Continuity and the Doom Patrol

By Hervé St.Louis
March 15, 2004 - 11:25

Yesterday, I learned that DC Comics would reboot the Doom Patrol and that it had made its first official appearance in the last issue of the JLA comic book. Reboots are part of comics but there's one type I don't really like. It's the one where "everything you knew is thrown away and we're starting from scratch - but for no legitimate reasons."

I know it's trendy to bash so-called continuity freaks and if it makes you groove, then bash me. There's a belief that continuity is bad, constrains creativity, and that if the story's good, the end justifies the means. I don't think so. I'm not about to write a long diatribe on the pros of continuity and why creators should respect it. Without continuity, super hero comics wouldn't exist.

There's an argument that says that reboots attract new readers and make things simple for them and kids. First, can we finally agree that no one publishes American super hero comics for kids? Kids don't read Batman or Spider-man. Ok settled. Second, whenever there's a reboot, most of the readers and the people who stick with a book are the hardcore fans, not new guys.

There are several types of reboots. For example, Superman and Wonder Woman's reboot after Crisis were good. The reboots were dedicated and followed the ending of the previous runs of the characters just after Crisis. It was a new starting point. Many say, and I agree with them, that DC Comics should have rebooted everything then, but sadly, they lacked the vision.

Another type of reboot which I enjoy even more is the Elseworld/Ultimate type. I had not been interested in the Avengers, Thor, Ironman and the X-Men for many years. Yet, the Ultimate universe is fun and the story's good. Marvel took away nothing from the old readers who enjoyed the original books. Although a fan of the old G.I. Joe series, the Reload version interests me.

Hawkworld

The type of reboot that's the most difficult to sustain and that irks me is the when publishers disavow an existing setting in favour of a new one. Most of the time, it's based on ego or sloppiness. Pick your favourite. Hawkworld is the best example. After the successful 1988 Hawkworld mini-series, DC Comics decided that the new series would happen in the present.

The new series' creators, Tim Truman, John Ostrander and Graham Nolan did not take this decision. Their editor, Mike Gold took the decision. It took DC more than twelve years to sort the entire mess this decision created. By then Hawkman was losing more fans than the new ones the new reader friendly series was supposed to attract when the new Hawkworld series started.

On the surface, John Byrne's new Doom Patrol might be a Hawkworld like reboot. Possibly a very good series, but always dodged by readers' complaints and a whole lot of mess left for other writers to clean up, to accommodate a new series, its writer and its editor. I believe new series should fit existing one's, not the opposite.

The new Doom Patrol reboot will cause problems to popular Teen Titans' Beast Boy's history. Why should a successful book with a secure track be the one suffering the decision of another that keeps getting cancelled and DC Comics has not tested that in the market? Why not ask the Doom Patrol's creators to prove themselves before giving them carte blanche?

I'm not a Doom Patrol fan. If they were figures of the character, I'd buy them, but I've never supported their series. The only Doom Patrol appearances I've read were in the old New Teen Titans and Justice League Year One. I enjoyed each very much. I don't mind that John Byrne is trying to make this series interesting again. I hope the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Hervé

Read a related articles and reviews such as:

Beast Boy Action Figure Review

The Hawkman Groupie

JLA Incarnation Year One

Last Updated: August 31, 2023 - 08:12

RSS Mobile Contact Advertising Terms of Service