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.
