There are plenty of retcons I don't like, but I thought I'd for a more positive note and try to think of ones I do.
I do like Donna existing.
Printable View
There are plenty of retcons I don't like, but I thought I'd for a more positive note and try to think of ones I do.
I do like Donna existing.
Sex pirates being a retcon. Cheetah no longer being part of that weiird cult in New 52.
By far my favorite retcon is when DC restored Diana's rightful place in DC history following Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Much as I loved the Crisis storyline, I hated that Diana was a brand new hero and not the historically significant character she had been for nearly 50 years.
[QUOTE=Gaelforce;4714014]By far my favorite retcon is when DC restored Diana's rightful place in DC history following Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Much as I loved the Crisis storyline, I hated that Diana was a brand new hero and not the historically significant character she had been for nearly 50 years.[/QUOTE]
That's definitely one to me, too. It matters to me that Bruce, Clark, and Diana start heroing at roughly the same time, as originally established. I mean, it's not a deal-breaker that will make me quit reading comics, but it is my preferred serup. Which is why post-COIE setup, Clark as Superboy and the new timeline are all versions I do not prefer. Also, Ollie should start heroing at roughly the same time as them, too, but it's not as essential to me. I do like Roy and Dick starting then, too. Superman should be first hero, and Dick first kid sidekick. But I [i]really[/i] want Diana, Clark, and Bruce on fairly even footing. As peers from the get-go, rather than of significantly different experience levels.
What do you mean by first hero? Thanks to JSA wouldn’t the first hero be one of them?
Speaking of being the first hero: if the 5G timeline is legit, I like Diana [i]as[/i] that hero.
Donna existing, as one of my favorite DC heroes, has to take it for me though.
[QUOTE=AmiMizuno;4714210]What do you mean by first hero? Thanks to JSA wouldn’t the first hero be one of them?[/QUOTE]
Now, yes. But originally, Superman was the first DC superhero in real life. I like him being the first in-universe. I much prefer the pre-COIE setup where the JSA is on another earth. For various reasons - not just the Superman-being first (though that matters). But because many are tied to the WWII time frame for them, even though originally Black Canary debuted after and they did seem to timeslide in the early '70s comics (Larry Lance's year of birth on his tombstone was 1930). Them tied to that timeframe means they need to stay in a world that doesn't get past 1975 to me. Them in a time-progresses-to-present-world either screws with the timeslide or they have to made non-aging, which is depressing because they face seeing generations of friends, lovers, and even children dying while they live on. It's not a setup that works for me with them. Also the JSA does tend to be a second-tier team when existing in the same universe as the Justice League, and that's not good, either.
[quote] Speaking of being the first hero: if the 5G timeline is legit, I like Diana as that hero.[/quote]I do not. I like Diana, but am no more happy with her being senior and Clark and Bruce being rookies than I was with them being senior and her being rookie. I do not like diminishing them (especially Superman-as-first) to further her. I don't like taking things away from one character to further another. And honestly, making the start date 1938 instead of 1941 makes it worse. I mean, I get the rocket is being used and the meta of the start of the DC universe, but they flat-out seem to be taking the debut away from Clark to give it Diana, and that is just not okay with me. Also don't think it's the kind of thing to stick, long-term. But frankly, I'm still waiting for a "WWII was 60 years ago" explanation that won't confuse/alienate every casual reader, because that is my biggest problem with that timeline, and it's worst weakness as far as longevity is concerned, I think.
Probably the current [I]Year One[/I] origin by Rucka. He writes a great Diana and it was just a really good story.
I know I'm going to take some bullets for this but I really liked when John Byrne made Hippolyta the World War II Wonder Woman. It solved a lot of issues with the JSA & Donna Troy and I loved Hippolyta's characterization as Wonder Woman in Byrne's run and Geoff Johns' JSA book.
[QUOTE=Dr. Poison;4714660]I know I'm going to take some bullets for this but I really liked when John Byrne made Hippolyta the World War II Wonder Woman. It solved a lot of issues with the JSA & Donna Troy and I loved Hippolyta's characterization as Wonder Woman in Byrne's run and Geoff Johns' JSA book.[/QUOTE]
That was my pick too, it was great way to have a Golden Age Wonder Woman without lessening the impact of Diana being first. I also liked the tension it set up between the two when Diana revealed her jealousy and animosity at Hippolyta enjoying what was supposed to be a punishment.
[QUOTE=Koriand'r;4714967]That was my pick too, it was great way to have a Golden Age Wonder Woman without lessening the impact of Diana being first. I also liked the tension it set up between the two when Diana revealed her jealousy and animosity at Hippolyta enjoying what was supposed to be a punishment.[/QUOTE]
Agreed! That led to some great moments between Diana and Hippolyta especially in Phil Jimenez's run!
I like the idea of Hippolyta as the World War II Wonder Woman, in theory, because I like seeing her in action and freed from her duties as Queen. But as a punishment for scheming in ways that led to Artemis's death....meh. We, the readers, got to enjoy seeing a Wonder Woman in World War II again, which was fun....so how is it a sad story about someone atoning for their sins? Especially in a world full of mythology that is so dark and brutal, Hippolyta basically getting a vacation from her real life responsibilities because she abused her power doesn't really make any sense. So I guess if there was a different set-up for her being Wonder Woman in World War II, I could get behind it.
...at the same time though, I [I]do[/I] like Diana getting to make her debut during such a tumultuous time. It is a historical reality that the character came out during the second World War, so I don't know that Diana needs to be denied that part of her history. Superman and Batman I don't necessarily think of as World War II heroes, but I do think of Diana that way. So all this to say I'm torn.
My personal vote on the subject of retcons and rewrites goes to Steve Trevor being Diana's sort-of kind-of brother figure during the Perez reboot. I never found Steve a compelling male lead. He's a pretty nondescript soldier guy and it makes sense that Diana would be fascinated by him initially, but he just doesn't have the appeal of say Lois Lane in the love interest department. Why saddle her with this kind of One True Love story? She's Wonder Woman! She's supposed to be a symbol of freedom and choices and feminism, not falling for the very first guy you ever see, literally.
And she's immortal! Why box her into a corner with only one love interest when she could have a whole bunch of really interesting love interests? I think it kind of sucks that in spite of her decades of history, there really haven't been that many significant Wonder Woman love stories. And it's all because of Steve. He was useful as a storytelling device initially, but wouldn't it have been great if in the fifties or sixties someone devised a compelling new love interest for Diana to have? And the editors at DC had supported that character and kept him around for a while? They always seem to go back to the status quo and get nervous about taking risks. I may not have particularly liked the Trevor Barnes character, but I respect the risks that Phil took in trying to introduce a new lover to the Wonder Woman canon. It was long overdue.
Making Steve a middle-aged man who Diana is linked to through his mother was a really classy way of acknowledging his place in the Wonder Woman story while giving her essentially a male figure she could always rely on to not want to get in her pants or kill her. And look what they've done since they made Steve a young, strapping love interest again - introduced a brother for Wonder Woman! I don't really think we need an official super-powered male brother for Diana. I much prefer the idea of Steve having a special connection to her that isn't sexual and being an ally and friend. To me that's also kind of the point of the story. Yes Diana is sexy and her costume is eye-catching and she's beautiful....but she's trying to encourage peace between the sexes. Her goal isn't to make men fall over themselves with lust. Her goal is to get men to see women for the human beings that they are and respect them as equals. Steve is an example of just that being possible and that makes me happy.
I kind of feel like that's an unpopular opinion, but that's where I sit with it.
I also really love the idea of the Cheetah being a cursed archaeologist. The thought of the very proper, elegant Barbara Minerva, with all of her prestige, really being this filthy animal lusting after blood and taking whatever she wants is a really great concept with tons of storytelling potential. The jealous beauty in a catsuit? That's pretty lame, no offense to those of you who like the previous cat women Diana has faced. Plus the fact that Barbara's alter-ego is also something she doesn't always have control over is really fascinating. Having to perpetually worship the plant God, and then suffering physical consequences for becoming the Cheetah...all of that is pretty cool and unusual and intriguing.
Hmm....but both those examples were rewrites done at the time of the reboot. I guess that's not really a [I]retcon[/I] then, is it? Okay....if we're only talking about retcons, then I think I'd have to tip my hat to Gail Simone for coming up with The Circle. It makes sense that some of the Amazons on the island would be fearful of the changes a baby would bring to their society. I don't particularly like the idea of Diana's first hours as an infant being blood-soaked, but Alkyone and her sisters were compelling enough retcons to the original Perez origin that I accepted them immediately. And I tend to get really annoyed with retcons, so that's the highest praise I can offer.
Interesting. Also, Diana has had other Guys as love interested. Also in a way, this follows the greek myths. I mean Aphdoite and other Gods did follow for mortal people before. I mean love, at first sight, has happened at times in real life and in myths. It doesn't feel out of place. Besides DC has stopped doing that. Diana also puts her mission before love. I mean DC never allows Diana even a chance at romance. The one with Superman feels weird. I mean all through all the decades they looked at each other as close friends.
Besides, it's thanks to Perez she can never have a love intested.
...um...how is it thanks to Perez?.
Is this really a case of "Steve or bust"?
Making Diana immortal is my top choice because prior to the movie, the DC Universe was all over the place on Wonder Woman's lifespan. Post INFINITY CRISIS, it seemed she was immortal depending on what title she showed up in. The New 52 made her immortal, which stuck because of the Zeus origin. Then Rucka backtracked in 2016 prior to the movie's release and Diana was mortal again. I'm glad they seem to have now picked a lane and are sticking to it if those DC Timeline rumors are true.
Second is making Steve Trevor a non-romantic figure as described articulately by DisneyBoy. The only version of Steve Trevor that held my interest was Chris Pine's. In the books, Steve has always come across as a flat, at best, romantic interest and his purpose was served after bringing Diana outside of Paradise Island. That's really his big role in the mythology: he is the vehicle that transports Diana from Themyscira so she can be the world's Wonder Woman.
Fun that we have different wants. I've always been into the idea of Steve as a love interest (and disinterested in any other), even if I think the execution has failed a lot (golden age, he worked for me). I dislike the immortal thing for both Diana and Clark.
[quote]Probably the current Year One origin by Rucka. He writes a great Diana and it was just a really good story. [/quote]I liked it over all and think it may be the best we've gotten, but it's still not quite my scene. I'm not into the cursed/sympathetic villain angle with Cheetah (or any villain, really - just not an archetype I like), and I really like all the Amazons having the same powers as Diana. But the emotional tone was great, and I liked the parallelling with Diana and Steve and really like how Hippolyta handled the competition.
My favorite retcon is Diana not being the god of war. Her being immortal is already bad enough, but giving her more power than she already has is useless, she already has plenty and with more power come more boring stuff without difficulties (othe biggest reason i don't like superman much). Super speed barely used, talk to the animals only in our dreams (only exception in come back to me), etc.
If retcons are retroactive continuity, then it's hard to say if something that adds on is really a retcon. I like the mod Diana Prince, but is that a retcon? Wonder Tot and Wonder Girl adventures seem like retcons, but maybe those adventures just add on to the story. I like the retcon of Hippolyte as the WW II Wonder Woman, but only because it compensates for retconning Wonder Woman out of the JSA--and the best option would be to have Diana in WW II, which wouldn't be a retcon since it would be restoring the original continuity.
[QUOTE=Manakel;4717774]My favorite retcon is Diana not being the god of war. Her being immortal is already bad enough, but giving her more power than she already has is useless, she already has plenty and with more power come more boring stuff without difficulties (othe biggest reason i don't like superman much). Super speed barely used, talk to the animals only in our dreams (only exception in come back to me), etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm with you there. I didn't specify in opening post, and it's absolutely fine to mention these, but I really was thinking of non "fix-it" retcons - nothing that was retconned to specifically "fix" a bad storyline/event. There are so many of those (for so many characters). Or at least nothing that was retconned to go back to a previous status quo - you know, retcons that added new things.
I guess Jim Gordon having a daughter would be one of those. I definitely consider Wonder Girl as Donna one. Lois' dad as career military. Thawne killing Barry's mother. And then a fix-it is Leslie not letting Stephanie Brown die, Hal being possessed by Parallax, etc.
[quote]If retcons are retroactive continuity, then it's hard to say if something that adds on is really a retcon. I like the mod Diana Prince, but is that a retcon?[/quote]I don't think so, but haven't read those issues, so can't be sure exactly what happened there.
[quote]Wonder Tot and Wonder Girl adventures seem like retcons, but maybe those adventures just add on to the story.[/quote]Those are definitely retcons to me because they change the past - Steve isn't the first man she saw, etc.
[quote]I like the retcon of Hippolyte as the WW II Wonder Woman, but only because it compensates for retconning Wonder Woman out of the JSA--and the best option would be to have Diana in WW II, which wouldn't be a retcon since it would be restoring the original continuity. [/quote]Not my thing - I've talked about my issues with WWII starting timeframe before - but it's pretty common one people like, it seems.
Bringing Steve Trevor back as Diana's love interest.