies. I'm the type to stick to the same handful of films and shows rather than needing variety.

If I really love a film or an episode of a show, I could watch it once every day easily, or even twice in a row and have every single frame and sound completely memorised in my head. Am I the only one who has certain films and episodes downloaded onto their consciousness? :tlol:

[CyberCubed]

If I really love a film or an episode of a show, I could watch it once every day easily, or even twice in a row and have every single frame and sound completely memorised in my head. Am I the only one who has certain films and episodes downloaded onto their consciousness? :tlol:

I've seen every episode of the original TMNT cartoon about 50 times.

[Leo656]

I'm not too far off, FWLeo. The stuff I love best I could easily never get bored of, and that would keep me plenty busy and entertained for the rest of my life.

I've said before, I don't especially "need" new stuff. Like, I really don't need another TMNT movie, ever. 1990 suits me just fine. Just for one example. All newer versions of stuff like TMNT does is remind me how much better the old stuff was and make me pissed off that things can never be that good again. Mostly, for a lot of the reasons Andrew mentioned, but also, nobody believes in Trying Hard anymore.

[Prowler]

I'm not too far off, FWLeo. The stuff I love best I could easily never get bored of, and that would keep me plenty busy and entertained fore the rest of my life.

I've said before, I don't especially "need" new stuff. Like, I really don't need another TMNT movie, ever. 1990 suits me just fine. Just for one example. All newer versions of stuff like TMNT does is remind me how much better the old stuff was and make me pissed off that things can never be that good again. Mostly, for a lot of the reasons Andrew mentioned, but also, nobody believes in Trying Hard anymore.

I'm not surprised.

Some years ago, I had a conversation with this 40 year old guy about music and how he disliked most of modern day music and mostly listened to music from the 70s and 80s.

He said he just didn't feel compelled to search for new music anymore because he had reached an age where he already had found enough music to entertain him for the rest of his life. And also said that's something that tends to happen to people the older they get.

The conversation was about music, but I suppose it can be applied to other mediums as well.

[Leo656]

I get that mindset. I kind of hit that point in the early-00s. But I have to admit, my life wouldn't be anywhere near as rich as it is today if I hadn't come across Dead Sara, Angels and Airwaves, and a few others in the last few years. I mean, I'm not a big rap guy but Madchild is the greatest. And I'd never know that, if I hadn't gotten curious to see if Swollen Members had more than just one good song.

Sometimes it pays to click that little "Recommended" button on YouTube. Never know what you'll fall into.

So I am... I guess we'll say I'm open to new experiences but not necessarily seeking them out. Most "newer stuff" I like in entertainment falls into my lap serendipitously, I don't especially go looking for it. I admit that I'm often pleasantly surprised.

[Wildcat]

There’s a great Family Guy joke I wanted to post in regards to some of these replies but can’t find a gif...*Peter exhales through nose, fogs up entire car*. Don’t feel like posting the clip :D

I kind of feel like I should list a bunch of things I’m NOT into because I probably come off as liking everything since I tend to defend stuff but there’s so many franchises I never got into.

Saying entertainment has shifted to becoming some form of political thing is a huge exaggeration. There’s definitely certain times but not to the level some think. People like running with this idea to be dramatic.

I do agree with what SDP mentioned about getting into less things as adults because the “wonder” we had as kids is not the same. This is why people perceive their generation as better. You just grew up and understand things more. Nothing got worse or necessarily better.

Another thing is, generally speaking, a lot of things retell the same stories in their own way. So if you’re older than around 30 you’ve likely seen something similar. It’s why sequels are unfairly judged compared to their originals. The mind has already been exposed to whatever the concept is.

So obviously it’s a no for me. I want all my favorite things to keep going even though there will be slumps or not-so-good parts along the way. They deserve to continue beyond their shortcomings.

I think I’ve been able to retain some of that “wonder”. For things I’m really into anyway. I still get really excited when a new movie or whatever is announced. I’m not cynical towards movies/tv to begin with so that helps. Obviously it’s good to be objective but not cynical.

[Andrew NDB]

On an optimistic note, I like to be "surprised" by things. This happens once in a while, even these days.

[Wesley]

I love your memes :lol:

As for the topic. Honestly, yes.

While I'm open to new tv/shows movies, I feel like like I could live out the rest of my life with just my top 5 movies. I'm the type to stick to the same handful of films and shows rather than needing variety.

If I really love a film or an episode of a show, I could watch it once every day easily, or even twice in a row and have every single frame and sound completely memorised in my head. Am I the only one who has certain films and episodes downloaded onto their consciousness? :tlol:

I’m nearly the same except most tv shows don’t interest me nowadays. Even ones I loved when I was younger. I used to be more of a tv person, but I lean more towards movies now. I prefer the old ones, though. So many new ones are bland and forgettable.

[Leo656]

I'm way more into video games than movies or TV nowadays. I find myself getting bored "just watching" something. Feels too passive.

[IMJ]

Reading some of these posts I suppose I can say that in terms of that context, then sure yeah I've probably peaked in those terms.

One thing I definitely agree with is that the volume of material is so thick nowadays that yeah, I could probably survive the rest of my life on a few dozen specific DVD's or DVD sets and streaming and be fine. And at this point, between streaming and high-end home-theater, I think the real litmus test for a movie is "do you physically own a copy of it?"

I guess on that note, it's actually pretty rare nowadays that I bring in "complete sets" of new material on disc now. Probably the only franchise in the last many years I've bought all of the movies on in 4k have been the Godzilla/Kong stuff. I'm not even remotely close to actually owning all of the Marvel output on physical media.

In my 40's I've definitely reached a point in life where I legitimately question how many more times I'll be able to, let alone want to, sit through films that I love. I love Iron Man, but I suppose in reality I've only sat through the first one maybe once in the last several years. Thinking about it now, it seems more like the best excuse to rewatch something is with every new generation of format (i.e., blu-ray to 4k). Or when I get a new T.V. I'll sample a bunch of movies.

[frank_one]

It's basically gotten to the point where I feel like anything I wanted...has already happened. Or it got botched to the point where I'm content to just move on. Anyone else feel this way?Let's face it, the best years of our life have probably already happened and gone for good.

[MikeandRaph87]

I love your memes :lol:

As for the topic. Honestly, yes.

While I'm open to new tv/shows movies, I feel like like I could live out the rest of my life with just my top 5 movies. I'm the type to stick to the same handful of films and shows rather than needing variety.

If I really love a film or an episode of a show, I could watch it once every day easily, or even twice in a row and have every single frame and sound completely memorised in my head. Am I the only one who has certain films and episodes downloaded onto their consciousness? :tlol:

No, I am also like that. I know the lines and trivia and about all there is to know about The Andy Griffith Show, Full House, Ninja Turtles especially (1987), DC especially Batman,but I watch it 100 times over and still enjoy it. I can watch MeTV all Sunday and not watch a primetime lineup on the main networks all week.

The best versions of the things I like are already made and it will not be equaled or surpassed in my mind. Why? What we are initially introduced to we tend to see as definitive. As a 90s' kid, the original six Power Rangers despite countless replacements are the strongest team there will ever be, 8 generations of Pok'emon later, who is better to be by Ash's side other than Brock or Misty? No one. Are there better versions? Those that got invested later would likely think so because of when he/she was introduced. Sure its part nostalgia that enforces certain things to stick out as well as a sense of familiarity. It could also be the quality was also there for that particular period that may be lost in others.

I thought about this particular mindset with Spider-Man 3:No Way Home. I was invested in the Toby McGuire characters, not any of the others. When I think of Spider-Man I think of the first three films and Spider-Man:TAS. Sure, the MCU version of Holland gets praise and there is a cult following that is invested in the short-lived Spectacular Spider-Man animated series, but neither is anything I would watch more than once and think is just okay. Why? It is not set in the Spider-Man version I find most endearing to the character and franchise as a whole. Sure, both the first three films and animated series have their sore spots with me, but nothing is perfect. I could go into details, but I will save that for another time.


Mentioning TMNT being that its a Ninja Turtles forum, well the 1987 cartoon will always be what defines the franchise and be defined in my eyes. However, I worry that those who prefer its dark parody roots may inject an overdose of camp that was not present such as seen with the character set crossing over with other versions and being extremely goofy, ineffective, and lazy taking on silly 'threats'. I would like to see more of what was shown in seasons 7 and 8. A strong set of guest characters, overarching plot, serious threats yet fun. I like to use the Batman esque analogy. Adam West is too goofy, Frank Miller is too dark. Meet in the middle by blending them together with Denny O'Neil and the porridge is just right.

I accept the fact that while I am a lifelong TMNT fan, the franchise peaked early and while it may have some spikes as time goes on it will produce something I can enjoy as much as the 1987 cartoon or concurrent iterations in New Line films and Archie Comics. I did really enjoy the 2003 cartoon, but it didn't hit the mark with me as a teenager as much as the 1987 cartoon. The chief things I harp on about are due to preferences that were established based on becoming invested in the 1987 cartoon first. It did fit more with my matured need for serialization and characterization, but it allowed me to realize preferences are often set in the formative years and hard to become invested in something completely new in an older age. If one does its because of pre-existing preferences from the formative years that either is directly tied to or at least remotely subconsciously reminding us of something we enjoyed.

[Leo656]

I don't think Frank Miller Batman is too "dark" at all. I think the "darkness" is just about right.

It's just that it's poorly written and far more pleased with itself, in spite of being poorly written, than it has any right to be.

And yes, I partially include "The Dark Knight Returns" in that. It is NOT anywhere near as good as people say it is. "Year One", however, is pretty much perfect. He did right with that one.

But it's not the tone that's the problem. It's that the writer is a narcissist who really, really wants you to agree with them that they're the first writer who ever had a good idea.

[MikeandRaph87]

I don't think Frank Miller Batman is too "dark" at all. I think the "darkness" is just about right.

It's just that it's poorly written and far more pleased with itself, in spite of being poorly written, than it has any right to be.

And yes, I partially include "The Dark Knight Returns" in that. It is NOT anywhere near as good as people say it is. "Year One", however, is pretty much perfect. He did right with that one.

But it's not the tone that's the problem. It's that the writer is a narcissist who really, really wants you to agree with them that they're the first writer who ever had a good idea.

Sure. Year One is pretty good, however, tell that to Selina Kyle and Barbara Gordon. One is posing as a prostitute and the other conveniently forgotten to exist.:tgrumble:

[Leo656]

I have no problem with Selina being a prostitute. She's a thief, she already is established as a woman with loose morals and she's always been heavily implied to be promiscuous anyway. It's not unconscionable that she's used her sexuality a time or two in order to get close to people in order to scam them and take their sh*t. Miller just made a point to say it out loud. She can be a prostitute, that's fine, I don't care about that.

I mean, "prostitute" is generally the first or second choice of women who don't wanna work a real job. Selina refuses to work a real job, that's why she's a thief. So I think it's kinda natural that she'd also be a stripper/prostitute as well. She'd clearly do anything to avoid working at Wendy's, so I don't see why her being a hooker is some big huge deal for some people. She probably sold drugs, too, at some point, they just didn't lampshade it.

The Barbara Gordon thing is a bit trickier to justify but we all know what Miller thinks about women in the first place so I'm not shocked he pretty much "forgot" her. Probably for the best, he's not good at writing females. He probably would have had her stripping in order to pay for librarian school.:lol: Like, the Batgirl costume would've been her stripper outfit, and it would've gone from there.

I don't know what role of importance she would've had in Year One anyway, though, to be perfectly honest. The point wasn't to touch on every single part of the mythos or anything.

[ZariusTwo]

The Barbara Gordon thing is a bit trickier to justify but we all know what Miller thinks about women in the first place so I'm not shocked he pretty much "forgot" her. Probably for the best, he's not good at writing females. He probably would have had her stripping in order to pay for librarian school.:lol: Like, the Batgirl costume would've been her stripper outfit, and it would've gone from there.

Miller did end up writing Batgirl for the notorious All-Star title...but chose to use her as a very young and inexperienced teen who ends up getting caught by the police on one of her first goes, gets booked and unmasked.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I have it I just have fuzzy memories. That whole run I just read once, sighed and put it away. I find it best not to think about it too much. :lol:

[superstaff]

The Barbara Gordon thing is a bit trickier to justify but we all know what Miller thinks about women in the first place so I'm not shocked he pretty much "forgot" her. Probably for the best, he's not good at writing females. He probably would have had her stripping in order to pay for librarian school.:lol: Like, the Batgirl costume would've been her stripper outfit, and it would've gone from there.

I don't know what role of importance she would've had in Year One anyway, though, to be perfectly honest. The point wasn't to touch on every single part of the mythos or anything.

Not sure if they mean Babs the wife, or Babs the daughter.

Babs the wife is in Year One, isn't she? And she's pregnant. Presumably with Gordon's first child, which is usually a son. In a lot of incarnations, the Gordons have their son first, then Barbara (Jr) is their second child. It seems to align perfectly fine to me. And this is assuming Barbara is James' daughter, and not niece.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[MikeandRaph87]

Not sure if they mean Babs the wife, or Babs the daughter.

Babs the wife is in Year One, isn't she? And she's pregnant. Presumably with Gordon's first child, which is usually a son. In a lot of incarnations, the Gordons have their son first, then Barbara (Jr) is their second child. It seems to align perfectly fine to me. And this is assuming Barbara is James' daughter, and not niece.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem is that if Barbara Gordon has yet to be born she would not be old enough to become Batgirl. Tony Gordon later reimagined as James Gordon Jr is older than Barbara, however is depicted as a two year old in Year One. To overlook the fact Barbara should have been not only born, but around 12 years old and keep Year One fully in continuity she was made Commissioner Gordon's orphaned niece. Around 2000 it was implied that James Sr. had an affair with his sister-in-law and took Barbara in believing she was not his his niece but his biological daughter. Barbara would learn this through discovery of letters between them that she found. Later it's back to status quo.

[superstaff]

The problem is that if Barbara Gordon has yet to be born she would not be old enough to become Batgirl. Tony Gordon later reimagined as James Gordon Jr is older than Barbara, however is depicted as a two year old in Year One. To overlook the fact Barbara should have been not only born, but around 12 years old and keep Year One fully in continuity she was made Commissioner Gordon's orphaned niece. Around 2000 it was implied that James Sr. had an affair with his sister-in-law and took Barbara in believing she was not his his niece but his biological daughter. Barbara would learn this through discovery of letters between them that she found. Later it's back to status quo.

That whole convoluted backstory was ridiculous.

[CyberCubed]

Honestly the whole "never-aging" rule really doesn't work for Batman. Batman can't be say 35 years old forever if he has like 4+ Robin's, 3+ Batgirls, and all of this to still make sense.

I mean how do all these Robin's also age up from like 10-12 when they start age to adults as well? I forgot how old Dick was when he first became Robin but wasn't he around that age?

[superstaff]

Honestly the whole "never-aging" rule really doesn't work for Batman. Batman can't be say 35 years old forever if he has like 4+ Robin's, 3+ Batgirls, and all of this to still make sense.

I mean how do all these Robin's also age up from like 10-12 when they start age to adults as well? I forgot how old Dick was when he first became Robin but wasn't he around that age?

Bruce is currently in his mid-40s, according to comics fandom 'bean counters'.

Not all the Robins start off at 10-12 either. Dick was around 12, Jason was about 14-15 roughly, Tim was about 13-14, Steph was about 16-17, and Damian started at 10 and is now 14 years old. These are, more or less, rough estimates. In the DCU, time goes by slowly, but years do pass. Apparently it's been about 14 or 15 years since Bruce began, post-nu52 anyway. But things have been pretty messy timeline-wise.

[sdp]

To add to that some characters don't work in modern settings, I'm sorry but Batman works best in a much older world. This is why I liked BTAS, it didn't seem to take place in the 90s but in the past and it works with the characters.

And even then the limit should be the 90s , this includes the TMNT, in an age of easily accessible internet and smartphones it makes no sense that superheroes wouldn't be hunted down easily. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far. TMNT works well in the 80s and 90s because it's when it was created, but not so much in the 2020s. Same why the superheroes work better in the decade they were created in. The 2020s need their own heroes that already have the context of the current technology into their origin because adding smartphones to a Superman show just becomes ridiculous.

I mean if we're going to reboot something like if we get a new TMNT movie or show I'd rather it take place in the 90s than in the 2020s for example. King Kong 2005 works better because it takes place at the time the original story was written in unlike the 80s version which makes less sense.

Honestly the whole "never-aging" rule really doesn't work for Batman. Batman can't be say 35 years old forever if he has like 4+ Robin's, 3+ Batgirls, and all of this to still make sense.


This is why I gave up on the comics, I guess this was always a problem but I tried to pretend it could work. In the 00s when I started reading DC and Batman, I thought that batman was really in his mid 40s in the current timeline of comics to make it work but then we got a couple of more reboots and more batgirls and robins and now it makes absolutely no sense. So I guess I can enjoy the stories since I'm not thinking too much about continuity but because I don't think too much of continuity I'm not attached to any of their books or comics, I'll just read whatever is recommended as really good, otherwise it's just trash that'll be retconned sooner or later.

Comics being on a sliding timeline is the stupidest **** ever, they should conclude stories and do a hard reboot for new generations, But they didn't and now comics are a dying industry while Manga is as big as it's always been.

[Andrew NDB]

Tim was about 13-14

That can't be right, can it? Not when he became Robin. I remember in the Robin comics he got his driver's license and all.

[Leo656]

It works fine if you don't let yourself become overly pedantic and anal about things that aren't even f*cking real. It's easy enough to just say Superman and Batman showed up "a while ago" and keep the passing of time intentionally vague. The stories aren't about how long ago things happened but rather What's Happening Right Now.

The only thing that ever really messed with it was the insistence on doing Halloween and Christmas-themed stories every single year, just like The Simpsons. Without that, keeping things "loose" works just fine.

I'd ague that Marvel has a bigger a problem with it than DC since some of their characters are tied to specific real-world events, like Captain America being inextricably linked to WWII, and The Punisher's trauma not simply being tied to being a soldier, but a soldier of the Vietnam War, specifically. I know some stories shifted it to be the first Gulf War, but it works less well since it was specifically the circumstances of Vietnam, rather than just "war in general", that made Frank Castle who he is. You'd have to have actually spoken to veterans of either conflict to "get it", but there's a world of difference between the two wars and how messed up the people coming home were in either case. Saying that it doesn't matter which war Castle was in, so long as he comes home damaged kind of misses the point and oversimplifies the character, to a degree. Rogers, you can almost work around it by just having him stay frozen longer, but it still doesn't explain that time he fought Nixon, for example.

Sliding timelines work generally fine as long as you don't get too tied into reflecting Real World Events or insisting upon celebrating milestones like holidays or characters' Birthdays. And there's no real reason to do that in the first place.

If you hard-reboot a super-hero every decade you only have time to tell a handful of stories with them before things have to "reset" and now all that stuff people clearly just read and got emotionally invested in "never happened." That's retarded.

Western comics are hurting because they needlessly cost $4+ per issue in a country where nobody except a millionaire can afford a house anymore, therefore they've become a needless extravagance to most people who'd just as soon stay home and watch cartoons for free or pay to watch a movie once every few years and get their fix that way. It has nothing to do with the storytelling (except for the fact that in the last ten years they've all gone woke and nobody wants that crap from their super-hero comics). It has everything to do with the fact that during their peak of popularity, anyone from an adult to a small child could dig a dime or a quarter out of the couch cushions, go to the corner store and buy a comic book; now nobody can afford them. Distribution is another factor. Direct-market distribution and the rise of comic stores was great for super-nerds, but it murdered the mass-market retail system on which comics had thrived since their inception. 7-11s and drug stores don't even carry comics anymore, but as recently as 30 years ago that was still where MOST people, especially kids, bought comic books, NOT dedicated comic book stores.

So no, Western comics aren't suffering compared to manga because of the differences in storytelling. Only someone who knows nothing about the medium or how it operated for almost a century would say or think that. It's because it used to be an art form that catered to all age groups and tastes, and now strictly caters to middle-aged men with an excess of disposable income, and absolutely no one else. People used to get into comics as kids, going down to the corner store to buy a stack of books for a dollar, and as they got older and their tastes grew more sophisticated, there were other books that were more geared to them as they grew. Now, there simply aren't many comics designed to attract young readers at all, and even if there were, they couldn't afford them and they'd have to go 30-40 minutes away to buy them.

It's a matter of economics and distribution, not storytelling. The fact that the stories being put out presently are all terrible certainly does not help, but that wasn't a factor in the 1950s and 60s; the stuff being printed Then was arguably a lot worse (or at least more dumb) than the stuff being printed Now, but comics still sold ten times what they sell Now anyway so a person can't even try to claim that quality of stories or readers' tastes is a factor. It isn't. It's all because the business is just too insular and has no way of replacing an aging readership because their kids can't buy the books. Any medium that can't replenish itself with each new generation simply won't survive.

[Coola Yagami]

The New 52 condensed Batman's history pre-JL to 5 years. All the major stories happened but I believe No Man's Land didn't. In that continuity only Dick, Jason and Damian were Robins. At first so was Tim but then they retconned it so he was Red Robin from the start. Babs was the only Batgirl, Steph was only ever Spoiler and Cass was a new hero named Orphan. Also whenever Lex was looking into how Batman knew Nightwing, newspaper clippings imply Batman had fought the Joker and Harley Quinn in the old days alongside Dick-Robin.

Not sure if DC Rebirth changed any of that or how. I know Rebirth somehow replaced New 52 Superman with classic Superman.... Somehow. Like reality dimensional shenanigans but I forgot if that rippled into Batman's lore in any way.

[Andrew NDB]

I don't know why that's so jarring. Again, you read about 5 years worth of any comic like Superman or Batman or X-Men or whatever... each issue (and month) is only giving you like 20 minutes of their life/adventures. You lay it all out and barring time jumps barely any time is actually passing in-story.

[Coola Yagami]

I don't know why that's so jarring. Again, you read about 5 years worth of any comic like Superman or Batman or X-Men or whatever... each issue (and month) is only giving you like 20 minutes of their life/adventures. You lay it all out and barring time jumps barely any time is actually passing in-story.

That's true. A story can be a 10-parter, which is almost a full a year in real time, but only a week within the actual storyline

[ZariusTwo]

Not sure if DC Rebirth changed any of that or how. I know Rebirth somehow replaced New 52 Superman with classic Superman.... Somehow. Like reality dimensional shenanigans but I forgot if that rippled into Batman's lore in any way.

Rebirth did away with the Nu52's "five years" thing, Superman had been split in two and they merged again shortly before Rebirth ended, although all of New 52 Superman's history was erased in the process.

[Coola Yagami]

Rebirth did away with the Nu52's "five years" thing, Superman had been split in two and they merged again shortly before Rebirth ended, although all of New 52 Superman's history was erased in the process.

So what happened with Batman and his continuity? Was Tim Robin again? Are Cass and Steph back as former Batgirls?

[Leo656]

New 52 was just an all-around mistake. Not so much the idea of a "housecleaning reboot", those happen every so often as a matter of course, but it was botched.

Part One of the problem was, "Nothing you've ever read before Right Now ever happened... except for our two highest-selling books, Batman and Green Lantern. In that case, EVERYTHING happened, because we don't want to upset the readers of those books since they actually sell well. Everyone else gets a blank slate, but those guys keep all their history." Well, you kind of need to commit to One or The Other or else the entire exercise falls apart.

DC ought to have known this would be a problem, as they had the exact same problem with Crisis on Infinite Earths, with characters like Superman and Wonder Woman getting a complete do-over from scratch while Batman and Green Lantern were left mostly-intact and Flash kept 100% of the character's previous history. This directly led to Zero Hour only about 5 or 6 years later, to clean up all the loose ends from Crisis.

The next problem with the New 52 was simple ageism. For decades, regardless of when the characters had been specifically presented as appearing or how long they'd been operating in-canon, characters like Superman and Batman were written as perpetually being "about 33-35 years old". When Zero Hour printed its comprehensive timeline of the DCU, they had the debut of Superman and Batman listed as "10 Years Ago", without pinning it down to a specific year. Thus, no matter whether the stories in-print were hitting the rack in 1993 or 2003, Superman was always about 33 and he always first appeared "about ten years ago". You can easily get away with this since comics don't play out in real-time; a story that takes months or years to hit newsstands generally only depicts the events of a single day within the story itself; that 12-part Batman story that took a year to buy all the issues of, only depicts One or Two Days of the character's actual life within the story itself. So you can totally get away with having a vague, sliding timeline as long as you don't tether yourself to a specific "real life" time.

BUT, one mandate of the New 52 was "Nobody can be older than 30 and nobody's been around more than 5 years." So now everything's f*cked, just from that. 10 years, for example, is plenty of time for Batman to have raised Dick, had Dick grow up and become Nightwing, had Jason be Robin and get killed within a year or so of "comic book time", and then have Tim replace him about a year later and then have been Robin ever since. You can do all that with a fictional "10-year timeline"; you can't do it in 5, and also, Batman is only 29.

That's really the thing that ruined everything, with the New 52. "Nobody can be older than 30, and every story only happened within the last 5 years." Like, Batman was "forever 35" for 70 years, why is it NOW a problem and he suddenly "has" to be 29 or 30? That's stupid.

As I understand it, with Rebirth a lot of that all went away and things were restored to how they used to be, more or less. But that still doesn't change or fix the problem of the New 52 existing at all, and then Convergence having happened in order to "fix" that, and then "Rebirth" needing to be done to in turn fix THAT whole mess.

It's not that you can't do reboots or "tidying-up" events. They're mandatory. Crisis begat Zero Hour in 1993, which begat Infinite Crisis in 2005, but that's still only one "hard reboot" over a 20-year span of time and two much smaller "pruning" events that didn't reboot or reset anything so much as trimmed a little fat and retconned a few inconsistencies away. That's all they ever NEEDED to do, and if they'd simply kept doing that once every decade their continuity wouldn't be the complete mess it is now. They've had THREE "reboot events" - Flashpoint/New 52, Convergence, and Rebirth - within just over ten years, which is ridiculous... and all because the New 52 simply wasn't very well-planned or thought-out in the first place. It was so sloppy they've spent ALL their time since then trying to "fix" it, and trying to win back all the people who walked away over what a complete mess it was.

They tried to fix a leaky boat by pouring concrete over the hole, and in turn they sank the boat.

[ZariusTwo]

So what happened with Batman and his continuity? Was Tim Robin again? Are Cass and Steph back as former Batgirls?

Yes, Cass and Steph now remember they were Batgirls and Tim has largely gone back to being Robin.

[Coola Yagami]

Yes, Cass and Steph now remember they were Batgirls and Tim has largely gone back to being Robin.

Rofl. They suddenly just remembered. Oh DC...

What is Damian's status nowadays. He still Robin? It always confusing cause Tim never officially stepped down did he? Damian kinda just came in and was like '**** you, I'm Robin now'.

[Leo656]

Except NOW Tim's one'a them there queer-o-sexials. :lol: I guess that kinda thing happens when you mess too much with the Space-Time Continuum.

Should've been a plotline in Back to the Future.
Jennifer: "Marty! It's so great to see you!"
Marty: "Yeah. Ummm... y'know, I been thinking, and... this isn't really working out. But... refresh my memory, do you by chance have a brother?" :trazz:

Y'know that's what they'd do if they made it Now.

[Coola Yagami]

Dammit DC, I know Robin and Nightwing get along, but that's not what I meant when I said Tim likes Dick.

[Leo656]

He'd always had crushes on girls, too, is the thing. Multiple girlfriends that were presented as fairly serious. Definitely not "him just figuring things out". No, he was very explicitly into chicks.

I know the label Tim has now is "bisexual", not strictly "gay", but as has been oft-stated by many, once a fictional character (guys especially) are labeled as "not straight", even if it's bi, they'll never, ever be written as having an interest in the opposite sex again because that would be "a betrayal of the LGBTQ+ community" and people in said community would pitch a fit. So Tim can never have a girlfriend again, it's "not allowed", so you may as well just make him gay.

I mean, you shouldn't, since he wasn't, but labeling him as "bi" is just a stopgap measure to help smooth the transition. 10 years from now he'll be written as just gay, and furthermore, that he always was. Even though, no, he wasn't.

[Coola Yagami]

I once told my bro that if I were in charge, I'd limit Iceman's appearances for a few years, and then whenever Marvel does another big shape up or soft reboot or whatever, I'll have Iceman seen with some random chick. No relationship mentioned, no hugs, no kisses, but that same chick just... always seems to be at his place whenever we see him on his downtime, implying they live together. After another year, show a kiss. And never EVER mention any of his gay stories, as if they never happened.

I'll probably have a back up job at DC or elsewhere because I know the Twitter nutjobs will harass Marvel until I'm fired, but my 'damage' would be done. And I'd do it in some major Marvel event too. So that forever, no matter what, Civil War V or whatever will have that one seen where Bobby had a girlfriend. Like they wouldn't have to skip a page or two, they would have to redraw entire panels if they were to try to remove 'straight' Bobby from reprints.

Hell, I'll even be cheeky about it. Have Bobby moping about whatever superhero drama and the girl hear him out and he's like 'Thanks (name), sometime you're the only thing keeping my head straight'.

[superstaff]

That can't be right, can it? Not when he became Robin. I remember in the Robin comics he got his driver's license and all.

I don't remember this. I think he was a bit on young side when he began. Wasn't he already older, and not a newbie when the Robin comic started?

[Leo656]

Some Googling says Tim was 13 when he first became Robin, but as always, it's vague how much time in-story had passed by the time of the solo ongoing. I'd say a year and change, at most.

[superstaff]

Some Googling says Tim was 13 when he first became Robin, but as always, it's vague how much time in-story had passed by the time of the solo ongoing. I'd say a year and change, at most.

Thanks. I thought I knew this, but was second guessing myself again. :lol:

On the topic of Tim's bisexuality, I think the time to have explored that would've been in the late 90s/2000s back when the solo and Young Justice was going on. You know, back when he was a young teen that was hanging around several other boys at school, and during his tenure on a team with other guys he was close to.

I'm bi, and I wouldn't have minded to have seen Tim go through a 'questioning' or 'outing' arc back then (I'm sure it would've been written way better at that time too). But...what we got in 2021 was pandering trash. And I love that they had to break Tim up with Steph because as the creators and fans claim, "He needed to be proven bi or it's queerbaiting/invalid". Eff all of you. I love that these people act like bisexuals in heterosexual relationships aren't valid. Most bi characters now are essentially gay, and aren't allowed to be with the opposite sex at all, neither by the creatives or the fans.

One of the reasons I commended Legends of Tomorrow was that they weren't afraid of giving John Constantine, an established bisexual on the show and in comics, a girlfriend. Actually, I was in awe that they didn't just stick him with a dude. I don't watch that show regularly, so correct me if I am wrong there.

[Leo656]

It's like they don't trust readers to understand "nuance". "Bi" doesn't mean "gay", it literally means "bi".

But a "bisexual" guy with a girl or a girl with a guy isn't explicit enough for the rubes in the cheap seats to "get the point". So they need to be SHOWN only in same-sex pairings while occasionally saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I still do like (the opposite sex), too", except that never gets shown.

I'm not sure which is the greater factor; the writers being bad and not knowing how to illustrate texture, OR the readers being too dense to understand said texture and thus demand everything be as subtle as a brick to the face. Both things are factors but I'm not sure which one carries more weight. Kind of a chicken/egg thing.

[superstaff]

I'm not sure which is the greater factor; the writers being bad and not knowing how to illustrate texture, OR the readers being too dense to understand said texture and thus demand everything be as subtle as a brick to the face. Both things are factors but I'm not sure which one carries more weight. Kind of a chicken/egg thing.

It's 100% both, if you ask me. The writers themselves also being too dense, and writing things about as subtly as a brick to the face. Obviously, many fans, being lazy and wanting instant gratification, love things being that way.

[Leo656]

It's like Alyson Hannigan's character on Buffy getting lines like "Hello? Gay Now?" and stuff like that. :roll: Just really unbearable.

Since pop culture is where most people get their "understanding" of issues like human sexuality, such things are actually really, really damaging in the grand scheme of things.

[superstaff]

It's like Alyson Hannigan's character on Buffy getting lines like "Hello? Gay Now?" and stuff like that. :roll: Just really unbearable.

Since pop culture is where most people get their "understanding" of issues like human sexuality, such things are actually really, really damaging in the grand scheme of things.

On the topic of Willow, I always felt like she would've been much better served as a bisexual. I hated how Whedon made her basically forget her attraction to Xander, and act like the heterosexuality was entirely an act. That's...not the way that works. I get some people 'pretend' to be straight, and have 'beards', but not in Willow's case. (Tbh, I notice some people nowadays who seem like repressed bisexuals who label themselves as gay just to 'fit in', and ignore their attraction to the opposite sex, which I find unhealthy but that's another topic for another day.)

[Leo656]

I've only actually ever seen clips of the show, all of which I found pretty lame (although I do like the movie, though, go figure :lol:).

My tolerance for Whedon extends only to that movie, the first Avengers movie, and "Cabin in the Woods" which was admittedly pretty good. Outside of that I hate pretty much everything.

I think people only liked Buffy because shows that were "clever" and self-aware hadn't really become a thing, yet.

[superstaff]

I preferred Angel and Firefly to Buffy, but I didn't mind it. I had more qualms with Buffy than the other two shows I mentioned. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of his, I just liked some of his works.

[Leo656]

Dude's got a face like a smacked ass. :lol: Especially since he went bald.