www.ComicBookPage.com

HassanT wrote: It has to be a data error or something. I don't see DC canceling Swamp Thing, Birds of Prey and Aquaman anytime soon.

Not necessarily an error, and them stopping subscriptions does not necessarily mean they are canceling the book.

They may be scaling back their subscription offerings and this is a way of reducing the # of titles they need to deal with. Perhaps on the road to phasing out subscriptions altogether.

HassanT wrote:

jonah wrote:Sorry if this is the wrong thread but didn't want to start a new one.

I'm a Direct subscriber to a number of DC books and received a letter today telling me the below titles would no longer be offered as a SUBSCRIPTION after issue 10 though they would still be available at my local comic shop or at dc online. Interesting the titles they took back from me. Some are some of their better sellers, others not so much. I have not idea what to read into it ... maybe the LCS's are complaining ? Any body else have any idea as to why this may be happening?

Anyway, here are the titles that were cancelled and what I moved them to

Cancelled Move to
Birds of Prey -> Supergirl
Swamp Thing-> Batwoman
Hawkman -> Flash
Aquaman -> Teen Titans
GL: New Guardians -> GL Corps
DCU Presents -> Superman

It has to be a data error or something. I don't see DC canceling Swamp Thing, Birds of Prey and Aquaman anytime soon.

Please note only the 'subscription' is cancelled. According to the letters, the books will still be available in my local comic shop or online at readDCcomics.com .

Finally had my 'doh!' moment and ran over to the dc web site to see what subscriptions are being offered now. You can find it here : https://ssl.drgnetwork.com/ecom/dcc/app ... bs?org=dcc

Looks like they're offering only about half of what they used to offer and primarily what can be seen as long lived titles ... though green arrow and cat woman are somewhat questionable and the lack of Aquaman is still puzzling.

After a little more thought, I'm going to guess this more about pushing the digital model over the print. If you can't make it to an LCS, subscriptions are a viable alternative ... but digital is even more viable and I'll guess, more lucrative for the companies.

I may yet see the end of printed comics in my life time ...

I will get the zero issues of the titles I'm already getting but I will pass on the others.

I too received the letter from DC regarding the cancelling of my sub to Swamp Thing ( from the Tanga deal). They defaulted to batman (a 3.99 title) but since I am already getting Batman (thanks again Tanga) I called and switched to Catwoman.

Just posting my thoughts about DC/the New 52/the Second Wave/the newer wave, etc.

I am a trade waiter. There, I said it. I like to read comics in a format that can sit nicely on my bookshelf, I can hold in my hands and feel like I have gotten my money's worth.

Before Flashpoint I was not consistently purchasing any of DC's regular titles. I would get the "big event" stories when they came out in trade, but not Hardcover, so I typically waited more than a year for several stories (as an example, I did not read "The Sinestro Corps War" until the individual issues of Blackest Night were being published).

Since Flashpoint, I checked out several individual titles, and made my decisions regarding what (if any) titles I would collect and how. I know collect the following:

Justice League - Hardcover
Batman - Hardcover
Nightwing - Trade
Demon Knights - Trade (they didn't publish in Hardcover, or this would be there as well)
Aquaman - Trade
Superman - Trade (Since George Perez isn't staying past the initial arc, if he had, then this would be a Hardcover)
Justice League International - Trade

With the launch of the Second wave, I have decided to get the following:
Earth2 - Hardcover
World's Finest - Trade

So DC got me to go from getting none of their titles to collecting 9 of them, granted JLI has been cancelled, but that is still a major accomplishment in my opinion. Good job DC. I really hope that Marvel looks at what you've done and how you've done it and tries something similar.

Many people have been loving Batman's "Court of Owls" stuff, it has really made me question whether I should be getting Batman. Zero interest in the story. It combined 2 of my least favorite things in comics:
1 - Introduce a brand new villain/organization and act like it's something that's been around for years
2 - Introduce a new villain/minion we are meant to believe is a heretofore unknown relative of the comic's main character

That said, now that it's over we get something different with #12. We'll be reviewing that issue on the episode that airs August 20th. Will my interest turn around?

BobBretall wrote: 2 - Introduce a new villain/minion we are meant to believe is a heretofore unknown relative of the comic's main character

Bat-Spoiler ahead ... kinda ....
............................................
...................................
...........................
Well, the way they ended it left doubt of the blood relationship. I thought that was a nice way to do it. You can believe the relationship is valid or you can doubt it (much like Bruce is). A win/win depending on what side of the fence you want to be on.

When I said "meant to believe" I was referring to the fact that I don't care if the relationship is ultimately valid or not. Even if it comes down one way, it will likely get ret-conned the other at some point in the future.

I think the whole "heretofore unknown relative" (or heretofore unknown childhood friend) angle is a lazy story crutch and should not be used.

Scott Snyder is a better writer than that. He didn't NEED to fall back on this lazy device to tell an interesting story.

When he piled a surprise relative on top of a surprise "huge criminal organization" it was too much. My suspension of disbelief was out the door, even in a story where the main guy dresses up like a bat & swings from ropes around the city.

BobBretall wrote:When I said "meant to believe" I was referring to the fact that I don't care if the relationship is ultimately valid or not. Even if it comes down one way, it will likely get ret-conned the other at some point in the future.

I think the whole "heretofore unknown relative" (or heretofore unknown childhood friend) angle is a lazy story crutch and should not be used.

Scott Snyder is a better writer than that. He didn't NEED to fall back on this lazy device to tell an interesting story.

When he piled a surprise relative on top of a surprise "huge criminal organization" it was too much. My suspension of disbelief was out the door, even in a story where the main guy dresses up like a bat & swings from ropes around the city.

I'm with you in that while reading this story I kind of got bored. I mean, 11 parts is just a long long story especially to start a soft reboot. But now when i think back on it I think it was pretty cool and very well done IF you're okay with the two things that you pointed out that you're not okay with

I guess I'm saying given that Scott did the two things you don't like, he at least did them very very well so I guess that's why others are loving this arc. I just think it was okay but I'm very glad to be moving on to a fresh story after a YEAR of one story.

BobBretall wrote: Scott Snyder is a better writer than that. He didn't NEED to fall back on this lazy device to tell an interesting story.

Bah. 'lazy device' is a lazy term. There are only so many ways to tell a story and to introduce a character. Is one way actually lazier than the other? Calling this way lazy is saying the Scott couldn't find another way to introduce this character, when in fact this is the way he wanted to introduce the character (or reintroduce actually).

Would you or do you say the same for the countless other characters over the years that were or are introduced to be a relative of a character? Magik, Havok, Super-Girl, Prof X's son - Proteus, Damian and many, many more.

Besides, Scott just didn't "make this character up". He used an old story, involving this character, and brought it to a more modern time, leaving a perfect line of reasonable doubt to shun the idea.

I can appreciate that you didn't like it, absolutely, but calling it lazy, to me, is just a slap in the face. But hey ... that is just my point of view as yours is yours.

But then again, I have never liked the term "gratuitous nudity" either so maybe I am taking this too far.

Perry wrote: Bah. 'lazy device' is a lazy term. There are only so many ways to tell a story and to introduce a character. Is one way actually lazier than the other? Calling this way lazy is saying the Scott couldn't find another way to introduce this character, when in fact this is the way he wanted to introduce the character (or reintroduce actually).

Would you or do you say the same for the countless other characters over the years that were or are introduced to be a relative of a character? Magik, Havok, Super-Girl, Prof X's son - Proteus, Damian and many, many more.

I'd argue that Magik, Havok, Supergirl, etc. were characters that by their nature NEEDED to be related to the main hero to work in the stories the way they were used. The relationship stuck around and enriched the world they were added to. It was not IMO a story device added for shock value.

I'm not so sure on Proteus. I think that character could have stood on it's own without the relationship.

I the case of Thomas Wayne, it didn't enrich the story. In fact. it served to diminish Thomas & Martha Wayne in my eyes, by virtue of how they treated the kid, if this wasn't all a ruse after all.

Which brings me to a 3rd thing I don't like that was in this story. I'm not a fan of retroactively tearing down the "virtual reputation" of established characters. Though I suppose you could argue that the T&M Wayne in the New52 universe were intrinsically creeps.

Lazy? Maybe the wrong choice of words. How about "poor storytelling decision"? That's also subjective, since you seem to have really loved it whilst I hated it.

Though I do think you put in a relationship like this as a shorthand to establish an emotional connection & make some other things in the story have more weight/impact. Without the relationship you'd need to do a lot more storytelling "work" to deliver the same emotional punch. This shorthand means you need to do less work as a storyteller, thus my use of the word lazy, which is perhaps not a valid criticism since I don't know if Snyder was trying to get out of having to write more complicated stuff to deliver the same story impact or if he just thought having the relationship would "be cool".

I think of this device as the kind of thing Hollywood people think is really clever when a super-hero movie is being made:
Tim Burton's Batman: "Wouldn't it be cool if we had Jack Napier be the guy who killed T&M Wayne, then he becomes Joker?"
Dark Knight: "Wouldn't it be cool if Henri Ducard & Ra's Al Ghul are the same guy? AND it turns out Ra's is the guy who trains Batman?"
Spider-Man 3 (Raimi): "Wouldn't it be cool if the guy who becomes Sandman was actually the burglar who killed Uncle Ben"?
Amazing Spider-Man: "Wouldn't it be cool if we had the guy who becomes the Lizard be the guy who engineered the spiders who create Spider-Man"?

Maybe it's just me. My answer to all of the above is "No, it would not." You do not need to have a direct connection between the bad guy and the hero.

I'm current on *ALL* of the New 52 comics except Batman #12 (which I'll read in a few days so it is fresh in my mind when Bob and I discuss it on the next Weekly Comics Spotlight).

I figured it would be safe to venture into this thread with out the risk of any major spoilers. Foolish me.

JohnMayo wrote:I'm current on *ALL* of the New 52 comics except Batman #12 (which I'll read in a few days so it is fresh in my mind when Bob and I discuss it on the next Weekly Comics Spotlight).

I figured it would be safe to venture into this thread with out the risk of any major spoilers. Foolish me.

What was the spoiler? Because this Batman stuff was revealed in #10, wasn't it?

Or are you saying spoilers for other people?

abysslord wrote:

JohnMayo wrote:I'm current on *ALL* of the New 52 comics except Batman #12 (which I'll read in a few days so it is fresh in my mind when Bob and I discuss it on the next Weekly Comics Spotlight).

I figured it would be safe to venture into this thread with out the risk of any major spoilers. Foolish me.

What was the spoiler?

Amazing Spider-Man: "Wouldn't it be cool if we had the guy who becomes the Lizard be the guy who engineered the spiders who create Spider-Man"?

I'm behind on the summer movies.

It isn't a huge deal but I'd pretty much managed to avoid spoiler on most of the movies that stumbling across one here surprised me.

BobBretall wrote:
Maybe it's just me. My answer to all of the above is "No, it would not." You do not need to have a direct connection between the bad guy and the hero.

But Bob, then you can't have the villain look at the hero and go "We're a lot alike, you and I!" or "You created me??! I created YOU!" or all the other fun tropes of our favorite funnybooks!