-
[QUOTE=Adekis;5835552]I also believe this is true, though as someone who wasn't there prior to 1986, I can only judge based on The Vibes of old books, and not actual memories.[/QUOTE]
The best description I can think of is that it was like modern day Marvel. They tweaked stuff here and there but the broad strokes stayed the same.
-
[QUOTE=phonogram12;5833904]Mr. Terrific is known as the "third-smartest man on Earth." And nothing on his wikipedia page alludes to him having superhuman intelligence, just "a natural aptitude for having natural aptitudes," which couldn't be more vague if they tried. If he's really only known as the "third-smartest man on Earth" his superhuman intelligence must be pretty weak.[/QUOTE]really? Compared to guys like Lex F-ing Luthor... you see "third smartest" as... weak? lol wut?
-
[QUOTE=marhawkman;5832039]Well, let's see... it only makes sense if Batman was studying something both of them know...... which is... chi-focusing meditation? Batman isn't a magic user. Zatanna isn't a martial artist... what would they be studying together?
the idea that they'd met while Bruce was travelling and studying abroad is... plausible enough. But you need a lot of explanation for how that can lead to them being romantically involved. There needs to be more than "Batman used Bat-charm". Is there? I dunno....all I've seen felt like weird retcons that just... didn't fit.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention completely changing her age, as I recall (unless it was changed earlier or is now not changed - in any event, I've seen them same-aged in some versions, when they weren't originally). I really dislike it, too, because it sorts of sets her up as his supporting bit (or tries to prop her up by association with him), as he's the more prominent and is going to dominate when both are in the same space. Plus it just really makes me think of DCAU and the every-woman-wants-Batman thing, which I so dislike.
-
Robin's intellect should not be understated. I don't really want to see a child prodigy type outlook, but I also don't want him looked down on as just some kid. Basically, his intelligence shouldn't be inconsistent.
-
if a writer can't take from what's already been established for a character (particularely now in the internet age) and have it inform or tie into their work with the character, they are a detrimentally mediocre, if not outright bad, comic book writer.
this included writers who go the extreme other way and try to rewrite characters to be more like how they were written decades ago; ignoring recent developments. also mediocre to bad comic book writers.
-
[QUOTE=lemonpeace;5836691] . . . this included writers who go the extreme other way and try to rewrite characters to be more like how they were written decades ago; ignoring recent developments. also mediocre to bad comic book writers.[/QUOTE]If those "recent developments" were poorly done and considered out of character, than maybe that's not such a bad thing? :confused:
-
[QUOTE=MajorHoy;5836827]If those "recent developments" were poorly done and considered out of character, than maybe that's not such a bad thing? :confused:[/QUOTE]
if it happened it happened, period. find a better angle, be creative, thats their job. if you wanna write whatever, do original work, but these shared characters in a shared universe means you are sharing continuity. in the times we live in now, with all the information we have, there is no excuse that there shouldn't be consistency. cherrypicking what established events you think matters and doesn't matter isn't goodstorytelling, and doing it in service of reaching backwards to emulate older stories is regressive and pathetically hack imo. if they can't figure it out then they need to leave it for someone competent and work on a character or a book they have more of an affinity for. they aren't the first ones to write these characters (typically) and they won't be the last (usually), writers need to act like it. these characters ALWAYS work best when they build off what's established. that's what makes extreme long-form storytelling work; which is what comics has become now.
-
[QUOTE=lemonpeace;5836867]if it happened it happened, period. find a better angle, be creative, thats their job. if you wanna write whatever, do original work, but these shared characters in a shared universe means you are sharing continuity. in the times we live in now, with all the information we have, there is no excuse that there shouldn't be consistency. cherrypicking what established events you think matters and doesn't matter isn't goodstorytelling, and doing it in service of reaching backwards to emulate older stories is regressive and pathetically hack imo. if they can't figure it out then they need to leave it for someone competent and work on a character or a book they have more of an affinity for. they aren't the first ones to write these characters (typically) and they won't be the last (usually), writers need to act like it. these characters ALWAYS work best when they build off what's established. that's what makes extreme long-form storytelling work; which is what comics has become now.[/QUOTE]
Except some of these developments themselves were actually regressive and derailed progression. Hence, why they might be ignored.
Cherry picking what established events you think matter has been done since the art of storytelling itself was invented. Like many things in life, it all depends on execution. As a Cassandra Cain fan, I sure wouldn't complain if a writer were to ignore a lot of the stupid stuff that happened to her after her solo run ended. Not every development done with these characters was a good idea worth keeping around or even something the writer wanted to do.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Z;5836890]Except some of these developments themselves were actually regressive and derailed progression. Hence, why they might be ignored.
Cherry picking what established events you think matter has been done since the art of storytelling itself was invented. Like many things in life, it all depends on execution. As a Cassandra Cain fan, I sure wouldn't complain if a writer were to ignore a lot of the stupid stuff that happened to her after her solo run ended. Not every development done with these characters was a good idea worth keeping around or even something the writer wanted to do.[/QUOTE]
if it happened it happened, period. if a writer can't spin it, they're bad at their job. it's that simple. "but what if this, but what if that" doesn't matter, it happened, it's canon, deal with it. internal logic > pandering to your nostalgia.
here's another hot take: maybe there are so many mediocre comic book writers because comics fans set such a low standard of storytelling. too many of comic fans are too content with characterizations or story beats that pander to regressive storytelling instead of anything that moves these characters and stories forward.
-
[QUOTE=Tzigone;5836668]Not to mention completely changing her age, as I recall (unless it was changed earlier or is now not changed - in any event, I've seen them same-aged in some versions, when they weren't originally). I really dislike it, too, because it sorts of sets her up as his supporting bit (or tries to prop her up by association with him), as he's the more prominent and is going to dominate when both are in the same space. Plus it just really makes me think of DCAU and the every-woman-wants-Batman thing, which I so dislike.[/QUOTE]
So in other words Bruce should never have a partner because it makes you think of DCAU Batman who you don't like but conversely you want a more "human" Batman and him being in relationships humanizes. Sorry but that makes no sense at all. Why should the character be limited in anyway because of a version from a completely different medium annoyed you years ago?
-
[QUOTE=lemonpeace;5837187]if it happened it happened, period. if a writer can't spin it, they're bad at their job. it's that simple. "but what if this, but what if that" doesn't matter, it happened, it's canon, deal with it. internal logic > pandering to your nostalgia.[/QUOTE]
Okay so what if it's the EDITOR and not the writer?
See Cyborg's last two solos and New 52 Static Shock. How many stories have forever held John Stewart to that blown up planet? John Stewart did have a wife and kinfolks-who have NOT been seen.
[QUOTE] if they can't figure it out then they need to leave it for someone competent and work on a character or a book they have more of an affinity for. they aren't the first ones to write these characters (typically) and they won't be the last (usually), writers need to act like it.[/QUOTE]
Well for most black characters they are the ONLY one interested.
That stuff gets taken out because it's a determent to sales.
[QUOTE]
here's another hot take: maybe there are so many mediocre comic book writers because comics fans set such a low standard of storytelling. too many of comic fans are too content with characterizations or story beats that pander to regressive storytelling instead of anything that moves these characters and stories forward.[/QUOTE]
The reason you have so many mediocre writers is look at the BOOKS that they get.
If it's a book the company does not care for-you get 5 years of Coates on Black Panther.
If it's a book that a chimp could write and it would NEVER sniff below 20K-you get the recent runs of Teen Titans, Red Hood and Nightwing. All I heard was nonstop complaints about Robert V, Lobdell and ESPECIALLY Bendis. Yet their books still sold.
While Justice League Dark and The Terrifcs despite praise are gone.
We won't get into how new writers are treated at times by fans.
-
DC should start actively killing off characters that I don't like.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Z;5836890]Except some of these developments themselves were actually regressive and derailed progression. Hence, why they might be ignored.
Cherry picking what established events you think matter has been done since the art of storytelling itself was invented. Like many things in life, it all depends on execution. As a Cassandra Cain fan, I sure wouldn't complain if a writer were to ignore a lot of the stupid stuff that happened to her after her solo run ended. Not every development done with these characters was a good idea worth keeping around or even something the writer wanted to do.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much how I feel. Writers should cherrypick because it's their story to tell and fans will always have those old issues if they want to reference or reexperience things from the past. And I like to think I'm consistent on that even when it results in story beats I don't like or things I do like being forgotten. I just don't read the book if it has too much stuff from a previous run I don't like and can't make it work.
Sometimes rolling in continuity can work, sometimes it doesn't. But expecting every single new concept, supporting character, storyline, and mantle change (no matter how poorly its introduced) to be built upon is just straight up bad writing. Some concepts are so unsalvageable or stupid they need to be retconned away or replaced with something better. Sometimes they don't even deserve that and should just be ignored, like Spider-Man hitting MJ. Or all of a sudden revealing early Wakanda owes its existence to Native American analogues and that the entire culture is a settler colony. Continuity is just a tool of the writer to use as they wish, if fans don't like it they can read what came immediately before.
-
Justice League and Justice League Unlimited should get new seasons.
If Young Justice can do it, then so can they.
-
[QUOTE=TheRay;5837898]Justice League and Justice League Unlimited should get new seasons.
If Young Justice can do it, then so can they.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how Justice League Unlimited vs. the Fatal Five did from a financial standpoint, but I think it was mostly received as an "okay" movie. We might need more of DTVs like those, and ones with a better reception, if we are to get new seasons. Plus a fandom as vocal as the Young Justice one.