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

[SiegePerilous02]

DCAU Batman developed pretty similarly to Post-Crisis Batman in terms of becoming more bitter, laser-focused, and serious, especially by the point he starts mentoring Terry, you just had B:TAS that showcased him in his prime before that happened.

This is definitely why I prefer the earlier seasons, but even so Bruce's descent into becoming colder was still more likable than what happened in the comics.
Helps that the incident with Tim and the Joker lead to a more logical conclusion than the comics.

For me I think Post-Crisis added enough to the Superman mythos to warrant it's existence. The marriage may yet have happened but the way it came about played into the Post-Crisis continuity and development of Lois and Clark's relationship so I'm not sure if one can really say that.

I really don't think it added too much, but there were a lot of subtractions. New additions that came about like Maggie, Steel and Kon could have existed without a revamp.
That specific take on the marriage was based around the post-Crisis era, but Clark and Lois had been dancing around each other sine 1938 and the possibility of marriage was always present in their future. it may have developed differently, but a marriage was always possible without a reboot.

It's generally become the main inspiration point for a lot of Superman adaptions.

And that's pretty unfortunate, IMO.

The post crisis revamps weren't a problem until writers became obsessed with bringing pre crisis stuff.

I think they had a limited shelf life from the beginning. You don't establish the trend of chucking everything that came before to start over without the possibility of the new take wearing out its welcome down the road too, necessitating the return of older stuff that seems fresher since its absence or new stuff entirely.

Creative direction overhauls were needed for all three of them, but the pre-Crisis stuff could have existed just fine without interfering with the changes that worked. Byrne's Superman in particular are some really bad comics, the other two revamps at least have some redeeming features, but his was needless. All the changes, save the Kents being alive, could have been implemented without a reboot and his mythos would be more coherent because of it. Look at what became of the Supergirl and Legion continuities, the problems began with altering continuity without committing fully to a reboot. Either do or don't, DC never learns that lesson.

[phonogram12]

Wonder Woman is still recovering and trying to find her footing since Crisis.

[Jim Kelly]

I pretty much agree that all the reboots and retcons coming from Crisis were unnecessary. DC didn't need to throw out their whole universe just to effect some changes. They had always done that before--conveniently forgetting characters and storylines that no longer worked.

However, I'm not sure that Wonder Woman was better off before the Crisis. There were many times where she was rebooted and retconned prior to Crisis and all of these efforts came to nought. They have been trying to fix Wonder Woman since the 1950s. DC should have learned from the past and realized that rebooting Wonder Woman yet again isn't going to work out. All they succeed in doing is tying themselves up in knots over the mess they've made. Maybe the solution is not trying to fix her.

[Agent Z]

Wonder Woman is still recovering and trying to find her footing since Crisis.

She was having that problem long before crisis.

[phonogram12]

However, I'm not sure that Wonder Woman was better off before the Crisis. There were many times where she was rebooted and retconned prior to Crisis and all of these efforts came to nought. They have been trying to fix Wonder Woman since the 1950s. DC should have learned from the past and realized that rebooting Wonder Woman yet again isn't going to work out. All they succeed in doing is tying themselves up in knots over the mess they've made. Maybe the solution is not trying to fix her.

That's fair. I agree, continuing the trend with the post-Crisis reboot wasn't a great, either.

[SiegePerilous02]

Wonder Woman is still recovering and trying to find her footing since Crisis.

She was having that problem long before crisis.

COIE didn't really help her in the long run though, even if it gave her a much needed boost. Her being in the worse straights of the three pre-COIE definitely means she needed an overhaul the most, but much like Superman, all the worthwhile changes could have been done without rebooting. She gets a power boost and gets full blown flight. A fleshed out cast of named Amazon faces. A new Man's World supporting cast that could have been added to Steve, Etta and Darnell without changing them. She ditches the Diana Prince ID to become an ambassador to her people as the Amazons decide to interact with the outside world more. Revamps for the villains. And best of all, not making Donna a complete dumpster fire of a character.

It's perhaps not a coincidence that Batman is the best off out of the Trinity, in part because his revamp has aged the best on a craft level and implemented the least amount of radical changes.

[Yoda]

It's amazing that the PTB at DC haven't grasped that a hard reboot doesn't benefit characters generally. Twice now Batman has had the most successful track record with reboots (post-Crisis and New52) and both times didn't drastically alter anything. You'd think between that and the way Marvel has addressed "reboots" over the years would have caught on a little bit.

Though I suspect the upcoming Snyder-Crisis is going to be along those lines. Streamlining and organizing but not rebooting anything wholesale.

[stargazer01]

You do need the connection to humanity, but you really need that to tell all superhero stories.

I think my problem with too much humanity is the general trend to to focus on the Superman and not so much the Superman, making the character just seem like any other generic meta rather than the larger than life cosmic level Sci-Fi Hercules he can be, who does and sees all the craziest, weird ****. The character is at his best when it is a well balanced Superman. The humanity is vital because at his core he's the Champion of the Oppressed and those stories cannot be told without humanity, but he's also the guy who sees and does the larger than life impossible. And really when hes off in space or whatever, the best writers can still tell a very human story.
.

For me Superman is a superhero on a cosmic scale not just for planet Earth. You can tell stories with humanity in other planets that are having similar problems (or other kind of problems) like people on Earth. Star Trek has been doing it since the beginning. You can still have drama, heart, action and adventure that many Superman stories have. Superman cares about all life not just humans. He will go to help others if they need it.

[Yoda]

For me Superman is a superhero on a cosmic scale not just for planet Earth. You can tell stories with humanity in other planets that are having similar problems (or other kind of problems) like people on Earth. Star Trek has been doing it since the beginning. You can still have drama, heart, action and adventure that many Superman stories have. Superman cares about all life not just humans. He will go to help others if they need it.

But what separates those stories from any other sci-fi superhero story? What would make them great "Superman" stories and not just a great story? I mean, they can and should tell those types of stories with Superman. I enjoy them. And that's not my point. I just have a hard time thinking of one from the past or a scenario that wouldn't work equally as well with a handful of other heroes. The only one that is coming to mind is actually Bendis' present story in Superman with him founding the United Planets. That still has a strong connection to Earth.

Again, the point isn't that Superman can't tell those stories. It's that advocating a stripping away all the "human" elements - Clark Kent's secret identity, the Daily Planet, Lois, etc. in favor of generic super adventures takes away the heart of the character.

[stargazer01]

But what separates those stories from any other sci-fi superhero story? What would make them great "Superman" stories and not just a great story? I mean, they can and should tell those types of stories with Superman. I enjoy them. And that's not my point. I just have a hard time thinking of one from the past or a scenario that wouldn't work equally as well with a handful of other heroes. The only one that is coming to mind is actually Bendis' present story in Superman with him founding the United Planets. That still has a strong connection to Earth.

Again, the point isn't that Superman can't tell those stories. It's that advocating a stripping away all the "human" elements - Clark Kent's secret identity, the Daily Planet, Lois, etc. in favor of generic super adventures takes away the heart of the character.

What separates them is Superman himself. His empathy and sense of justice. I think both kind of stories can co-exist. I don't need to see Lois or the Daily planet in every single story or the whole story. They can still be a bit part of the story because Superman/Clark can think about them as emotional comfort. He can still remember his father and those special times they shared together even though he could be dead. Lois is still in his heart and mind even if she isn't with him physically.

Those great Justice League stories and movies in which Lois isn't part of, are still good because we got to see Superman as a hero and his compassion and maybe his leadership.

I could watch a show about Lois Lane and/or Lex even if Superman doesn't appear. So why not Superman on his own. He is the main lead and draw.

If it's live action in a movie or TV, I definitely want to see Lois and the Daily Planet to some extent, but in comic books or animation I don't need it all the time.

[SiegePerilous02]

Again, the point isn't that Superman can't tell those stories. It's that advocating a stripping away all the "human" elements - Clark Kent's secret identity, the Daily Planet, Lois, etc. in favor of generic super adventures takes away the heart of the character.

Are there many who actually advocating for that though? Most fans who want the cosmic stuff back just want a full Superman mythos and not have it heavily skewed to making him grounded and "human", not doing away with the human elements entirely.

Superman himself really does distinguish those space faring stories, at least by writers who know what they're doing. He was the first to do most of those types of stories anyway, can he be generic if he's the genre codifier for practically everything?

[Yoda]

Are there many who actually advocating for that though? Most fans who want the cosmic stuff back just want a full Superman mythos and not have it heavily skewed to making him grounded and "human", not doing away with the human elements entirely.

I don't know about many, it's difficult to quantify any type of fan, but there is definitely a contingent who see those elements as essentially poisoning the character or holding it back. They see the secret identity, Kansas upbringing, Daily Planet, Lois, etc. as outdated, irrelevant, and limiting.

Again, I'm not saying every story has to include those elements to be interesting, fun, or entertaining. That is most definitely not true. Just that those elements are at the core of what makes a Superman story a Superman story as opposed to just kinda your standard superhero yarn. And extending that out, stripping those elements away from the mythos or pushing them completely to the background all the time strips the character of too much.

You could definitely go to far in the other direction too. I don't disagree that a balance is needed. Just that those elements need to part of the mix.

Superman himself really does distinguish those space faring stories, at least by writers who know what they're doing. He was the first to do most of those types of stories anyway, can he be generic if he's the genre codifier for practically everything?

I think it's precisely because he was genre codifier that he is at a greater danger of becoming generic. The more unique or identifying elements you strip away the less you have to distinguish him from those that came later because at his core he is the baseline for everything that came after.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't know about many, it's difficult to quantify any type of fan, but there is definitely a contingent who see those elements as essentially poisoning the character or holding it back. They see the secret identity, Kansas upbringing, Daily Planet, Lois, etc. as outdated, irrelevant, and limiting.

Again, I'm not saying every story has to include those elements to be interesting, fun, or entertaining. That is most definitely not true. Just that those elements are at the core of what makes a Superman story a Superman story as opposed to just kinda your standard superhero yarn. And extending that out, stripping those elements away from the mythos or pushing them completely to the background all the time strips the character of too much.

You could definitely go to far in the other direction too. I don't disagree that a balance is needed. Just that those elements need to part of the mix.

Well the Kansas upbringing that involves the farm he could probably do without. The Kents originally owned a general store, and it would get rid of the obnoxious "Naive Farm Boy" stuff.
Getting rid of the secret identity from the foundations is a bad idea, but I think exploring a time without it in a continuity (either in the main universe, a cartoon, a movie, etc) could be interesting. It's not really sustainable for him to have it forever if his story progresses naturally.

I think it's precisely because he was genre codifier that he is at a greater danger of becoming generic. The more unique or identifying elements you strip away the less you have to distinguish him from those that came later because at his core he is the baseline for everything that came after.

But the human settings and interactions are no longer unique on their own either. How does working at the Daily Planet and being married distinguish him from Spider-Man, who works at the Daily Bugle and actually got married first?

[phonogram12]

COIE didn't really help her in the long run though, even if it gave her a much needed boost. Her being in the worse straights of the three pre-COIE definitely means she needed an overhaul the most, but much like Superman, all the worthwhile changes could have been done without rebooting. She gets a power boost and gets full blown flight. A fleshed out cast of named Amazon faces. A new Man's World supporting cast that could have been added to Steve, Etta and Darnell without changing them. She ditches the Diana Prince ID to become an ambassador to her people as the Amazons decide to interact with the outside world more. Revamps for the villains. And best of all, not making Donna a complete dumpster fire of a character.

It's perhaps not a coincidence that Batman is the best off out of the Trinity, in part because his revamp has aged the best on a craft level and implemented the least amount of radical changes.

Quoted for truth.

[phonogram12]

I'd actually be okay with someone (not Batman or any of the Bat-Family save Jason) killing The Joker for good just so long as they killed off every other villain who kills innocents off indiscriminately (which, let's face it, is most of them).