I don't know that DC's intention with the New52 was to avoid multiple or alternative versions of their characters. Because even if, briefly, that was the case in their comics, at the same time the New52 launched, there were already concurrent, alternate versions of these characters existing in series of movies, video games, cartoons, direct to DVD features, etc. So even the most easily confused hypothetical reader would have, say, other versions of Batman in their head at the same time of month one of the New52.
Besides, I don't think readers actually get confused by multiple versions of the same character. Especially when it comes to characters like a Batman or Superman that even a non-comic reading person gets have had multiple versions across a variety of media in their own lifetime.
In a time when an average moviegoer is familiar with the term "reboot", I don't think confusion from alternate versions of a character are really a concern.
Well, let me put it this way.
I have been reading comics all of my life, since about 1973. I am well-versed in DC lore, continuity, movies, Elseworlds, etc. all the way up to, oh about the 52/countdown series'. I have not read a lot of the New 52 stuff, and just reading press releases and seeing covers confuses the hell out of me.
Imagine what Joe Shmoe, who just saw Dark Knight Rises, thinks when he finally goes into the comics store. Accessible? I don't think so. It's not even accessible to me. I understand, and even enjoy, the different versions "across a variety of media", but have no clue as to the current relationships of Batman, Nighwing, Damien, Robin, Red Robin, Red Hood, BatGirl, BatWoman, etc.
And, make no mistake, accessibility was the top of the list of objectives at the New52 launch.
Every reader, new and established, is different of course. And want different amounts of information and different paces. For example, some people, when the New 52 launched, wanted that first five years of continuity (that gutter between when the Justice League first met each other to the present where most of the books were set) detailed out in a timeline in the back of the book. Already committed to dates and events. And that's fair. Some people want that amount of guidebook information. To me, that is limiting. That is reducing your stories to Wikipedia paragraphs before the stories even get told.
Personally, I think the way to find out what the relationships between the characters are in the New 52 is to watch them have those relationships. We will know, say, what Batman thinks about Batwoman by watching them have a scene together. To me, not knowing before I buy the book exactly what I can expect is not a barrier to entry. It is rather fodder for the story that I am about to read. Others may want something different, and that is fair.
But I think whether or not something is accessible to the hypothetical "new reader" is a hard thing for any of us to judge. It depends on the reader. Heck, I jumped cold into Uncanny X-Men in 1986. A little more than halfway into Claremont's 19 year original run. The amount of relationships, plots, subplots (including many dangling ones) was enormous. And this was without the Internet to help me out. And it absolutely hooked me. What I didn't know yet was a big part of what got me on board. I read to find out more. That happens, too.
And the best way for a reader, new or longtime, to know whether the story is bringing them in (call that accessible if you want) is if it works for them when they read it. If the main way you are judging the work is by their press releases and covers, then really your problem is with their marketing people?
You, know... I think you brought up something important... Marketing People. I think the NUMBER ONE thing that bugs me about N52 is that is seems to have been driven by marketing, then editorial, then creators. NEVER a good thing.
Most of the great stories, innovations, and events in comics were driven by creativity, and here we have a drastic line-wide alteration of an entire universe, because marketing people were steering the boat. The last time that happened, was in the 90's, and cover gimmicks were the fruit of it.
I used to work for a small video game developer, and ALL of the bad decisions we were mandated to follow were handed down from the marketing arm of the client. Good marketing can be a good thing... getting ahead of the trends, predicting where interests and trends will shift in the future, etc. Bad marketing (which is by far the majority of the field, in my experience) looks at the past, to plan for the future.
Hopefully I have not offended any marketing persons in the reading audience... just rest assured, I am not talking about you, for you are all in the good, prescient, ahead of the trends crowd, not in the lame hackneyed loser crowd.
You, know... I think you brought up something important... Marketing People. I think the NUMBER ONE thing that bugs me about N52 is that is seems to have been driven by marketing, then editorial, then creators. NEVER a good thing.
And I think you're absolutely correct. A lot of this has all felt very market-driven since it began. And I don't doubt that it's all part of the new DC Entertainment rather than what we were accustomed to as DC Comics.
It makes me deeply sad when I think about how only certain creators are given free reign to do what they want. People like Snyder and Lemire are the few who can really say what they want with DC properties. It makes things really dour for smaller titles.
Comments
Most of the great stories, innovations, and events in comics were driven by creativity, and here we have a drastic line-wide alteration of an entire universe, because marketing people were steering the boat. The last time that happened, was in the 90's, and cover gimmicks were the fruit of it.
I used to work for a small video game developer, and ALL of the bad decisions we were mandated to follow were handed down from the marketing arm of the client. Good marketing can be a good thing... getting ahead of the trends, predicting where interests and trends will shift in the future, etc. Bad marketing (which is by far the majority of the field, in my experience) looks at the past, to plan for the future.
Hopefully I have not offended any marketing persons in the reading audience... just rest assured, I am not talking about you, for you are all in the good, prescient, ahead of the trends crowd, not in the lame hackneyed loser crowd.