Total Reboots or Fix-it Jobs?

[Joe Kalicki]

If they were to do a new crew, I'd prefer them to attempt a TV show first, so that they could get some momentum with the characters and plots, etc. I don't know if kicking off a new crew with a movie would work.

We've seen a new crew on TV four times now already, though.

I would absolutely despise a Trek reboot, but a whole new crew debuting in the film would be awesome. Everybody knows the "rules" of the Trek universe, so it wouldn't need to explain the mythology, all you'd need is some character moments, which every Star Trek movies already has, and tons and tons of big action.

Just have the one crew for the movies and if you like, you could still do TV shows with other crews. Or even with the movie crew, if you must, though you'd probably need to recast the roles.

 

[Gothamite]

I would absolutely despise a Trek reboot, but a whole new crew debuting in the film would be awesome. Everybody knows the "rules" of the Trek universe, so it wouldn't need to explain the mythology, all you'd need is some character moments, which every Star Trek movies already has, and tons and tons of big action.

I just wonder if you'd be able to get the same amount of character development into a two-hour movie (which has a strong chance of not having any immediate sequels) as you would with a 24 hour TV-show.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I just wonder if you'd be able to get the same amount of character development into a two-hour movie (which has a strong chance of not having any immediate sequels) as you would with a 24 hour TV-show.

The thing is, though, you don't need it. Why does a movie need as much character development as a TV show? Look at all the movies that have to establish worlds, like Star Wars, Matrix, even Pirates of the Carribean. Do they have the same level of character development as a TV series? No.

What I'm saying is, at least with Star Trek the universe has already been established. Everyone going in, even non-fans of the previous series, is aware of the universe. Very little time needs to be spent explaining things. That leaves more time for characters and it's the reason the second Trek movie is considered the best. Awesome character moments, awesome action scenes.

 

[Gothamite]

The thing is, though, you don't need it. Why does a movie need as much character development as a TV show? Look at all the movies that have to establish worlds, like Star Wars, Matrix, even Pirates of the Carribean. Do they have the same level of character development as a TV series? No.

I prefer 'Trek to Star Wars, because of the character development. I hate POTC.

That leaves more time for characters and it's the reason the second Trek movie is considered the best. Awesome character moments, awesome action scenes.

I've got to be the only person who finds the second movie incredibly boring and completely uninteresting. Maybe it's because of the crappy music.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I prefer 'Trek to Star Wars, because of the character development. I hate POTC.



I've got to be the only person who finds the second movie incredibly boring and completely uninteresting. Maybe it's because of the crappy music.

Well, you're a weird freak and I can't help you then.

 

[Zombipanda]

Honestly, I don't think we need either. I think continuity should be treated like a buffet. Each writer can pick up the pieces he wants and just throw away the rest. His story should flow logically from the last writer, and there are certain amounts of the character that have to stay a part of the character, but other than that, continuity should be fluid - a tool, rather than shackles.

 

[Gothamite]

Well, you're a weird freak and I can't help you then.

LOL. Post of the day. :lol:

You couldn't know how many times I've wanted to resort to a deus-ex comeback like that.

Honestly, I don't think we need either. I think continuity should be treated like a buffet. Each writer can pick up the pieces he wants and just throw away the rest. His story should flow logically from the last writer, and there are certain amounts of the character that have to stay a part of the character, but other than that, continuity should be fluid - a tool, rather than shackles.

Proof that Zombipanda holds the secrets of the universe. Great post.

 

[David Blue]

- A total reboot is when the history of a character is completely started anew, with no leftover continuity from the previous incarnation. (i.e. Superman: Man of Steel)

That can be good, but it can also throw out a lot of history that people don't want to let go of.

And there's no guarantee that the new story will be pursued consistently. The Crisis on infinite Earths should have rebooted everybody, but many characters just ignored the "universal" reset button being pressed. That was very bad.

- A 'Fix-It' job is when a controversial story element is covered-up with a story that resolves the issue in question by giving it a botch-job resolution so to the untrained fan, it's as though it never happened (for example, when they brought Doc Ock back to life in the nineties using a *******' witchdoctor! Or, when Harvey decided to become Two-Face again, so he cut his face causing 'irreparable damage' so he's Two-Face forever, no matter what Jeph Loeb decides.)

This is what I voted for, as being usually (not always) best, even though it's often an ugly solution.

Suppose you have a good character, Sam Wilson, upright social worker. He's building up fans slowly on the basis of a good, growing history of solid, low-key stories. In other words, if this was torn up, there would be no quick way to reconstruct the basis of the character's appeal. The character concept itself is not that exciting, rather it's how he's been shown relating to people over a long time.

In one story he gets retconned in a degrading way as having always been a criminal.

I want that retroactive history to go away, without taking Sam Wilson back to what he was, that is a character who was not likely to work out well, till he beat the odds. I'm willing to not look back much or skeptically on how the stupid thing got fixed. I just want the writers and editors to make the problem go away.

Also, which is worse: serial fix-its, to repair characters who other writers maul over and over, or serial reboots?

Endless Crises on Ultimate Infinite Earths 19?

Hawkman: Ultimate Final Reboot IV: the Unknown Tales: Everything You Know About the poor drug addict who in Reboot III was imagining he had hawk powers is Wrong!! Followed by: Hawkman: Ultimate Final We Really Mean It This Time Reboot V: Wings of Cyberpsychosis: Year -1!! Followed by...

If I had more faith that people would take reboots seriously, do them right, stick to them, follow through and not have to do them again, I might feel differently. But history has not made me optimistic on this. Especially DC's history has not made me optimistic on this.

 

[Gothamite]

If I had more faith that people would take reboots seriously, do them right, stick to them, follow through and not have to do them again, I might feel differently. But history has not made me optimistic on this. Especially DC's history has not made me optimistic on this.

Good point. DC have gotten carried away with the whole idea.

 

[David Blue]

Good point. DC have gotten carried away with the whole idea.

They have.

I can see the other side. Reboots can work. They can be much cleaner than a fix-it. And sometimes, depending on what you want, there's no choice.

I mean, I like Ultimate Iron Man, but a lot of people seem to hate him, and if you hate him and he's the one Ultimate character you really care about, so you don't care how Iron man fits into the rest of Ultimate continuity (which is pretty much how I feel about Ultimate Fantastic Four, so I can relate to that), then you are praying for a reboot, because there's no fix-it for this character any more.

Or, before I finally gave up on her, I liked Power Girl very much. But what I liked was a simple, strong character with a simple, clear history, who was therefore a bit more approachable somehow than the "big" DC characters, and who solved a lot of problems with her fists. To fix that character, after the Arion mess and what came after, you would have to reboot her totally. That's the only way to get her back to the simple, basic heroine I think she needs to be. Piling fix-it on fix it for Power Girl does more harm than any good a particular fix-it can do.

So that's an argument for reboots.

Yet if before Zero Hour you were hoping that Power Girl could get involved in some sort of big rewrite and then start again with Issue #1, the lesson was: be careful what you wish for. And for me: put not your faith in reboots.

Technically this is not on topic, but in spirit I think it is: the new series of Wonder Woman starting with Issue #1 didn't even make it to Issue #6 without collapsing into missed deadlines, one issue not following the story of the previous issue and so on. Since DC has just proved that they were not up to getting a restart at Issue #1 right for Wonder Woman, what would make you expect that they'll get it right for whichever character you would most like to get a healing reboot?

 

[Foolsfolly]

I have to say.

I prefer Fix-it Jobs.

Case in point, Morrison's New X-Men which still has all that messed up continuity as it's backdrop but doesn't really focus on it and instead remakes the X-Men.

WHILE still being the X-Men. It's not a complete change for the sake of change it still feels like the X-Men you read for all the years, only less suck.

Reboots are lazy and a complete knee-jerk reaction to bad stories or sales.

Besides, have reboots really helped DC after all these years?

Fix it up! Take the characters in new directions and have the balls to keep them in that direction.

The only failings of the example I used are due to most of those changes being undone the moment Morrison left the title.

As such, I now only read Astonishing X-Men (with a huge chance of dropping it once Whedon's off the book) and Ultimate X-Men (which I almost dropped and I'm still watching it in case it dips into meh-ville again).

 

[compound]

Since DC has just proved that they were not up to getting a restart at Issue #1 right for Wonder Woman, what would make you expect that they'll get it right for whichever character you would most like to get a healing reboot?

In DC's defense, I think the Wonder Woman mess has more to do with hiring a writer -- Heinberg -- with a lousy work ethic (at worst), or not used to the pacing of comics writing (at best).

Whether or not you liked the specific way he wrote the story is subject to personal taste, of course.

Nobody will deny that what happened with Wonder Woman was a fiasco. But I don't think it's a basis for discrediting reboots wholesale, as an effective means for reinvigorating a property that's gone stale.

I think the initial rush and giddy enthusiasm that plenty of readers -- both newcomers and long-time fans alike -- felt upon *first* reading the Ultimate line is proof enough that they can be an effective means to make audiences feel excited about familiar properties.

 

[E]

I have to say.

I prefer Fix-it Jobs.

Case in point, Morrison's New X-Men which still has all that messed up continuity as it's backdrop but doesn't really focus on it and instead remakes the X-Men.

The problem with that is that not everyone is Grant Morrison.

 

[Gothamite]

Besides, have reboots really helped DC after all these years?

Certainly all of the little, insignificant reboots over the years like Zero Hour, Hypertime and all of these silly little crises that are happening right now haven't helped whatsoever, but the 1986 reboot of Superman turned the man of steel from a completely omnipotent God-character who could stave off the full-frontal blast of a 100-Megaton Bomb and move planets with his bare hands into an interesting and fresh superhero for the 1990s. I'm fairly sure he wasn't rebooted as a result of sales or poor reaction to stories either; it was just the overall status of the character being too muddled with time and power.

Another excellent example of a reboot is Batman: Year One which actually came about as a result of great stories and sales.

Fix it up! Take the characters in new directions and have the balls to keep them in that direction.

In the case of Superman, this would have been a very bad idea. All-Star wouldn't have worked in the 80s, and even if it did, it wouldn't work in mainstream continuity.

 

[SSJmole]

Depends. Sometimes fix it job works well other times Reboots work well. It just depends how the writers ect.. handle it

 

[J. Agamemnon]

I don't really consider the past two crises as reboots per se. They're bringing old continuities back in some cases and they're following up old plot threads from almost 25 to 40 years ago.

I'm really excited to see how they end up killing everyone. Personally I think most of the heroes on New Earth are going to die. Infinite Crisis and 52 brought back the multivere and Final Crisis will see New Earth ending. SO I think the other 51 are going to be setup for stories for the writers to takeover.


I had more to say when I began writing this almost 5 hours ago but things came up.