Love it or hate it, DC's New 52 relaunch was one of the most significant comic book developments in recent memory. The publisher made the bold move of wiping the slate clean and giving new and old readers alike a fresh jumping-on point and 52 new comics. Though the relaunch had its fair share of problems, it also attracted a lot of new readers and helped reinvigorate the comics industry as a whole.

Loading

Continuity Confusion

The Darker DCU

As DC prepares to end the New 52 and refocus their attention on a new wave of accessible, story-driven comics, we've decided to look back on the legacy of this relaunch. In this second of three articles, we're looking at the elements of the New 52 that haven't worked out so well. Be sure to check out yesterday's feature on what we liked about the New 52 , and check back on Wednesday as we explore what we want to see from a post-New 52 DC Universe.Much like Crisis on Infinite Earths before it, the New 52 wasn't a complete reboot of DC continuity. DC was quick to point out that certain classic storylines remained in play. As the first wave of 52 comics debuted in September 2011, there was five-year history forming the new DC continuity - some of it known and some unknown.DC was selective in what franchises it overhauled and how drastically they changed as a result. The Batman and Green Lantern franchises emerged with only light modifications. Other big names like Superman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman received some changes. Meanwhile, properties like Green Arrow and Teen Titans were altered on a pretty fundamental level, while the Vertigo and Wildstorm universes were suddenly integrated with the rest of the DCU. That quickly created confusion for readers trying to determine how the new DCU fit together. What stories still remained in continuity? What comics still "count"? How is Batman supposed to have fathered a 10-year-old son and worked with four different Robins in this five-year timeline?Even with pre-New 52 comics that are still included in this continuity, it's difficult to reconcile the old and the new. Blackest Night has been frequently referenced in the Green Lantern comics, but that story can't have played out in the New 52 the way it did in 2009. Too many characters and relationships have either changed or flat-out don't exist in this new nuniverse. Final Crisis and The Return of Bruce Wayne have also been acknowledged several times, and we can't even begin to figure out how that's supposed to work.DC tried to have its cake and eat it too when it came to relaunching their universe. They wanted a universe that was clean and accessible to new readers without throwing away all the stories that seasoned readers loved. And in some ways, they pleased neither camp. The streamlined New 52 continuity has created as many problems as it solved. Meanwhile, a lot of older readers are still annoyed by the continuity wipe, even if it wasn't all-encompassing.Perhaps DC should have delivered a completely fresh start for their universe - one that respected the history and legacy of the old one without actually keeping any of those stories in continuity. At the very least, they should have developed a more cohesive road map for their new continuity that squashed any major hurdles before they occurred.To be fair, DC had two critically and commercially beloved, multi-year superhero sagas (Geoff Johns' Green Lantern and Grant Morrison's Batman) that were still very much in play when the New 52 started. We'd hate to think of those stories being cut short to facilitate a complete continuity reboot. But on the other hand, why couldn't DC have published those two comics as out-of-continuity stories rather than forcing the New 52 to ingest them whole?It seems the success of the Superman: Earth One graphic novel in 2010 influenced the shape of the New 52 the following year. Earth One's Superman was a more grounded and realistic take on the character. He was more troubled, less emotionally stable, and faced with a world that neither trusted nor wanted him. DC seemed to apply that formula to many of their New 52 revamps. The New 52 featured heroes who were more flawed and conflicts a little more grounded in the real world. Goofier characters like Bizarro were either toned down or fundamentally altered to suit this darker, more realistic DCU. Even three years in, it can be hard to accept this tonal upheaval in some books.If anything, the DCU became a more Marvel-esque place. Sometimes the similarities were a little too transparent. Amanda Waller and A.R.G.U.S. became very much the Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. of this universe. There was also the halfhearted (and mostly abandoned) concept of a superhuman meta-gene being the source of all super-powers.Then you have the problem with costume redesigns. There was a clear emphasis on making DC's iconic superhero costumes look more functional. External underwear disappeared overnight. Many costumes gained extra lines and padding to signify that the heroes were wearing armor rather than spandex. For the most part, this only served to make formerly clean, attractive designs look more busy and ungainly. Conversely, some female characters became more sexualized than ever thanks to their costume designs. We're not sure how it's possible, but Starfire's outfit became skimpier than ever in the New 52.

Between the Panels: What Makes a Good Superhero Costume?

There's nothing inherently wrong with presenting superheroes in a darker and more grounded light. Nor should Marvel have a monopoly on flawed heroes. But too often, this treatment went against the grain of DC's heroes. What happened to the noble, larger-than-life figures that used to defend the DCU? Even Superman has often come across as cold, distant, and unlikable in his New 52 appearances. It's only recently that writers like Greg Pak have managed to restore him to a sense of normalcy. And not to harp on Starfire, but her coldly sexual personality in the New 52 has made her the poster child for the damage unnecessary darkness can wreak on a beloved character:

Don't do that, is basically the lesson to take away from this.