Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    352

    Default What would a real time DC Universe be like?

    Basically the question above, what would the DC Universe be like if Batman, Superman and the first JSA showed up in the late 30's or Early 40's along with the Silver Age heroes showing up in the late 50's and early 60's and other heroes aging with time and possible other legacies.
    How would it all play out?

  2. #2
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    After a while the characters will just perform hand-off to their successors if there are any to be found but that may not happen if they are immortal for some reason.
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  3. #3
    Incredible Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    975

    Default

    During the 75th anniversary of Batman, Tomasi wrote a Bruce birthday party that depicts the Bat family with that concept. Bruce is a 75-year-old man, Dick is 74 or very much an old man but still wearing that tight Nightwing costume, Damian is an adult wearing the Batman 666 costume, and Alfred is on life support and carted around in a wheelchair.

    In Snyder's Superman Unchained, a future vision shows Clark still young though growing a beard because he's aging slowly while Lois and Jimmy have become old people.
    Last edited by Restingvoice; 07-07-2018 at 11:30 AM.

  4. #4
    Mighty Member Jody Garland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    John Byrne's Superman/Batman: Generations tackled the concept. There were two four issue miniseries and a third that was twelve issues; the first two are super great. Those two are being reprinted next year, so if you're interesd, you should check it out.

  5. #5

    Default

    The average Human life span would be 200 to 400 Years Before they became Necronaughts in a Science-Magic Mix Digital Afterlife Dimension. The Solar System would be open to trade. Superman as Clark Kal-El Kent would Lead The Daily Solar New Network, Batman would be the World’s Greatest Detective Of Skartaris leading the People Of Gotham To unsettled Region, Wonder Woman and the Amazons would Have various Themyscira Like Realms throughout the Solar System. Dick Grayson & Koriand’r would be King & Queen Of Skartarian Titans. The Titans would operate out of New Cronus a Mobile Moon. The Justice League would have a watchtower on every Planet. Batman would only communicate with the Justice League through Bio-Robotic Space Station.

  6. #6
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody Garland View Post
    John Byrne's Superman/Batman: Generations tackled the concept. There were two four issue miniseries and a third that was twelve issues; the first two are super great. Those two are being reprinted next year, so if you're interesd, you should check it out.
    I disagree with some of Byrne's choices, but Jody Garland is right. Generations is a solid effort at an aged in real time DCU. Volume 1 is especially good as the stories reflect the comics aesthetic of each decade in which that specific tale is set.

  7. #7
    Astonishing Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magmaster12 View Post
    Basically the question above, what would the DC Universe be like if Batman, Superman and the first JSA showed up in the late 30's or Early 40's along with the Silver Age heroes showing up in the late 50's and early 60's and other heroes aging with time and possible other legacies.
    How would it all play out?
    If Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince, were locked into the 30's -40's setting, like many of the pulp and Golden age era characters of the time, DC comics would be mostly defunct.
    And while the Silver age reinvention of many heroes and concepts, helped revive the industry, having a still young Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, right alongside them was key, it is what helped sell it, and was a huge part of it.

    The sliding timeline of comics characters, is what has driven it and makes it work.
    Those who cluelessly call for "real time" and a universe filled with legacy replacement characters (cause they grew up with some 3rd or 4th Robin or some other derivative crap who they want to see grow up and replace/be the new Batman) LOL! Would doom and crash the industry, following their model.

    They can't indicate a single fictitious character or franchise locked to it's time frame, and replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: comics, games, movies, merchandise, etc. of the constantly sliding timeline Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman characters.
    Star Wars Rey hasn't been around long enough yet.
    And most of Marvel's successful movies have used their own classic comic versions(also on a sliding time-scale) , not later legacy version.

    LOL to those frantically looking up vintage public domain characters moderately successful today, Tarzan, Zorro, Robin Hood, Peter Pan Dracula, even Sherlock Holmes.
    Superman, Batman beat them easy.

    A comparable successful character and franchise, which keeps going, with the original character (not legacy), might be James Bond, but guess what movies are on a Sliding-Time scale, same character just constantly modernized for modern audience, like Batman and Superman.

    I'll wait...
    Last edited by Güicho; 07-07-2018 at 01:24 PM.

  8. #8
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    If Superman Clark Kent, and Batman Bruce Wayne were locked into the 30's -40's setting, DC comics would be mostly dead.
    And while the Silver age reinvention of many heroes and concepts, helped revive the industry, having a still young Superman and Batmen right along side them is waht helped sell it, and was a huge part of it.
    I'm not so sure things would have gotten all that dire.

    Superman, Wonder Woman, Dr. Fate, The Spectre, possibly Aquaman, and a few of the others all have readily believable age immunity built into them. Green Lantern is an easily passed legacy. The existence of Johnny Quick suggests we'd have more than one way to keep a character with the mantle of The Flash going. What's more, the time where Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were the only DC superheroes still in print was only a five year span, during which the original Batman would still have been viably young (although only barely). (ETA: DC was publishing other heroes in that 5-year span, like Green Arrow, Johnny Quick, Robot Man and a few others, but only as backup features)

    We'd be looking at a Batman Beyond-Beyond at this point, but the 1950s-1960s might have been a time when you could have gotten away with a Batman replacement. Except for the temporary tv show bump, the title wasn't doing all that great until O'Neil and Adams got hold of it in the late 1960s. Dealing with Robin would have been the only difficult part.

    So, the DCU we know would be different for sure, but I don't know real time aging would have killed it.

  9. #9
    Astonishing Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,045

    Default

    See edit^
    Sorry but none of the characters you list have more cache: sell more comics, games, merch, tv shows, movies than the sliding-timeline Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman (Diana Prince.

    Dr. Fate, The Spectre, possibly Aquaman, and a few of the others
    DC would be defunct, if those were their headline characters.

    Green Lantern is an easily passed legacy. The existence of Johnny Quick suggests we'd have more than one way to keep a character with the mantle of The Flash going.
    Just like Silverage reinventions worked for GL, Flash, Atom, etc., Tinfoilage "Legacy" reinventions of GL and Flash characters worked for a hot minute, cause again sliding-timeline Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman, were right there along with them.

    We'd be looking at a Batman Beyond-Beyond at this point,
    Loved it, had a good run, cartoon, comics, even still potential for a movie (I'd personally love to see it!)
    Probably the most interesting thing about it was Old Man Wayne though, would anyone follow the adventure of Batman replacement Terry Mcguiness without Wayne there?
    Certainly not as many as follow the sliding timeline Bruce Wayne. Not even a contender.

    DCU we know would be different for sure, but I don't know real time aging would have killed it.
    Real time aging Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince, and replacing them with derivative characters would.

    Are FOX now that Wolverine is dead, going to bank on the new legacy character X-23? Maybe a movie.
    But their cash cow is still the non-aging sliding-timeline Wolverine. Who they will recast as young in his prime with a sliding forward timeline while he stays the same age.
    That is comics,
    Heck it's so perfect it's been built into the character.

    Still waiting for that fictitious character or franchise locked to it's real-time frame, replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: comics, games, tv, movies, merchandise, etc. of the constantly sliding timeline Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman characters.

    I once heard some suggest The Phantom?
    Not even close.
    Last edited by Güicho; 07-07-2018 at 02:03 PM.

  10. #10
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    See edit^
    Sorry but none of the characters you list have more cache: sell more comics, games, merch, tv shows, movies than the sliding-timeline Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman (Diana Prince.



    DC would be defunct, if those were their headline characters.



    Just like Silverage reinventions worked for GL, Flash, Atom, etc., Tinfoilage "Legacy" reinventions of GL and Flash characters worked for a hot minute, cause again sliding-timeline Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman, were right there along with them.



    Loved it, had a good run, cartoon, comics, even still potential for a movie (I'd personally love to see it!)
    Probably the most interesting thing about it was Old Man Wayne though, would anyone follow the adventure of Batman replacement Terry Mcguiness without Wayne there?
    Certainly not as many as follow the sliding timeline Bruce Wayne. Not even a contender.



    Real time aging Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince, and replacing them with derivative characters would.

    Are FOX now that Wolverine is dead, going to bank on the new legacy character X-23? Maybe a movie.
    But their cash cow is still the non-aging sliding-timeline Wolverine. Who they will recast as young in his prime with a sliding forward timeline while he stays the same age.
    That is comics,
    Heck it's so perfect it's been built into the character.

    Still waiting for that fictitious character or franchise locked to it's real-time frame, replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: comics, games, tv, movies, merchandise, etc. of the constantly sliding timeline Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman characters.

    I once heard some suggest The Phantom?
    Not even close.
    Your logic is solid, but not unassailable. Ultimately, neither of us can prove our point.

    With the exception of the years of the TV show, Batman was in danger of cancellation between the late 1950s thru the late 1960s, by which time the replacement GL, Flash, etc. were in place and supporting their own titles. So Batman was not helping as much as you contend, and could concievably have been replaced with a younger successor. That's not the case now, but it was back then.

    Superman and Wonder Woman had powers that could easily be characterized as rendering them ageless. Superman's supporting scenario would have required some drastic work, but Wonder Woman has been thru multiple cycles where her supporting cast was wiped away. Further, her key supporting character, Trevor, could have aged through to the '60s without materially affecting her stories.

    I don't claim that an aging DC would have worked as well. However, I don't know that we can unequivocally establish it would have failed because 1/3 of the anchor you mention was (at that time) concievably replaceable, and 2/3 could have simply ignored aging.
    But, ultimately, as I said, we'll never know either way.

  11. #11
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    If Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince, were locked into the 30's -40's setting, like many of the pulp and Golden age era characters of the time, DC comics would be mostly defunct.
    And while the Silver age reinvention of many heroes and concepts, helped revive the industry, having a still young Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, right alongside them was key, it is what helped sell it, and was a huge part of it.

    The sliding timeline of comics characters, is what has driven it and makes it work.
    Those who cluelessly call for "real time" and a universe filled with legacy replacement characters (cause they grew up with some 3rd or 4th Robin or some other derivative crap who they want to see grow up and replace/be the new Batman) LOL! Would doom and crash the industry, following their model.

    They can't indicate a single fictitious character or franchise locked to it's time frame, and replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: comics, games, movies, merchandise, etc. of the constantly sliding timeline Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman characters.
    Star Wars Rey hasn't been around long enough yet.
    And most of Marvel's successful movies have used their own classic comic versions(also on a sliding time-scale) , not later legacy version.

    LOL to those frantically looking up vintage public domain characters moderately successful today, Tarzan, Zorro, Robin Hood, Peter Pan Dracula, even Sherlock Holmes.
    Superman, Batman beat them easy.

    A comparable successful character and franchise, which keeps going, with the original character (not legacy), might be James Bond, but guess what movies are on a Sliding-Time scale, same character just constantly modernized for modern audience, like Batman and Superman.

    I'll wait...
    So, name all the franchises that failed because they tried to stay in real time!

    No, not the ones that died off on the first generation. Those never really got to a point where real time applied. The closest I've ever heard are things like Gasoline Alley or For Better or Worse dealing in real-time but even then nothing said the strips would have survived longer had they followed the Peanuts model. And things like TV soap-operas ran for decades with characters aging while shows that stayed in a static present died alongside them. So I'd love to see the evidence that someone actually took a comic-book series that sold on the level of DC and Marvel's mainstays and ran it aground solely by letting the characters age

    I'll always hold that a kid in 1970 picking up Action Comics or Batman or Wonder Woman for the first time either enjoyed or didn't the story it told. It wouldn't have changed based on whether Superman was Kal-L or Lar Gand, if Batman was Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson, although maybe it would have mattered if it was a powered or powerless Diana. I can easily picture a DCU where guys like Metamorpho, Firestorm, and Zatanna are treated much like the JSAers were in the 60's and 70's while the modern JLA was composed of a 3rd generation Superman, a 5th generation Batman, Cyborg, Flash (Iris West), Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes), Kyle Rayner and Harley Quinn. And the Titans were a middle aged Bart Allen and Cassie Sandsmark training Aquagirl (Garth's daughter), Solstice, Sin Queen (ollie and Dinah's kid), Brainiac III and Static. And to most readers in 2018 this was just the way things were. Kal-L died in the Crisis saving his son Kal-El (Superboy/Silver-age Superman), Bruce had died in 1979 (having turned the Batman role over to Dick Grayson in 1965), and Diana had retired back to Themiscyra when the gods left around 1970

  12. #12
    Astonishing Member Güicho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    But, ultimately, as I said, we'll never know either way.
    Could be, great post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    So, name all the franchises that failed because they tried to stay in real time!
    Never said any franchise or character "failed" because they stayed in real time, most do and are incredibly successful, until they end.
    However that's not the case for comics characters which are unique, and have kept going.
    I said
    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    ... can't indicate a single fictitious character or franchise locked to it's time frame, and replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: comics, games, movies, merchandise, etc. of the constantly sliding timeline Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman characters.
    Now you wan't me to list ones that have successfully had longer staying power then Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman (Diana Prince.?
    My whole point is you can't name one that has.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    ...picking up Action Comics or Batman or Wonder Woman for the first time either enjoyed or didn't the story it told. It wouldn't have changed based on whether Superman was Kal-L or Lar Gand, if Batman was Bruce Wayne or Dick Grayson
    We are not talking about someone picking up one issue, but about the longevity of the character and franchise.

    Dick Grayson replacing Bruce Wayne, the origin alone doesn't resonate as strong, one is self realized, self made, the other would inherit the mantle and theme, he'd always be overshadowed by the guy whose identity he is emulating.
    There is a reason DC sticks with the guy whose parents were shot, then to survive reinvented himself, when a Bat flew in through his window, that is Bruce Wayne. It was in 1930-40, it is today.

    And Mon-El, has nothing on Superman (Clark Kent), his story, origin, concept, and history of publication, which all come into play, that you think they could be just swapped, or he could easily replace Superman, and have the same long term success seems laughable.

    Instead of inventing these hypothetical you put forth, we actually know what is successful.
    And the truth is if you could indicate a single fictitious character or franchise locked to it's time frame, and replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: in comics, games, tv, movies, merchandise, etc. as Superman (Clark Kent), Batman (Bruce Wayne), and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince) who persist to this day on a constantly sliding timeline , you would list them.
    But you can't.
    Last edited by Güicho; 07-07-2018 at 07:20 PM.

  13. #13
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    Never said any franchise or character "failed" because they stayed in real time, most do and are incredibly successful, until they end.
    However that's not the case for comics characters which are unique, and have kept going.
    I said

    You wan't me to list ones that have longer staying power then Superman (Clark Kent, Batman (Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman (Diana Prince.
    My whole point is you can't name one.
    My point is that whether Superman has that staying power based on not being in real time is not a given. There's nothing to say that if Dick Grayson had taken the Batman role in 1960 "permanently" (as in Bruce was never going back as Batman full-time) tht it would have negatively impacted sales. I'm not saying it would have been as successful, but I'm also not taking it as fact that it wouldn't have been, I honestly believe it wouldn't have seriously hurt sales longterm- Batman in the 70's under the same creative team and telling largely the same stories would have sold about the same regardless of who was under the cowl.

    To me it's like trying to predict how the Superman film franchise would have fared if Richard Donner had stayed on. You can argue about what did happen after he left or how his Gerry-rigged Superman II compares to the actual version. But you can't definitively say how his version would have been received if it had been fully filmed and released in 1981.
    Last edited by Jon Clark; 07-07-2018 at 06:53 PM.

  14. #14
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    We are not talking about someone picking up one issue, but about the longevity of the character and franchise.

    And that is based on both long-term fans at any given point and people picking up their first issue. And I'm saying the guy reading since 1970 today would have picked the same book up in 1970 and become the same longterm fan.

    Dick Grayson replacing Bruce Wayne, the origin alone doesn't resonate as strong, one is self realized, self made, the other would inherit the mantle and theme, he'd always be overshadowed by the guy whose identity he is emulating.
    There is a reason DC sticks with the guy whose parents were shot, then to survive reinvented himself, when a Bat flew in through his window, that is Bruce Wayne. It was in 1930-40, it is today. [/QUOTE]

    Yeah the reason is that no one ever really pulled the trigger and tried it. I don't think Bruce's origin is really any more compelling than Dick's.


    Rich kid's parents die in front of him vs circus kid's parents die in front of him. One seeks out chances to learn around the globe. The other is trained by an older hero rather than a globe spanning nameless group of men. One becomes the Batman. The other inherits the role of Batman after years of being the sidekick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    And Mon-El, has nothing on Superman (Clark Kent), his story, origin, concept, and history of publication, which all come into play, that you think they could be just swapped, or he could easily replace Superman, and have the same long term success seems laughable.

    Hey I needed a quick name for a Superman legacy without needing to get long-winded explaining a son or heir for Superman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Güicho View Post
    Instead of inventing these hypothetical you put forth, we actually know what is successful.
    And the truth is if you could indicate a single fictitious character or franchise locked to it's time frame, and replaced by legacy characters, who has had the long staying power and cache: in comics, games, movies, merchandise, etc. as the constantly sliding timeline Superman (Clark Kent), Batman (Bruce Wayne), and Wonder Woman (Diana Prince), you would list them.
    But you don't.
    I can't because no one has tried it. The problem is that if they started it today- I'd have to wait 80 years for it to be compared to the lasting power of the current DCU. And any past attempt I can recall at real time was from a point where 99% of non DC/Marvel books failed so there is no way to tell if the Valiant Universe of the 1990's failed for being realtime or for the same reasons that the Ultraverse, Milestone, and shared Image ones did.

    Wait- technically Savage Dragon is in real time and has lasted about 20-25 years. So it is possible. It's not a great success compared to DC but I will say it outlasted all the other Image properties that debuted at that time and quite a few DC and Marvel ones.

  15. #15
    DC Comics Forum Mod The Darknight Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    My point is that whether Superman has that staying power based on not being in real time is not a given. There's nothing to say that if Dick Grayson had taken the Batman role in 1960 "permanently" (as in Bruce was never going back as Batman full-time) tht it would have negatively impacted sales.
    I don't know,Jon. A pre-puberty Batman would have looked kind of stupid in 1960, IMO.
    A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!

    Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010

    Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •