I dunno Matt. It seems like the die-hard are the most pessimistic. Or perhaps we are defining die-hard differently.  But I haven't bought a serialized title in years. I have been interested and picked up trades here and there, but I haven't been brought into a store.  Of course I should not be the target audience. I believe they should be going after teh high school kids. They need those with disposable income and cars. It was at that age I was die hard. But, by the time I was 30, I pretty much moved on. I get some here and there. So I don't think I am die hard. I define die-hard closer to the fanatic roots. I guess I define die hard as those that care. Emery, up above, states that he doesn't buy anything, but he makes it pretty clear that he cares. I would consider him to be more die hard than me as I am defining it. By the way, good for those that do care. They should ask more out of those things they love.

Now, I don't care. I think this is just another story...like FlashPoint, like Black Lantern, like Heroes Reborn, like Inferno, and so on. Ramifications may stick, they may not. I don't really care.  I am optimistic that they will be fun. I guess I am die hard when it comes to fun popcorn stories. I love 'em. Give me the impossible and improbable. Give me huge amounts of pathos. Give me drama. Give me action. Give me something escapist. And this new thing on the DC books, it looks like they are trying to give all of those things. Cool, I say.

Brian Joseph Mayer wrote: I dunno Matt. It seems like the die-hard are the most pessimistic. Or perhaps we are defining die-hard differently.

Evidently.  I define a die-hard mainstream comic book fan as the one that doesn't drop a title no matter what.  They stick through everything; bad art, bad writing, mischaracterized portrayals of their favorite characters, mini and maxi series events.  All of it.  They're the people that come on forums to say that they haven't really been all that excited about comics...but haven't stopped buying them in 20 years because they don't want their run interrupted "just in case it gets good again".  They're the ones that are looking optimistically at this umpteenth reboot/retooling as though they've never experienced the last one or conveniently forgotten that none of the previous reboots/retooling have done jack all to making mainstream comics fun and compelling for all-ages. 

Those are the die-hard fans I'm talking about, not people who, like me, love the character of Spider-Man but have given up buying anything new starring him in years. 

After looking at all the promos, it looks like DC (mostly) and Marvel (a little) are stylistically rebooting to 1995 artwise. idk It seems the past few months comic artwork's gone down in quality all around compared to last few years.

Derek S. Wilczynski wrote: If you've found that the Emperor is naked, that may be a sign for you to walk away.

From new mainstream superhero comics produced by Marvel and DC?  Already have.  My eyes were opened a number of years ago.

By comparison, while I am excited about the reboot/relaunch, I'm not sure it will bring new readers and really "work."  In fact, I've posed this question to the board and haven't really gotten much of a response.  What do we define as a success for this program?

At the very least, I think that readership will hold steady, but I don't get the impression that holding steady is what DC is after.  What does everyone else think?

I just don't see how the reboot can work when it's not a reboot, but more like a DC Comics cut out in the shape of Geoff Johns.

I mean, no one at DC or Marvel will honest answer the question: WHO are these "new" readers they are trying to pull in? Are they teenagers of today? Are they kids? Can't be kids. Are they working 9-5ers raising children on limited budgets and can't afford to splurge on comic books? Are these "new" readers born yet?

I can't figure it out. I can't identify who superhero comics are being produced for right now, much less some undefined group of readers yet found.

I keep getting the sneaking suspicion that everything DC and Marvel does is designed to propagate the notion that there are "new" horizons to be discovered in superhero comics. Which is a fallacy. Superhero comics are a formula unto themselves.

They are, or should be, a simplistic speculation on what would happen if you, anyone in the world, was for instance invulnerable and could fly. They are a strict display of good vs evil that anyone can understand, as superheroes are already very broad archetypes to begin with. There isn't a lot of complication to the greatest superheroes because, well, the best superheroes are not complicated. They are exactly what they seem to be. That's their true power.

Anyway, I don't know what DC is seeking as a measure of success. I will consider the so-called reboot a success if artists like Cliff Chiang and Ryan Sook become household names. If by some miracle the artistic merit of DC Comics was to become better by becoming less, less complicated and more streamlined and more timeless as it once was, I think DC's creative output might become at least somewhat original for the first time in forever. Better artists who can stay on a book for a long period of time, and make an impact in that time, might mean more control for those artists. And if those artists simply become more successful and move on to other, lesser companies to become stars, at least we can benefit by having already discovered the next Darwyn Cooke or Eric Powell.