God = Source = Presence = Overvoid Merging Profiles

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The word reboot has never once been used. All they said is that they were going back to the roots. Canon has never been addressed whatsoever. To claim that everything that came after Sandman is now suddenly retconned is to be ridiculous.

Comicbook characters are "reinvented and reimagined" in new runs by new authors all the freaking time. Pick up four different Batman Runs by different authors and chances are they'll each have a Batman that acts nothing alike. Doesn't mean they're reboots.

 

[By_My_Neck]

Lucifer 2018 is referencing him as the Shaper of Suns, where the Universe bent to his Will, and was an aspect of the Presence who is 1-A.

Three things, a Carey Lucifer trait.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

How would this affect the profile? I thought the personal version of The Presence shown in Mike Carey's work was getting a separate key from the unmanifest version and the Overvoid itself. If that's the case, then the most this would do is give us another key for Sandman Universe's interpretation God, which we don't have any details on as of yet.

 

[Sandman31]

Neil Gaima:Okay, this is that thing." We were looking at rebooting Books of Magic, so let's go talk to Kat. She has the touch, she understands the magic. These are people who are really good and smart, and, more to the point, they understand the area that we have cordoned off. It's actually exactly like casting; you're trying to cast the writer. With Lucifer, Mike Carey and Holly Black left huge shoes to fill. But Dan is smart and deep, and he gets it. He's up to the challenge of "Okay, can you recreate this thing?"

 

[ClassicNESfan]

In addition to what Matt is saying, the word "reboot" has kind of been perverted lately. Sometimes when peolpe say "reboot" they don't even mean retconning the old and making a new version. Sometimes they legit just mean "relaunch." I don't really side with either interpretation on this, but if we absolutely have to treat one as its own separate thing and one as connected to the DC universe, I would be partial to segmenting Sandman Universe into its own sandbox first. Although, honestly, I don't know if it really matters. We index things on this site across multiple canons, don't we? Why not just make a profile for both of them if they are not connected?

 

[Sandman31]

Now were just arguing semantics. Combine all the statements together then its pretty clear that they just dont mean "relaunch"

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yeah Lucifer being a "Shaper of Suns" is Carey's stuff.

All we had was a standalone arc. There's nothing weird about that. They also referenced Hellblazer what with the mention of Gabriel falling and Carey's Lucifer had a brief crossover with Hellblazer.

 

[Ionliosite]

In addition to what Matt is saying, the word "reboot" has kind of been perverted lately. Sometimes when peolpe say "reboot" they don't even mean retconning the old and making a new version. Sometimes they legit just mean "relaunch." I don't really side with either interpretation on this, but if we absolutely have to treat one as its own separate thing and one as connected to the DC universe, I would be partial to segmenting Sandman Universe into its own sandbox first. Although, honestly, I don't know if it really matters. We index things on this site across multiple canons, don't we? Why not just make a profile for both of them if they are not connected?

An example of this would be the Dawn of X relaunch being constantly called a reboot, when it's just that, a relaunch.

 

[Sandman31]

In addition to what Matt is saying, the word "reboot" has kind of been perverted lately. Sometimes when peolpe say "reboot" they don't even mean retconning the old and making a new version. Sometimes they legit just mean "relaunch."

Its pretty clear what they meant when they said that they will reboot the series. You dont need to provide a different meaning to it when the writers already explained in depth what they meant

They said they were looking past the solo series and will be using sandman as the source

Said that they spent days deconstructing and rebuilding the stories/characters

Said that Gaiman asked him to recreate the series

Said that this is not Holly Black or Carey interpretation but is the Sandman interpretation

Said that the past series is now standalone

Like how can they make themselves more clear? Say the definition of the word reboot after saying the word?

When they said reboot its a reboot. I'm pretty sure thats what they meant.

Feels like I've already spent a lot of time here. I'll unfollow this thread and go hibernate again after I finished the Unwritten stuff.

 

[Hykuu]

I can help you with that, since I am also in the process of reading the Unwritten.

Prolly wouldn't even read this message cus unfollow but hey

 

[ClassicNESfan]

I'm sorry, but I just don't think those quotes are as immediately indicative of the proposed conclusion as they are being portrayed here. But I do still think we should get back to the main topic of conversation. Combining DC's various God aspects should be our primary focus for now.

 

[Sandman31]

@Hykuu Yeah, sure.

@ClassicNESfan

just posting this in order to relieve my frustration

Wont bother trying to convince you guys. Just realized that there'll be no end to this.

Said that theres no mention that the series was rebooted

Me: show that two of the writers said that its a reboot. That they literally rebuild the comics etc

You guys: well how can we know that he really meant reboot and not relaunch?

The burden of proof is you guys to prove that. Citing another series as an example doesnt mean anything. I can cite counter examples. There are far more reboots that are actually reboots than relaunch marketed as reboots

I'm sorry, but I just don't think those quotes are as immediately indicative of the proposed conclusion as they are being portrayed here.

If those are not enough then nothing is. Because theyre pretty straight forward. What you guys are waiting for is an evidence that confirms your beliefs which isnt something that I can provide

 

[Sandman31]

Feels like I've lost my cool there so I would like to apologize. But I"ll still stick by to everything I said until someone actually have a proper response and debunks it.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that Sandman31 seems to make sense.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

Listen, I'm genuinely not trying to upset you. I think I've made it pretty clear multiple times by now that I'm open to it being a reboot, but at this point, I feel like I'm being fussed at a little bit for refusing to side 100% with your interpretation. I've been very light on any criticisms toward your perspective because I don't really like to argue when it's clear things are getting heated. I have no desire to put you in a bad mood, and I don't feel like this argument is necessary right now in the first place. But if you're really so insistant on me voicing my complaints, I'll be frank. Most of the things you've listed here are not indicative of a reboot by themselves unless you remove them from their surrounding context.

Your Statements: "They said they were looking past the solo series and will be using sandman as the source," "Said that this is not Holly Black or Carey interpretation but is the Sandman interpretation"

Their Statement: "Because this is The Sandman Universe, we wanted to go back to The Sandman and the roots of the character," Watters tells EW. "Lucifer has had these amazing long runs by Mike Carey and Holly Black, and it's got this hugely successful TV show, so it's trying to balance a version of him that will appeal to everyone who loves this character, but also doesn't require you to have read a bunch of books or three seasons of a TV show. We were very much looking back to Sandman and using that as our primary source material."

This quote by itself is obviously not confirmation of a reboot. "We wanted to go back to the roots of the character" is a common phrase that is often used when writers attempt to reincorporate more of what a character or story originally was into their new run. If I've just finished writing a long Batma arc wherein Bruce was having some crazy globe-spanning, magic-fueled battles with international crime syndacites like the League of Assassins trying to exterminate all human life on the planet, but I decide my next run is going to be more focused on Batman fighting common gangsters and dirty dealers in Gotham City, I could describe that as "going back to the roots of the character." It's a common expression. It does not always indicate a reboot. This quote only says "Hey, there have been a lot of interpretations of Lucifer published by DC. We want to depict a version of him that appeals to all fans, but we also want it to be accessible to people who are not caught up on his continuity. Since this is The Sandma Universe, Lucifer was first introduced in Sandma, and Sandma continuity is needed to understand the basis of this stuff anyway, we decided to focus primarily on the themes and characterization originally expressed in Sandma, but it's a balancing act and we want to please everybody."

Your Statements: "Said that they spent days deconstructing and rebuilding the stories/characters," "When they said reboot its a reboot. I'm pretty sure thats what they meant."

Their Statement: "We were looking at rebooting Books of Magic, so let's go talk to Kat. She has the touch, she understands the magic. These are people who are really good and smart, and, more to the point, they understand the area that we have cordoned off. It's actually exactly like casting; you're trying to cast the writer. With Lucifer, Mike Carey and Holly Black left huge shoes to fill. But Dan is smart and deep, and he gets it. He's up to the challenge of 'Okay, can you recreate this thing?'"

Again, this does nothing to prove we're dealing with a reboot. Saying "Okay, can you recreate this thing?" does not necessarily mean the original thing is being destroyed, especially in this context. The sentences immediately preceeding it go on about how Neil Gaiman was trying to "cast" a writer and Mike Carey and Holly Black left "big shoes to fill." Even if this is a reboot, saying "Can you recreate this thing?" in this context is clearly referring to the tone, writing style, and quality. He is saying that Dan Watters is up to the task of replicating a quality narrative style that has been achieved by two very skilled writers. This has absolutely nothing to do if whether Lucifer is a reboot or not. And the only line here that actually mentions the word "reboot" (the one at the top) is clearly referring specifically to Books of Magic. The full quote in question was a paragraph of Neil Gaiman describing his thought processes in hiring each individual writer for each individual book. There's a portion where he talks about casting for The House of Whispers, a portion about casting for The Dreaming, a portion about casting for Books of Magic, and a portion about casting for Lucifer. You can't just tie the conclusion of his Books of Magic segment to the beginning of his Lucifer segment and act like they are talking about the same thing. Every book in the Sandman Universe is obviously not a reboot. The House of Whispers, for example, is specifically a new series that nobody has ever done before, so it physically cannot be a reboot. You're taking a quote about Books of Magic and applying it to everything in Sandman Universe, which makes even less sense if you look just a little further down in that article, wherein they explain that Books of Magic is specifically unique in this case:

Q: "What are you looking forward to about revisiting Timothy Hunter and his universe?"

A: "Mostly what I'm looking forward to is going to that idea and starting it again in 2018... I love the idea of starting that again now, because now you're in a universe in which everybody and their brother knows how that kind of story ought to go. Now we're going to go back and look at ways it can go, both lighter and darker (he said, picking his words with care), than the original. With that one, we're taking this comic book approach that reminds me a little bit of what DC did when they came up with the concept of Earth One. They took the Flash, and you created the Barry Allen Flash and let the Jay Garrick Flash be the Flash of Earth Two. It's a new Tim Hunter for a new time, and the old Tim Hunter may well have existed, and that may actually have ramifications for us a little bit down the line."

Your Statement: "Said that the past series is now standalone"

Their Statement: "The truth is, we wanted to delve into new territory and leave the prior run to stand, as it does with aplomb. All of that stuff happened, but this stuff happened too. Glad you're enjoying the book!"

Dan Watters saying he wanted to "leave the prior run to stand" is completely different from him saying the past series is now standalone. In fact, this might be the worst interpretation of the whole bunch. That is literally just him saying he didn't want to make this a direct continuation because he feels like the previous story is very good as it is, with an appropriate beginning, middle, and end. In fact, that's so clearly what he's saying that I actually had a hard time phrasing my above restatement of his point because I kept wanting to type "He thinks it stands well on its own." This says absolutely nothing about expelling the original story from continuity. Even if the new Lucifer is a reboot, this Tweet absolutely does not act as any sort of evidence that the original run is now being segmented from all of its ties to other Vertigo and DC canon. That is a very generous interpretation you are giving it. Heck, he even immediately goes on afterward to say "That stuff happened, but this stuff happened too," unintentionally giving more credibility to Matthew's argument than I actually thought he had in the beginning. That is quite nearly blatant confirmation that the old series is not being overwritten.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

In fact, on that point, I was actually so absent minded while writing the above response that instead of going to the original link you provided previously, I Googled "Dan Watters Lucifer interview" and ended up reading through a few other Lucifer articles before finally finding the one you were referencing, and the other articles surprisingly convinced me that this is not a reboot. When we started this conversation, I was actually pretty sympathetic to the idea that Sandman Universe should get its own keys, but I was trying to keep an open mind and recommend waiting a bit for good measure. However, after having read a few more of these articles, I don't think I can agree to that in good conscience anymore. There's actually a lot more evidence than I realized to indicate that this is supposed to be the same canon as Mike Carey's work. I'll show you some of it.

This will be the third big series that Lucifer has had. We've had, of course, the Mike Carey series, and we had the very short-lived Holly Black series. My question, if you could describe to me your Lucifer, who is he?

Dan Watters: Well, I love those runs on "Lucifer." I didn't want to do those runs. I wanted to do something else with them because those already exist, and I don't want to overwrite them. I don't want to dwell on what they've already done because they've already done it. I wanted to look at different sides of Lucifer and push it into new territory.

In this comment, Dan Watters clearly says that he does not want to "overwrite" Mike Carey's Lucifer stories. That's something rather strange to say if you intend to boot it out of canon and replace it with your own interpretation. There is a portion of this quote that could be interpreted as him saying his run is a reboot- specifically the line "I didn't want to do those runs"- but that can also be interpreted as him just saying "I didn't want to retread old ground, focus on the same themes and characterizations, or directly connect to that story arc" and given the surrounding context (claims of not wanting to "overwrite" Mike Carey's run and wanting to "look at different sides of Lucifer", "push it into new territory") I think evidence is clearly on the side of the latter interpretation. Notice how he refers to to his run as "doing something else with them [the previous runs]." His run cannot logically be "doing something else with the previous runs" if he does not consider Mike Carey's run canon to his own. But if that isn't enough for you, he also spells it out quite clearly in this interview:

DW: "I don't want to just retread things we have already seen. I don't see any reason to do that. It would be a pointless exercise, but also I don't see why you would when you've got a character who- yeah, he's been around in Vertigo for 25 years, but he's got thousands and thousands of years of history."

Then in this discussio , when Dan is asked how folk myths about Lucifer shape his interpretation of the character, he essentially reiterates his eagerness to explore new ground with him:

DW: It's really freeing because there's so much of it, essentially, that we can pick and choose what we want to talk about, where we want to go, and sort of mold our own thing entirely. The amount of stuff that's already being covered with him in the 68, or something, issues. I think it's more. The fact that we can … I'm not saying that we necessarily will or not, but we can essentially not touch on any of that stuff again, and we still never would run out of material to draw from. It entirely lets us create our own thing even working within a wider universe.

Did you catch that? He directly references the occurrances in Mike Carey's run and says he might touch on those things again later if he wants to, but he feels that the rich mythos of the Lucifer character throughout history gives him so much free ground to play with that he doesn't have to revisit it if he's not in the mood. But he can only consider revisiting those stories in his run if he considers them canon with his run to begin with.

And I'm almost positive at this point that he does have that mindset because I also keep finding lines like this in his interviews:

"Yeah, I mean, one of the nice things about Lucifer is that he very much invites more and more and more stories that don't necessarily have to contradict anything that came before. But also, they can be entirely fresh and unconnected to things that have come before. He's a character who — not even just within Sandma, but in general — has thousands and thousands and thousands of different stories. He can be a big red thing with massive horns, or he can be a sexy, six-packed version that we get in a lot of the engravings from Milton. There's all these different ways of looking at him, but also him in himself, and the version we've seen before in Sandma and Mike Carey's and all the other runs — the nice things about it is he's the character out of all characters, he gives the least shit about any of his supporting cast. To sort of abandon them, or to start afresh with new supporting characters doesn't really go against anything in the spirit of the character."

All these things together have actually convinced me that Dan Watters does not consider this a reboot of Lucifer at all. In fact, he very often goes on about how Lucifer can be viewed a thousand different ways and still be the same perso . He refers to him as a "fractal entity" similar to how Dream appears in many different forms despite being the same entity. Throughout all of these interviews, there are a handful of common themes that I can gleam with near certainty.

1. Dan Watters does not want to overwrite or negate anything in Mike Carey's canon.

2. But he also doesn't want to retread old ground, explaining the vastly different direction he's taken.

3. He acknowledges that the events from Carey's Lucifer did happen and are a part of the character's history, even in his canon.

4. He acknowledges that the characterization Carey gave Lucifer is a legitimate interpretation of the same character he is writing.

5. He does not believe his current stories contradict or invalidate the stories Mike Carey wrote about Lucifer.

6. He considers his own story fresh and unconnected from previous arcs.

Pretty much every quote that you gave had multiple interpretations- with only one interpretation at best in any particular example suggesting that Watters' Lucifer is a reboot, but to be frank, most of the quotes I found seem pretty straight forward from my point of view. Comments like "All of that stuff happened, but this stuff happened too. " are really hard to swing as anything other than "Yes, those events are canon, but these events are also canon."

I don't mean for this to come across as rude in any way whatsoever. I understand that representing these characters accurately means a lot to you. I am not trying to be too harsh or stern or dismissive of your points, but in reviewing things thoroughly, I actually think I've gone from neutral to leaning more toward Matthew on this. These new stories are almost definitely being written with the intention of fitting alongside Mike Carey's interpretation.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

NESfan is 100% correct. In addition, I just pointed out that there's a very obvious tie to Hellblazer in this. Which itself then ties to Carey Lucifer.

 

[Sandman31]

In this comment, Dan Watters clearly says that he does not want to "overwrite" Mike Carey's Lucifer stories. That's something rather strange to say if you intend to boot it out of canon and replace it with your own interpretation. There is a portion of this quote that could be interpreted as him saying his run is a reboot- specifically the line "I didn't want to do those runs"- but that can also be interpreted as him just saying "I didn't want to retread old ground, focus on the same themes and characterizations, or directly connect to that story arc" and given the surrounding context (claims of not wanting to "overwrite" Mike Carey's run and wanting to "look at different sides of Lucifer", "push it into new territory") I think evidence is clearly on the side of the latter interpretation. Notice how he refers to to his run as "doing something else with them [the previous runs]." His run cannot logically be "doing something else with the previous runs" if he does not consider Mike Carey's run canon to his own. But if that isn't enough for you, he also spells it out quite clearly in this interview:

Doesnt really mean anything. What I've been saying is that Lucifer (2018)/Sandman Universe ignores the previous run. I'm not saying that they retconned or overwritten it. He just made a new Lucifer series which doesnt took into factor the previous run so, so he did not overwrite it.

Anyway, nothing in that wall of text really convince me that Lucifer 2018 is definitely canon to 2018. Just that this is a brand new Lucifer, and Gaiman basically gave the writers immense creative freedom, which means it is still uncertain whether they treat canon or not canon and we're in a grey area right now. Because there's really nothing solid here. Feels like they're purposely giving vague answers so they cant be constrained by canon

I'm not an ass so I'll stop debating further and admit that you made some really good points. But still not enough to convince me that Mike Carey's Lucifer is definitely canon, just that Dan Watters has the choice to connect this run to Mike Carey's Lucifer

I'll switch from not canon to lets wait and see

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Sandman31

The fall of the Archangel Gabriel (Which happened in Hellblazer) is directly referenced by Lucifer in the comic. And Raguel is a character mentioned in the old Book of Magic run. So the notion that anything that isn't Sandman isn't canon to this is wholly incorrect.

 

[Sandman31]

Yep, I just mentioned that in my previous post. I've changed my stance from "everything that is not sandman is not canon" to they have "cleaned the slate and the writers have immense creative freedow so we should wait and see before doing anything"

Because it can be not-canon, canon or only some things from the previous stuff are canon (which seems to be what they're doing with Books of Magic)

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like you have reached a bit of an agreement then.

 

[Sandman31]

@ClassicNESfan

You're not being rude. It's my fault that I get frustrated easily (?)

Anyway, you should have busted out those arguments before. Because even though you're proclaiming neutrality before, its pretty clear, at least to me that you're against what I'm proposing. I'm going to admit, it doesnt feel good, frustrating even, to be wrong but if its going to led to the best conclusion then go ahead and feel free to hurt my ego. Which is better than holding back because its not going to be productive. Anyway, youre a great debater. I bet I sound like an e psychologist right but whatever

We should probably go back to discussing the original topic of the thread

 

[ClassicNESfan]

If you want my honest opinion on the whole thing, I think Dan Watters doesn't realize how much of his story conflicts with Mike Carey's run. Similar to how Holly Black's run had certain dead characters randomly alive again or certain items and events in the wrong places. After reading all those interviews, I think Dan sees Lucifer as a character with infinite potential based on his mythos, so he wanted to just run off and do a completely standalone run with him, but he only reread Sandma for his homework because he and Neil were trying to go back to the "roots of the character." This resulted in a story that- while intended to fit anywhere in Lucifer's timeline- creates a truck load of continuity errors in certain pivitol spots.

Either that or it has something to do with the fractals he keeps going on about. I swear, the ability to interpret Lucifer 1,000 different ways and all of them be correct came up in nearly every interview, but I'd be lying if I said I even fully understood how that worked for the Endless. There's some contradicting information there too.

Regardless, if one of the two major Lucifer runs had to be declared its own standalone thing disconnected from all other canon, I'd pick this one without hesitation. Lucifer events are often glossed over or ignored by DC, but at least Mike Carey's run had some cross-referencing in some stories. This one just goes all over the place and is designed to fit anywhere at anytime and do anything without connecting to anything else as per Dan Watters' request. It's the ultimate "Put This Where You Want It" story.

 

[Sandman31]

Agreed, he's got some conflicting statements.and I see the reboot as a way to justify all these contradictions

 

[ClassicNESfan]

@Sandman31, Well, I think having looked over it now, I do lean more in Matthew's direction, but at the time I wasn't lying when I said I could see both sides. I thought "Hey, let's wait a little while" was a nice happy medium, but in retrospect, I guess it was kind of choosing a side. That was my bad. I wasn't persuaded by the arguments you were making, but that's different from automatically agreeing with the antithesis, you know?

Anyway, I really do hope there's no hard feelings. I guess I'll step up to the plate sooner next time. But for now, I'll just stop with my essays and let everybody return to the original topic.

 

[Sandman31]

@ClassicNESfan

no hard feelings, most of my frustration came from typing long posts on mobile anyway and these damned calculus and chemistry schoolworks in front me that I should be doing right now instead of debating here. College sucks

Anyway, even if we set aside questionable canonicity of some comics we would still have to discuss about how the Presence as a character is chock full of inconsistencies(which is the result of authors having diff interpretations/not giving a care about the Presence's personal history)

Are we going to put Mike Carey Presence in a diff key, make another key for DeMatteis or just combines DeMatteis with the "main DC" Presence r just ignore it?

 

[ClassicNESfan]

If memory serves, DeMatteis' Presence is an impersonal, unmanifest entity that never makes a live appearance but is known to encompass and surpass all of existence to an unfathomable degree. Do I have that right?

 

[Sandman31]

Yes, his Presence is basically Brahman from Hinduism.

 

[By_My_Neck]

Is there other references of the Presence alluding to Ain-Soph/Para-brahman stuff in Matteis's other works besides Spectre, as well as beyond?

Other than that, the Presence is the "Source" but it's more like Nirvana than Brahman.

 

[Hykuu]

Yes, there is in Doctor Fate (ALOT), and Seekers into The Mystery if you consider that canon

 

[By_My_Neck]

If everything in Vertigo was canon, it would give DC a massive HUGE power boost due to scaling from the Leviathan.

But I am curious about Doctor Fate stuff implying Brahman/Ain-Soph Presence.

 

[Sorari]

Is there other references of the Presence alluding to Ain-Soph/Para-brahman stuff in Matteis's other works besides Spectre, as well as beyond?
Other than that, the Presence is the "Source" but it's more like Nirvana than Brahman.

Brahman is the World Soul, where all souls come from and where all souls (gods, men, animals, insects and even rocks) return to when they get out of the cycle of reincarnation. Not sure if I'd call it omnipotent in the same sense the Christian God is omnipotent.

 

[Sandman31]

Not everything in Vertigo is canon. Its a mix of creator owned and company owned works. And no, Unwritten is not canon to DC

 

[Sandman31]

Yes, there is in Doctor Fate (ALOT), and Seekers into The Mystery if you consider that canon

I dont think SitM is canon. Its from a different publisher and the only similarity is DeMatteis cosmology

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yes, his Presence is basically Brahman from Hinduism.

Basically my interpretation is that

DeMattes' Presence / Kirby's Source / Morrison's Overvoid are more or less the same thing. While Yahweh / Carey's Presence is the conscious, manifested, physical aspect of God within its own Dream.

 

[By_My_Neck]

Hi All,

Are there other stories of Matteis or non-Matteis DC works that treat Presence as an unmanifested Brahman/Ain-Soph? Would any of you happen to know the issues?

 

[Sandman31]

Justice League Dark vol 5, Spectre vol 3, Doctor Fate 1987, Forever People 1988 and more that I cant remember

 

[ClassicNESfan]

I think our first big question should be whether or not DeMatteis' God gets a key.

What do you guys think? On one hand, it seems to be a unique interpretation of the character. On the other hand, it never makes any live appearances. But on yet another hand, the thing DeMatteis is describing is almost identical to descriptions given to The Source and The Overvoid, which will be getting their own keys.

 

[By_My_Neck]

Sandman, which Justice League Dark was that? Written by Matteis?

 

[Sandman31]

JL Dark: N52 vol 5 Paradise Lost