Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[Ascended]

Which is kind of my point. The whole Bat-God thing started with Dark Knight Returns... the idea that with time and money and planning... Batman could beat superman to death with his bare hands. And the actual story itself was taken WAY out of perspective. The first time I read that I couldn't believe how others took this as proof of how Awesome batman was.

The entire dialogue was to the effect of "Clark is probably trying to talk away this fight... but I can't hear him." followed by Clark practically begging Bruce to stand down because he can hear that his heart is giving out. That's not a fight... That's beating on someone who doesn't want to fight and is trying to be your friend.

Yeah, I dont get why so many people misread that fight. It's not nearly the clean win some people take it for.

For my money, the only time a Super-Bat fight was handled properly was Hush. That worked, because in the end it highlighted how both heroes are capable and awesome. Bruce gets to highlight his strategy skills by surviving Clark's attacks and putting Clark into a position where Clark has to pull himself out of it. Clark meanwhile, gets to tank a bunch of cool attacks which shows off his raw power, and in the end when he breaks Ivy's mind control it shows his mental mettle. Everyone came out looking good there.

I also enjoyed Pak's New52 fight in the Superman-Batman book. But that was t-shirt Superman and he was much closer to human norms, and that changes the rules. Those two guys can have an actual brawl where one comes out over the other and it's much more acceptable since Clark's not a god-like powerhouse.

The Bat-God.

Its a good thing.

But what I don't want is for some "Super" to hand Bats a HARD loss, ala bane back in the 90's.

The Batgod was fine under Morrison I think. The whole point in the original JLA wasn't that Batman was such a big badass, it was that *everyone* was a badass; Morrison tried to write everybody at their peak ability, Bruce included, and generally it worked just fine; no one really suffered for the benefit of another. Or rather, everyone got their moment to shine. It's the writers who followed, who made Bruce more powerful than anyone else in comics, often at the direct expense of his peers, where the Batgod became problematic. Actually, I absolutely adore the Batman Who Laughs because that whole concept is just a commentary on how ridiculous and silly the Batgod idea really is. BWL is just the Batgod taken to the obvious extreme, putting the sheer idiocy of the concept on display for all to see and enjoy for the over the top foolishness it is.

As for limits.....for me, I think one of the major points for Batman is that he *does* have them. For all his training and skill and ability he's still supposed to just be a man. Not just some dude who hit the gym, but still a man with human limits. There are things he cannot overcome. But Bruce left his pulp origins (and the human struggle of that genre) behind and has become the most powerful being in the DCU and.....I find it incredibly tiresome, trite, and boring.

Ultimately I dont need or want Bruce losing a fight to Clark though. I dont want them to fight at all. For Bruce, it's win/win. If he loses but survives (which he will since Clark doesn't kill outside of rare circumstances) he's the guy who fought a god and lived to tell about it. If he wins, he's the man who defeated a god. Bruce cant walk away from the battle looking bad, no matter how it goes. But for Clark? It's lose/lose. If he wins, he's a god who beat up a regular guy and no one is gonna enjoy or be entertained by that (except those of us salty over Clark's loses who just want a cathartic win). If Clark loses, he's a god who lost to a guy who's "super power" is money. And that's just lame. No matter what, Clark walks away looking like less than he is.

[Robanker]

The Bat-God.


Its a good thing.

But what I don't want is for some "Super" to hand Bats a HARD loss, ala bane back in the 90's.

People will accept various power ups and nerfs for heroes and villains throughout history pretty easily but seem to have a real problem with bats being as powerful
as the story needs him to be.

Unlimited Human Potential. Thats his power. Humanity without limits.
The Sherlock Holmes, Steven Hawking, and the Mayan Hero twins applying his power to figuring out how to fight the gods.
Thing about that statement that SHOULD ring out the loudest is tha 2 of the 3 mentioned... they're NOT real.

So batman being viewed as "my next door neighbor worked out and put on a batsuit to fight crime" that idea needs to die out at some point.

I recently encountered this interview of someone asking grant morrison "How old is batman" and He said it: as old as the story needs him to be. He doesn't have an age, he's fictional. People say kids can't tell the difference between
reality and fictions but its really grown ups. No 5 year old is sitting there thinking how is a fat man on a sleigh pulled by reindeer crossing the world instantly overnight. Meanwhile grown ups want to know how old batman is"

For the few... Like "Ascended" who I know have read my posts. I admit I'm a big fan of things needing to make "Narrative sense".

Its a big deal for me. So if you can't twig that Bruce Wayne is more than a mere mortal... In cannon... thus in perpetuity now.

He sat in the Mobius chair. . . He was the literal BatGod for a while. So all those feats you hate. All those moments of "OMG No, way..."

Just know that he used that damn chair to make sure he won a lot of the time when he shouldn't have. To know things he shouldn't have know.

I mean... please keep in mind when you think "a human can't BEAT superman!!!" please keep in mind humans aren't fast enough to dodge bullets either.

Lastly... the majority of people reading a book, lets say most heroic books anyway. Are reading the book to see a favorite characters struggle and win.

Never listen to someone who just WANTS a character to take a hard "L"
... never. There are a lot more people rooting for their favorites (and those are the ones keeping your book afloat) than rooting for someone else's favorite to fail (who typically nowdays want that character out of the way to give their favorite a chance to shine."



Edit: all that being said... I'm not a bat superfan. I'm sure there are people who ARE his fans who only want him in Gotham never out having space adventures. Thats fair too, but the same iconic status that make sure
his books stay in print are the same things that make him solidly a part of "THE TRINITY" and so read the gotham books and cheer for the Batgod fans as well. It only helps Gotham in the long run.

Bruce accepting he's not able to do everything and finding ways to succeed despite it is what made him compelling to me. Batgod is just Batman fans wanting their character to be Superman. Humans don't have unlimited potential. If Bruce is to be our seat at the table of Gods, he needs to actually reflect us, just exaggerated.

"He's too powerful" is often levied at Clark by the same people who want Bruce to win at everything. It's goddamn stupid and undermines Bruce's character and depth. He's a shallow joke of what he once was.

[TheRay]

Superwoman does not get enough credit as an interesting character.

[Midnight_v]

If Clark loses, he's a god who lost to a guy who's "super power" is money. And that's just lame. No matter what, Clark walks away looking like less than he is.

[/QUOTE]
Maybe... but then ... You don't see people saying how lame Thanos is losing to stark. You don't even see any memes about it.
Quite the opposite.

But ultimately...

I dont want them to fight at all.

Me niether, but I gotta say...

You have the Narrative wrong. The basis of what your saying is STEEPED in having the narrative wrong.

In ancient times yeah there were countless stories about mortals who tried to challenge the god and were punished.

Our MODERN NARRATIVE is that Man kills God(s). Not Giants. Not titans. Man.

Look at every story that isn't a HORROR story.... and even in some of them and its Cthulhu getting knocked out by a boat.

Men defeat the Gods.

We steal fire from them, we lock them away, banish, them, Ignore them into submission.

Yelling that "HE'S JUST A MERE MORTAL" adds to Batmans mythos more than anything else. . .

and yes I get it... Batman/Superman: Worlds Finest

To many people look like "Bmx Bandit/Angel Summoner" but we've long sense left that idea behind and just accepted that Batman ans superman are a team that needs each other... for... reasons.

So much of what everyone says here is just echoing Captain Atom from that one cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw9dK2hrr1A

and as funny as that is...

We just had Dark Knights metal...

At some point you should look at it from the narrative sense that there is SO much more going on with this guy that just "My power is money" ...


You ever check out One-Punch man and realize... this guys some kind of high level reality warper? Think that Marvels sliding time scale is a joint whammy set forth between
Franklin Richards and the Scarlet witch?

There are some things in comics that don't make sense unless you MAKE them make sense.

But you're not likely going to get bat man to go back to being Sherlock Holmes: Ninja.

Its silly to me to even think that we could get back to there.

You'd have to remake the universe and erase everything that has ever been done with the trinity, and even then... soon as someone wants to do a worlds finest story.

You're stuck with
A. BatGod
or
B. Everyone else is an idiot, and lack rudimentary problem solving. because great mystery? Its really hard to write, people.

Thats just my thoughts.

[LifeIsILL]

Powerful DC villains who has done nothing

https://www.cbr.com/dc-big-name-villains-done-nothing/

I agree with this. This is a big problem. Vandal Savage, Despero, Trigon....why haven't they done some serious damage by now is what I want to know.

And you can add Kestrel to the list.

[Agent Z]

Maybe... but then ... You don't see people saying how lame Thanos is losing to stark. You don't even see any memes about it.
Quite the opposite.

But ultimately...




Me niether, but I gotta say...

You have the Narrative wrong. The basis of what your saying is STEEPED in having the narrative wrong.

In ancient times yeah there were countless stories about mortals who tried to challenge the god and were punished.

Our MODERN NARRATIVE is that Man kills God(s). Not Giants. Not titans. Man.

Look at every story that isn't a HORROR story.... and even in some of them and its Cthulhu getting knocked out by a boat.

Men defeat the Gods.

We steal fire from them, we lock them away, banish, them, Ignore them into submission.

Yelling that "HE'S JUST A MERE MORTAL" adds to Batmans mythos more than anything else. . .

and yes I get it... Batman/Superman: Worlds Finest

To many people look like "Bmx Bandit/Angel Summoner" but we've long sense left that idea behind and just accepted that Batman ans superman are a team that needs each other... for... reasons.

So much of what everyone says here is just echoing Captain Atom from that one cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw9dK2hrr1A

and as funny as that is...

We just had Dark Knights metal...

At some point you should look at it from the narrative sense that there is SO much more going on with this guy that just "My power is money" ...


You ever check out One-Punch man and realize... this guys some kind of high level reality warper? Think that Marvels sliding time scale is a joint whammy set forth between
Franklin Richards and the Scarlet witch?

There are some things in comics that don't make sense unless you MAKE them make sense.

But you're not likely going to get bat man to go back to being Sherlock Holmes: Ninja.

Its silly to me to even think that we could get back to there.

You'd have to remake the universe and erase everything that has ever been done with the trinity, and even then... soon as someone wants to do a worlds finest story.

You're stuck with
A. BatGod
or
B. Everyone else is an idiot, and lack rudimentary problem solving. because great mystery? Its really hard to write, people.

Thats just my thoughts.

Well Batman is pretty much a god himself these days so he's fair game for getting taken down a peg or two.

[Agent Z]

Powerful DC villains who has done nothing

https://www.cbr.com/dc-big-name-villains-done-nothing/

I agree with this. This is a big problem. Vandal Savage, Despero, Trigon....why haven't they done some serious damage by now is what I want to know.

And you can add Kestrel to the list.

Wasn't Vandal Savage stated to be Genghis Khan?

[phonogram12]

I thought Darwyn Cooke's take on a Batman-Superman fight seemed pretty spot on. One thing that didn't occur to me until I read it was that the last thing Batman would do is confront him head on. You throw cars at him, you throw radioactive sludge at him, you throw a garbage dump at him. It still ended the way many would predict, but it was the smartest of those confrontations I've ever read.

But, yes, for the most part, Superman gets jobbed far more than most other characters in the DCU (and I'm not even just talking about Batman. With a few exceptions, it seems one of his main uses over the past 30 some years has been to show just how tough other characters are by beating/stalemating him.

[Midnight_v]

Well Batman is pretty much a god himself these days so he's fair game for getting taken down a peg or two.

Ha Ha Ha. Fair enough.

[Ascended]

Maybe... but then ... You don't see people saying how lame Thanos is losing to stark. You don't even see any memes about it.
Quite the opposite.

That's true, but the context is different. Endgame had almost every single hero from the movies show up, along with all the nameless underlings like the mages of Kamar-Taj, the Ravagers, and the Asgardians, etc,. and Stark only won by using a dues ex machina. And it still killed him. That's a "man kills god" narrative, but its actually earned. Not to mention Thanos is the antagonist; we're not supposed to root for him we're supposed to want to see him defeated by the heroes.

Typically a Super-Bat fight is just the two of them and Bruce doesn't die from the effort. The only plot device here that makes any sense is kryptonite, but that's something everyone from Lex to Metallo to every smuck in the Silver Age has tried, and it's always failed. Kryptonite only works for Batman. So the premise of this fight doesn't even really fit the internal logic of the DCU (such thin ice as that is, but still).

Our MODERN NARRATIVE is that Man kills God(s). Not Giants. Not titans. Man.

Look at every story that isn't a HORROR story.... and even in some of them and its Cthulhu getting knocked out by a boat.

Men defeat the Gods.

We steal fire from them, we lock them away, banish, them, Ignore them into submission.

Yet we very rarely ever beat god/s in a head-to-head battle.

You're right, that has become the modern narrative of choice. That doesn't make it the only narrative you can tell. And more to the point, it's likely not a narrative (in this case) that's great for business. Bruce is DC's top dog and has been for a couple decades, so obviously you give your customers what they want and lean into that popularity. But when that push comes at the direct expense of their second biggest IP? All you end up doing is pushing your guy who's already at the top a tiny bit higher while undermining your second IP. It's not smart business; it's basically saying "No, don't buy Mountain Dew it sucks, buy Pepsi instead!" Yknow what? Encourage your customers to buy Pepsi *and* Dew. You'll make more money that way.

And since Superman isn't a antagonist and is in fact a hero readers are supposed to root for, putting him in a fight where he's going to come out looking bad no matter how it goes? Questionable decision. You *can* tell stories about your hero losing, and I believe you not only should, but *have* to. But putting your two biggest names in a fight and having either of them come out the undisputed winner? It's not smart business. Especially when one of those characters is going to look bad and the other one good no matter who wins.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I don't believe that Barbara regaining her mobility weakened the character, nor was her return to Batgirl a devolution in the character:

'Batgirl' was never a side-kick role in origin until the retcons in the 90's, and when it was 'passed on.' Before that, Barbara started on equal footing to Batman as an ally--she was inspired by his ideals but worked to expand upon them, much the same as she's doing right now in her current run. I believe her time as Oracle, however, was incremental to advancing the character and truly solidifying her tough-as-nails attitude (that was present during the 1970's, by the by) and it's great to finally see matters and attitudes finally being reconciled in Year of the Villain, despite how solicitations are framing it!

[Agent Z]

I don't believe that Barbara regaining her mobility weakened the character, nor was her return to Batgirl a devolution in the character:

'Batgirl' was never a side-kick role in origin until the retcons in the 90's, and when it was 'passed on.' Before that, Barbara started on equal footing to Batman as an ally--she was inspired by his ideals but worked to expand upon them, much the same as she's doing right now in her current run. I believe her time as Oracle, however, was incremental to advancing the character and truly solidifying her tough-as-nails attitude (that was present during the 1970's, by the by) and it's great to finally see matters and attitudes finally being reconciled in Year of the Villain, despite how solicitations are framing it!

She might have been on equal footing to Batman when she debuted but she certainly isn't one now where her age and experience have greatly been reduced and she's been replaced on a team she was the founder of by Harley Quinn.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

She might have been on equal footing to Batman when she debuted but she certainly isn't one now where her age and experience have greatly been reduced and she's been replaced on a team she was the founder of by Harley Quinn.

I disagree, I still think she's on equal footing but she tackles matters differently. She takes a more empathetic approach that informs her logistical reasoning; I don't agree that a reduction in age necessary equals a lack in value or experience.

The whole Harley Quinn thing is BS though, but that's its' own problem.

[Tzigone]

I don't believe that Barbara regaining her mobility weakened the character, nor was her return to Batgirl a devolution in the character:

'Batgirl' was never a side-kick role in origin until the retcons in the 90's, and when it was 'passed on.' Before that, Barbara started on equal footing to Batman as an ally--she was inspired by his ideals but worked to expand upon them, much the same as she's doing right now in her current run. I believe her time as Oracle, however, was incremental to advancing the character and truly solidifying her tough-as-nails attitude (that was present during the 1970's, by the by) and it's great to finally see matters and attitudes finally being reconciled in Year of the Villain, despite how solicitations are framing it!

I absolutely agree with you on the mobility. And I much prefer the earlier Batgirl setup where she was a peer rather than protege to Batman (hate Batgirl: Year One). But I do think her going back to Batgirl was a devolution. It didn't have to be. But the way it was done with de-aging (and she acts much younger/less grown up, too in the ones I read, which I acknowledge last I read was a while ago and I didn't read much because I didn't like the characterization) and not having her a peer of Batman mean that it turned out to be. Also, I feel like the name Batgirl is problematic for a grown woman to go back to in this day and age (or even 30 years ago). It's a name that will sound a bit silly when she's 40. I didn't like Steph using it (when she already had her own code name that was much more appropriate for a grown woman and was hers) either. I have massive issues with de-aging Dick Grayson, too. I feel like both of them got screwed out of being fully-fledged absolute grown-ups who acted like mature adults when N52 rolled around. Really earlier for Dick, but that's another complaint altogether.

So, for me the name Batgirl is an annoyance (like Changeling going back to Beast Boy), but the de-aging is extremely irritating and has mostly put me off reading, for both Dick and Barbara. I did read an issue or three even though I disliked that setup, but nothing there that grabbed me. That was in 2015/2016 timeframe, so I know things have changed since, but can't muster enthusiasm to check again. I also dislike Barbara being made Dick's age or closer to Dick's age in the '90s and beyond. There was no reason for it. They could just start dating as adults (and I do ship them). No reason to put anything going on back when Dick was high school or given them a 'history". I read the '70s stuff (when he was a legal adult in college) and it was one kiss and no dates and a supposedly heartfelt declaration that lacked any oomph, given the circumstances. I dislike retconned important relationships in general, as I feel they are kinda shortcuts to developing the relationship in real-time. A way of making emotions already present instead of building them. Exceptions apply, of course.

Can't comment on Year of the Villain, because just not interested at all so haven't read.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I absolutely agree with you on the mobility. And I much prefer the earlier Batgirl setup where she was a peer rather than protege to Batman (hate Batgirl: Year One). But I do think her going back to Batgirl was a devolution. It didn't have to be. But the way it was done with de-aging (and she acts much younger/less grown up, too in the ones I read, which I acknowledge last I read was a while ago and I didn't read much because I didn't like the characterization) and not having her a peer of Batman mean that it turned out to be. Also, I feel like the name Batgirl is problematic for a grown woman to go back to in this day and age (or even 30 years ago). It's a name that will sound a bit silly when she's 40. I didn't like Steph using it (when she already had her own code name that was much more appropriate for a grown woman and was hers) either. I have massive issues with de-aging Dick Grayson, too. I feel like both of them got screwed out of being fully-fledged absolute grown-ups who acted like mature adults when N52 rolled around. Really earlier for Dick, but that's another complaint altogether.

So, for me the name Batgirl is an annoyance (like Changeling going back to Beast Boy), but the de-aging is extremely irritating and has mostly put me off reading, for both Dick and Barbara. I did read an issue or three even though I disliked that setup, but nothing there that grabbed me. That was in 2015/2016 timeframe, so I know things have changed since, but can't muster enthusiasm to check again. I also dislike Barbara being made Dick's age or closer to Dick's age in the '90s and beyond. There was no reason for it. They could just start dating as adults (and I do ship them). No reason to put anything going on back when Dick was high school or given them a 'history". I read the '70s stuff (when he was a legal adult in college) and it was one kiss and no dates and a supposedly heartfelt declaration that lacked any oomph, given the circumstances. I dislike retconned important relationships in general, as I feel they are kinda shortcuts to developing the relationship in real-time. A way of making emotions already present instead of building them. Exceptions apply, of course.

Can't comment on Year of the Villain, because just not interested at all so haven't read.

That's fair enough; but I mean, speaking as a grown-up, there isn't always a clear-cut path as to how to act. I guess you could argue there's been a tonal shift as of late which might contribute to the perception of her seeming less mature...but even then I'd be willing to contest that because I don't believe bright colours and a more relaxed attitude automatically equal immaturity (Not trying to fight by the way! Just, ya know, opinion!)

And I definitely hear what you're saying as to the 'girl' part of her name, it's always going to be a topic of debate as to whether it's liberating or infantilising. Personally, I don't think it is; I think it's just...a casual term, if that makes sense? Like anyone turning and saying to their friend "Girl!" Just a term pretty universal to any age-group (I mean, my elderly mother still likes to say "I'm going out with the girls!"). But then, it's totally subjective and that's ok! I mean, personally, I just always liked it because I thought it sounded spry and snappy; like Babs herself!