richardmurray

A reply to my thoughts
the problem is, what is considered 'woke', isn't about presenting things in a real and honest way, it's about presenting things in a distorted manner to fit an agenda.
Things like pressing an unrealistic large number of characters as gay or lesbian. Presenting every woman as being the best of friends on sight. Presenting all black people as 'soulful saints' with no flaws whatsoever, that sort of thing.
There is also the issue of the artwork. The general quality is poor, but there is also the same agenda-pushing, such as drawing women to look like men, men to look like women.
None of that even includes the constant gender and race swapping of beloved, long-running characters and attacking fans for not being okay with it.
That is the stuff people are complaining about when they talk about woke comics. It also doesn't help matters when, as you say, the writing is so poor.

My reply to it
 OF course it is, every single comic book reboot in the usa happened for an agenda. Why did the crisis on infinite earths happen? DC had bought two comic books imprints and had titles like superman and wonder woman with 500 or more editions so, DC had an agenda to narrow the number of titles and reboot the remaining titles thinking fewer titles will be financially viable and the rebooted series will be "woke". Ala, Power girl's history is an example of my point. Powergirl's entire history reflects what you call Woke culture:) before the word was used. Thus my point about reboots.
And that is my issue with Milestone's reboot and all other reboots in comics. I just don't see any comic reboot as needed. The agenda's are never functional and don't help. No one likes to admit it, but the comic book industry in the usa hurt itself mightily with the crisis for the same reason milestone has hurt itself now in its reboot crisis.
I am not knocking your points, but for me the deeper issue is reboots in themselves. I ask you this? can you name a reboot that actually worked in USA comics? And I don't mean graphic novel.
This is one of the reasons I like the watchmen graphic novel. In the graphic novel, the watchmen do the one thing that so few usa comics realize they need to do and that is move on. The original team died, but it wasn't in some inter dimensional nonsense, it was in their own world.
And that is the point I didn't make about these reboots. All the agenda's Milestone's new writers wanted could had been achieved given time. And this is why you don't reboot, you continue the stories.
I am ranting, but I comprehend your points chris, they are the same the video viewer made. I don't disagree but I think the larger issue is the culture of rebooting in usa comics. I say to all fans of comics let us all message/tweet/notify, no more reboots.

COMMENT

Um. no. They did Crisis because fifty years of history, plus an infinite number of Earths made their continuity daunting for new readers. The only 'agenda' was to clean up their continuity and make it more inviting to potential, new readers.
Powergirl's history change was because there was only one Earth then and they decided that Superman was going to be the only actual Kryptonian on Earth. What exactly do you imagine as being political about her origin change?
It sounds like you're confusing reasons for agenda.
The Crisis itself was highly successful. DC rose to great fights off of that and became very popular and successful to readers, new and old, after that.
The only issue they ran into was that they couldn't keep their own continuity
straight even then and had poor coordination.
Of course, they don't just let characters die or age out, they need their flagship characters. Books like Watchmen can do that because they are designed to be a limited-run project. That was why DC decided not to let it use the Charlton characters (as planned) because they knew that once it was over those characters were burned and neither DC nor Marvel would still be here today if they didn't update their continuities and hold on to their popular characters that fans love.
There would be no DC without Superman., Batman and the others just as Marvel would be nothing without Spiderman and their characters. There is no way they would be here today if they moved on like that.
That said, updating doesn't mean you change the core of the character and their identity because it's the flavor of the month to make certain types of characters. Making Superman or Batman black, or as we have right now, making a new Superman is now bi doesn't make the character better, it a trendy and it's a trendy thing to do the but the long time fans want no part of it, its' not picking up new fans.
It's getting press (most of it making fun of them) but that's not translating into what really matters for a business, money.
As long as there is DC and Marvel they're going to keep updating their characters whether you call it a reboot or whatever, it's just how it works.

My Reply

Chris McWilliams I will quote you: << The only 'agenda' was to clean up their continuity and make it more inviting to potential, new readers.>> <<The only issue they ran into was that they couldn't keep their own continuity
straight even then and had poor coordination.>> ... at the least you accept that the crisis was a reboot that had an agenda, and you accept that the storytelling about that reboot was poor. That was my key point, your tone seems to suggest a rebuttal, but didn't I say those two things?

Chris McWilliams You made a very important point, it is a philosophical view, but the key to these reboots: I Quote you << Of course, they don't just let characters die or age out, they need their flagship characters. Books like Watchmen can do that because they are designed to be a limited-run project. That was why DC decided not to let it use the Charlton characters (as planned) because they knew that once it was over those characters were burned and neither DC nor Marvel would still be here today if they didn't update their continuities and hold on to their popular characters that fans love.
There would be no DC without Superman., Batman and the others just as Marvel would be nothing without Spiderman and their characters. There is no way they would be here today if they moved on like that. >>    ... the problem is a simple question, is this true? You suggest it is, I am will say, I don't know. I am not certain in the slightest that what you assert is true. I know the philosophy is common but just cause a thing is common doesn't make it true. Human beings can repeat an action many times , many many times, before they wise up. I will not say, you are wrong, but I can not say you are right. BUT, what is important is that the people who own things, they clearly see it that way. And thus the cycle. BUT, I end with a question. Why couldn't milestone's characters age? Is Milestone incapable of ending its characters? I can comprehend, DC or Marvel after 40 to 50 years of continuous print, decades long nurturing of fans. but milestone? Does your assertion to DC/Marvel apply to Milestone? I append the caveat that DC still has a large influence over milestone. to be blunt, milestone is still not independent exactly. 

COMMENT
If you call a business wanting to make money by making their product more accessible to new customers an agenda then yeah but that is not what most people think of when they hear the word agenda.

MY REPLY
Chris McWilliams well, in the usa, when someone says what most people think, that leads into a hellava debate:) I will say this, the purpose of a firm is to make money. The simplest reason is without money they can't pay their bills, and thus can no longer operate. Now, the way in which a firm chooses to make money, is the agenda. Now for a thought experiment. LEt us say: rich and chris are two junior executives who are in the board room meeting concerning DC plus Milestone comics. Now a third junior executive, unknown name, is in the meeting as well. The third executive says: I can make the firm more money by rebooting and streamlining the DC titles in a collective event known as the crisis, using the older fans to generate hype around the event and giving first time comic buyers a grand introduction  and by rebooting and heavily redesigning the characters of Milestone to fit the global multiracial buying base that doesn't have representations. Now you said, I quote you << wanting to make money by making their product more accessible to new customers an agenda>> Now if the president of the firm says: I want my two junior executives in the comics wing to now speak. In my view though I can be making an ass out myself, Chris will say, he concurs to the unnamed executive cause in both situations the unnamed executive is applying an agenda to gain new readers for either comic book zone by increasing accessibility through new character types or streamlined stories or the hype of a collective megastory. Now Rich will say: I think the unnamed executive's strategy is false for both comic book imprints. Both imprints have dedicated readers who cherise their experiences. If we reboot either of them ,we are asking the people who read DC for forty years to act like they were not following this story for forty years. And if we are asking the people who fell in love with Milestone to disregard their unique treasured experience in a non white based comic book universe. Either situation to me injures the most dedicated readers that the comic wing needs, cause dedicated readers will forgive our mistakes more than the carry ons or recents.  Second, I think the better agenda is to gain new readers to both while maintaining the old readership. Thus, I say DC needs to add titles, to relate to new audiences while continuing the old, and Milestone must do the same. If titles need to be diminished based on the budget we commit triage and cut the least popular in either imprint, with the caveat that the writers must utilize these characters at least once every year in roles to maintain their visibility. Now, the president can say : Rich I am going with the unnamed junior executive plus Chris and that is fine. but...