“Heroes in Crisis” Limited Series by Tom King & Clay Mann to Start in September

[Batknight]

I think it goes deeper than that, and is because most of those villainesses were built on the assumption that capable, sexy, and independent women dangerous. Both the CCA and the underlying trends and biases pushed towards a specific type of female villains. You can see it both within the DC universe and outside it within general culture: the classical Circe, Morgaine of the Arthurian cycle, the femme fatales of the noir movies, Poison Ivy (who is a Circe archetype), Catwoman (the feline fatale), and many other.

But once "good" women became allowed to be sexy, that affected these characters as well. They did not need to be evil anymore, and Catwoman and Poison Ivy turned out to have challenging things to say to Batman: about justice and class from Catwoman, and about ecology and female spaces from Poison Ivy. The change from villain to anti-heroes was because their old niche in our general culture had become obsolete.

I think that's a healthy development, and rather than trying to block it, DC should look to develop other female villains that are not as tied into outdated tropes or patterns. Veronica Cale is a good candidate, and Cheetah with her werewolf nature can still remain relevant. Doctor Poison can also be developed much more; I'm sure there are other examples as well.

They can develop and grow from being outdated tropes while still being villains. The best villains are the ones who have a lot to say about the heroes they fight. They don't have to be pure evil either. Most bad, even evil people don't see themselves as villains right? They can do horrible, monstrous things, for perfectly valid, understandable reasons. And by making them all into heroes you take that away and the important role they play. Ivy, for instance, is a great villain because her motivations are so complex and interesting. Someone who commits acts of terrorism and kills people, who'd like to see most of humanity wiped off the earth because she's connected to a collective consciousness that's intelligent and alive but that most of the human species is entirely unaware of, that she can feel when its in pain. And she feels it all time due to humanity's constant destruction of the environment.

So she's devoted herself to protecting the green by any means necessary because to her, killing plants is no different that murdering human beings, and plants have treated her far better than human beings ever did. So why shouldn't she do what it takes to protect the environment, especially when, in her eyes, the world would be better off without humanity anyways due to all the destruction and violence we cause. Compared to a world that is nothing but green and plant life like that existed before animals and humanity existed.

That motivation is great, because in a lot of ways, she totally in the right especially in the context of the world she lives in. She just takes things to an major extreme due to the trauma she's suffered from people like Jason Woodrew who tortured and manipulated her, driving her kind of mad and making her hate most of mankind. Which is what makes her a compelling villain. As well as a great Batman villain because she is someone who suffered tragedy and trauma, and choose to deal with it in a negative way by hurting others instead of in a positive way like Batman did. Doing away with all this strips away a lot of what makes her fascinating, and also continues the trend of little to no diversity among villains in comics. Which I don't find to be healthy at all.

[byrd156]

Cheetah was made sympathetic at the start of Rebirth, too.



It's just about sales. They don't want to publish books about monsters, and people want to buy stories about these particular characters, so they have to be toned down over time. While I sympathize, it kind of guts the rogues galleries of a lot of heroes and makes them a little less interesting as a result.

My biggest issue with this is that sympathetic suddenly means they are no longer villains. Fans get upset that a villain character that gets some character work that makes you see their pov or sympathize with them suddenly makes Batman or whatever hero the "bad guy".

I sympathize with the Joker in A Killing Joke and I want to see him one day cured but he's still a mass murdering lunatic that needs to be stopped. Just like Harley, just like Ivy. Sympathy shouldn't equal a free pass, if DC wants to make these characters to become "good guys" they need to make them earn it.

[mr_crisp]

Turning former female villains into anti-heroes is a bit sexist. It's like they are saying that females can't be as villainous as males.

[Konja7]

Turning former female villains into anti-heroes is a bit sexist. It's like they are saying that females can't be as villainous as males.

They have turned male villain in anti-heroes too. So, it isn't sexist they do the same with female villains.

The sexist is that there are a little number of female villains. The solution is that the writers create more female villains. So, I hope to hear your complaints every time a new male villain appear instead of a new female villain.

[king81992]

Turning former female villains into anti-heroes is a bit sexist. It's like they are saying that females can't be as villainous as males.

It's not really turning them into anti-heroes if no one buys their redemption and the heel-face turn feels forced. DC's problem is that they turn males and females into anti-heroes based on popularity and don't care if it makes sense. They'll just scapegoat other characters and pretend that the new 'anti-hero' did nothing wrong. Eventually the push stops and then the 'anti-hero' returns to being a villain again. Deathstroke was a prime example of this.

Less popular villains who should be anti-heroes are kept the same because of tradition or because DC doesn't feel like pushing them.

[Confuzzled]

I think it can be more noticeable with female villains since they aren't as common as male villains, especially in terms of popularity, so when we see the few major female villains that do exist turned good it becomes more of an issue, especially with the gender disparity.

I mean, hey, if this inspires writers to create more major female villains to fill in the gap, then great, but I don't see that happening immediately.

Yeah, I mean, it was DC (by which I also include the DCAU and the Batmovies) that really focused disproportionately on the same three Gotham City Sirens to the point that they are the only 3 DC villainesses most people can name off the top of their head and the reason for their towering popularity. Marvel is even worse when it comes to their villainesses.

The solution was always to make MORE female villainesses bigger players in the DCU. I still don't get why the Wonder Woman Rogues' Gallery is considered to be a "joke" when it has so many interesting and diverse villains. It's only because of lack of exposure. Granny Goodness and the Furies as you mentioned also have the potential to be the epitome of female villainy.

Promoting Ivy, Harley and Catwoman from the "token femme fatales" to anti-heroines will do a load of good for all the DC villainesses across the board as it will open up slots in books and adaptations.

[Confuzzled]

Compared to a world that is nothing but green and plant life like that existed before animals and humanity existed.

That's just a Biblical concept. It's not how the ecology actually works. There aren't many plant species that can survive without animals and humans. Ivy being a scientist should be well-aware of this. It's why her motivation as a genocide seeking villain falls apart the minute you analyse it.

[Batknight]

That's just a Biblical concept. It's not how the ecology actually works. There aren't many plant species that can survive without animals and humans. Ivy being a scientist should be well-aware of this. It's why her motivation as a genocide seeking villain falls apart the minute you analyse it.

Okay, yes, I misspoke about that part, you are right thank you for correcting me. However you have to factor in the existence of the green into this. This isn't about science entirely, since the green is a magical, self aware as well an intelligent collective consciousnesses with extraordinary abilities not within the bounds of traditional science. Which, I think, Ivy would be aware of at this point.

It would be more than capable of sustaining life without humanity if you look at what it's actually capable of. Or at least, without humanity as the dominant ruler of the planet in any case. Which Ivy should be all for to cull humanity's destruction of the planet and environment. Not to mention Ivy shouldn't entirely be in her right mind given the experimentation preformed on her. Also if you read Swamp Thing, you see that the green has a naturally destructive influence on things that are connected to it. The green wants to conquer the red and claim dominance of the planet for itself. It can actually make you feel happiness and pleasure at causing humans pain and suffering, killing those that it thinks deserves it in its name. Given that Ivy should see herself mainly as a plant, this should be her goal as well.

[Agent Z]

My biggest issue with this is that sympathetic suddenly means they are no longer villains. Fans get upset that a villain character that gets some character work that makes you see their pov or sympathize with them suddenly makes Batman or whatever hero the "bad guy".

I sympathize with the Joker in A Killing Joke and I want to see him one day cured but he's still a mass murdering lunatic that needs to be stopped. Just like Harley, just like Ivy. Sympathy shouldn't equal a free pass, if DC wants to make these characters to become "good guys" they need to make them earn it.

I'm not seeing Batman being made the bad guy for Ivy's sake.

Also, is it possible to splinter this discussion off into another thread?

[Konja7]

That's just a Biblical concept. It's not how the ecology actually works. There aren't many plant species that can survive without animals and humans. Ivy being a scientist should be well-aware of this. It's why her motivation as a genocide seeking villain falls apart the minute you analyse it.

The plants needs animals to survive, but these don't really need humans (since we are only one species among a huge number of animal species).

So, Ivy probably needs to refine her plan, but humans aren't a necessity.

[Badou]

Promoting Ivy, Harley and Catwoman from the "token femme fatales" to anti-heroines will do a load of good for all the DC villainesses across the board as it will open up slots in books and adaptations.

Nothing so far suggests that. You are assuming that if you remove characters like Harley and Ivy from being villains that new female villains will replace them or that less well known female villains will rise up, but that is just a very big assumption. So far that has not been the case. Opposite in fact. You could argue that it is more damaging to remove some of the more well known female villains like a Harley or Ivy from being actual villains because it then depletes the pool of usable female villains and limits the kind of stories you can tell with these characters.

It would be best to have these more well known female villains operate in a place where they can tell both actual villainous stories and anti-hero stories with them to use them to their full capability. Like you see with characters like Lex or Deathstroke. It gives them more depth and range instead of having them be comic book anti-hero #252 that comics are overloaded with.

[Agent Z]

Nothing so far suggests that. You are assuming that if you remove characters like Harley and Ivy from being villains that new female villains will replace them or that less well known female villains will rise up, but that is just a very big assumption. So far that has not been the case. Opposite in fact. You could argue that it is more damaging to remove some of the more well known female villains like a Harley or Ivy from being actual villains because it then depletes the pool of usable female villains and limits the kind of stories you can tell with these characters.

It would be best to have these more well known female villains operate in a place where they can tell both actual villainous stories and anti-hero stories with them to use them to their full capability. Like you see with characters like Lex or Deathstroke. It gives them more depth and range instead of having them be comic book anti-hero #252 that comics are overloaded with.

Here's the thing, DC has plenty of female villains they can use but aren't giving a lot of attention to at the moment. Hell, with all the new ones they create, they have even more. Now it won't be easy to get one over with the audience but they don't even seem to try most of the time.
I mean, it’s not like a whole lot of female villains were major heavy hitters even before the Sirens started going in a more heroic direction.

[Confuzzled]

Nothing so far suggests that. You are assuming that if you remove characters like Harley and Ivy from being villains that new female villains will replace them or that less well known female villains will rise up, but that is just a very big assumption. So far that has not been the case. Opposite in fact. You could argue that it is more damaging to remove some of the more well known female villains like a Harley or Ivy from being actual villains because it then depletes the pool of usable female villains and limits the kind of stories you can tell with these characters.

It would be best to have these more well known female villains operate in a place where they can tell both actual villainous stories and anti-hero stories with them to use them to their full capability. Like you see with characters like Lex or Deathstroke. It gives them more depth and range instead of having them be comic book anti-hero #252 that comics are overloaded with.

Then maybe fans should be pressurising DC to promote the other female villains MORE instead of recommending keeping the Sirens relegated to token villainess status? How many times do people want the same old stories of mustache-twirling Poison Ivy going from seductive to histrionic "NOT MY BABIES!" mode again and again?

This is the reason a Wonder Woman animated series should be a priority to give her Rogues the same showcase as BTAS and TNBA did for Batman's Rogues. I really hope the New Gods movie comes out in time, features Granny Goodness and the Female Furies as rumored and has them become an indomitable force to be reckoned with.

[Factor]

So many wasted characters To think King was one of my favorite writers not too long ago.
Can't believe the guy who wrote Vision is behind such a pointless mess. Looks like he took the worst part of that run (his treatment of Victor Mancha) and multiplied to 10K.

[Confuzzled]

I think it goes deeper than that, and is because most of those villainesses were built on the assumption that capable, sexy, and independent women dangerous. Both the CCA and the underlying trends and biases pushed towards a specific type of female villains. You can see it both within the DC universe and outside it within general culture: the classical Circe, Morgaine of the Arthurian cycle, the femme fatales of the noir movies, Poison Ivy (who is a Circe archetype), Catwoman (the feline fatale), and many other.

But once "good" women became allowed to be sexy, that affected these characters as well. They did not need to be evil anymore, and Catwoman and Poison Ivy turned out to have challenging things to say to Batman: about justice and class from Catwoman, and about ecology and female spaces from Poison Ivy. The change from villain to anti-heroes was because their old niche in our general culture had become obsolete.

Yeah, I agree that like most shortcomings of the comic book genre, the lack of villainesses does go back to the Comics Code. A correction though, when she was created in 1966, Poison Ivy was directly inspired by Nathaniel Hawthorne's Rappaccini's Daughter, a figure who was tragic as compared to villainous, not Circe. Later writers from the 70's and 80's added the "mind control" aspect being one of Ivy's powers, probably due to mind-altering drug usage being such a prominent part of the culture at the time.

Btw, if you want to read a well-written analytical breakdown of Ivy's development through the years and how she came to represent so many different things to so many different people, I suggest this article: http://www.nerdspan.com/poison-ivy-a...ife-and-death/