(For those who don't: "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about.")

And, no, this is not a cue for a reprise of the MONTY PYTHON "Oscar Wilde Sketch", thank you very much!

When I first read about Flashpoint, I thought it was yet another gimmick to justify multiple issues to tell a story (alternate universe) that's been done to death. Reviews of the first issue haven't dissuaded me from this opinion.

That being said, I like the idea that only Professor Zoom can change the past. I also don't mind the idea of rebooting the DC line, hopefully they'll weed out many of the titles that are crowding the stands, barely selling.

I was mulling over how convoluted DC continuity has become, and realized that 'reboots' shouldn't be necessary, if writers would simply focus on telling stories that respect the basic premise of a given character, and not refer to past history unless it helps tell a good story.

JB's Fantastic Four run is a strong example of how to do it right, IMO.

••

Just like CRISIS did!

Oh, wait. . .

Simple fact of the matter, here, is that whether or not DC are actually planning some kind of company-wide "reboot" really doesn't alter one thing: REBOOTS DON'T WORK.

And, yes, I include the ones I have worked on.

See, if you have Stan Lee, and Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko, and maybe a few others, and this small, compact group are handling the entire "universe", you can produced a pretty cohesive package. Not entirely so, mind you! The occasional "Bob Banner" will slip thru from time to time. But -- especially if there is essentially one set of eyes overseeing the whole thing -- you have a better chance of keeping it all in one place.

Break that up into the kinds of structures we have at modern companies, and you end up with, well, CRISIS. CRISIS and all it's spawn, at BOTH companies. Because there are too many EGOS involved. Too many instances of Person A doing something in the reboot of the book he's working on, and Person B doing something somewhere else that totally contradicts it. (Within what seemed like minutes of MAN OF STEEL coming out, DC published a story that featured the ghost of Kara, the Supergirl of the "previous universe". LEGION OF SUPERHEROES showed us a hall of statues honoring their dead, and there was Superboy, front and center. And THAT book was written by the guy who was IN CHARGE of DC!!)

Marvel has been all about egos for a long time. Since long before I finally left in disgust. "Editorial comments" were all over the place, one writer slipping into his title a snarky little shot at another writer's book or character. Unbelievable!

And reboots only bring out the worst of this. They require EVERYBODY to PLAY THE SAME GAME -- but far too many people think it should be THEIR game that's being played!

What was the longest and most consistent DC Universe?  I am thinking to myself it was probably from the beginning of the Silver Age around 1956 to Crisis in 1986. 

That was the one I was introduced to and miss.  They seriously lost me after that.  I tried the reboots of Superman (I actually LOVED Man of Steel) and Wonder Woman but after a couple years when it appeared the powers that were were going to change it up again, I left, never to return.

Unfortunately, what made Marvel distinct in this regard is also now gone as Marvel has rebooted several titles and created "alternate universes" to try to get around it.

Sigh.

JB, I disagree with you to a point:  PARTIAL reboots do not work, which what DC has done in the recent past.  In 1957 they did a total reboot.  IF they do that now, it might work.  Heavy emphasis on the "might".  If they do a partial or soft reboot like in 1986, it'll fail once again.