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

[SiegePerilous02]

In some ways I felt having Diana kill but Superman and Batman not was a knock on Wonder Woman. Like Bruce and Clark had this moral high ground over her allowing her to do the dirty work while they kept their hands clean.

Although we are trending more and more to a Batman and Superman who kill. Despite comic purists protests that’s the direction it feels they are being pulled to in multimedia, because let’s face it in live action most of the heroes kill.

It seems to have morphed into that, but Diana being willing to kill was at least initially established in her own book by Perez.

And even though he did it well, it could also be removed from his run and not change much.

That's a fair point. Though, I think they are starting to dial back on that in live action. I mean, Dwayne Johnsons whole pitch for Black Adam is "heroes don't kill, but Black Adam does". Which leads me to believe they are planning on toning it down.

Let's hope so. Wonder Woman for example killing in a war time setting while she is still growing into her power in her first film worked. Her killing non-powered criminals (no matter how evil they were) in JL was incredibly stupid.

I could use a break on the Trinity especially killing in live action for a good while before we broach the subject again.

[I'm a Fish]

It seems to have morphed into that, but Diana being willing to kill was at least initially established in her own book by Perez.

And even though he did it well, it could also be removed from his run and not change much.

Perez always kept it to non-humans, gods in particular, who don't really die (though I think that detail was added by Jimenez).

Let's hope so. Wonder Woman for example killing in a war time setting while she is still growing into her power in her first film worked. Her killing non-powered criminals (no matter how evil they were) in JL was incredibly stupid.

I could use a break on the Trinity especially killing in live action for a good while before we broach the subject again.

I remember watching JL:SC with my friends, none of whom had seen any other DC film outside of Wonder Woman and Aquaman, and when Batman was killing parademons one of them said, "...so, do aliens not count for the no-kill rule?"

It just stuck out to me, since my poor friend had no idea... no idea....

[SiegePerilous02]

Perez always kept it to non-humans, gods in particular, who don't really die (though I think that detail was added by Jimenez).



I remember watching JL:SC with my friends, none of whom had seen any other DC film outside of Wonder Woman and Aquaman, and when Batman was killing parademons one of them said, "...so, do aliens not count for the no-kill rule?"

It just stuck out to me, since my poor friend had no idea... no idea....

Yes, I think the only foes who died were Deimos and Cottus. Rucka made a good point to have the plan for her to kill a human criminal because it would show she's not a hypocrite, but of course changing it to Max and it being hijacked for Infinite Crisis ruined any potential that story had.

It seems unfortunately consistent with Batman, though in his case it's weird because he's always in two modes: the solo version and the JL version. The former deals with mostly human criminals and low level threats that are in his wheelhouse so I guess it's easier for writers to be consistent with the no-kill rule there, but suddenly they like to wipe out aliens in large swaths in group settings to Batman has to participate??

Superman remained more or less consistent I think in the Silver and Bronze age about the no kill rule, for all sentient life. It's the main reason the Mxy thing in Moore's story has an impact because it was largely unheard of before, and he was sticking to his guns. Post-Crisis seems to be where the hypocrisy starts to creep in because of stuff like Doomsday and Max Lord.

[John Venus]

Aside from Cheetah in his first run (which he made up for in his second) and the WonderBat ship teasing, I otherwise think his ideas for Diana's universe are on point.

The WonderBat shipping is weird because he's the only writer who goes for that who writes her character well. But his Bruce is pretty meh. He's like the anti-Bruce Timm.


Yeah. I like Sasha, but she may be the most prominent fanfic-ish OC pairing for Bruce we've seen. Silver would be the next one down.

And I like Silver too, but it is kind of amusing when a writer is transparently shilling who they believe is Batman's One True Love, and then that character vanishes when they leave the book and Selina comes back.

I'll give Sasha credit for being better written than Silver and having a purpose beyond being Bruce's body guard love interest.

Silver has the dubious 'honor' of being the first time we got to see Bruce in a sexual relationship EVER in the comics. But everything about her is bland. She makes Rachel Dawes feel like a well fleshed out character.

At this point, it's probably best to say that she is Bruce's first teenage love interest and his first lay and just leave it at that.

They can be working friends or friends but best friends? No, not the way they’ve been written for the last 20 to 30 years. It just feels forced. They are DCs two most popular characters so let’s just make them best friends.

For Clark you’ve got Peter Ross or Jimmy Olsen, John Henry or literally a number of other heroes

I disagree. It takes more effort to keep them apart than together and it usually involves turning one or both of them into either idiots or assholes or both.

They may mistrust each other initially but over time, they should grow into super best friends.

Barbara Minerva was very much a See It, Want It, Take It type of person. So it never bothered me to see her be so forward with Carr or the weird talking yellow flash guy. This character trait was how she got her powers originally

It makes about as much sense as Lex Luthor suddenly ripping his power suit off and becoming Harley Quinn's boy toy (sorry for the mental image).

Writers need to be more original than having a female super villain be the succubus.

[Robanker]

Yes, I think the only foes who died were Deimos and Cottus. Rucka made a good point to have the plan for her to kill a human criminal because it would show she's not a hypocrite, but of course changing it to Max and it being hijacked for Infinite Crisis ruined any potential that story had.

It seems unfortunately consistent with Batman, though in his case it's weird because he's always in two modes: the solo version and the JL version. The former deals with mostly human criminals and low level threats that are in his wheelhouse so I guess it's easier for writers to be consistent with the no-kill rule there, but suddenly they like to wipe out aliens in large swaths in group settings to Batman has to participate??

Superman remained more or less consistent I think in the Silver and Bronze age about the no kill rule, for all sentient life. It's the main reason the Mxy thing in Moore's story has an impact because it was largely unheard of before, and he was sticking to his guns. Post-Crisis seems to be where the hypocrisy starts to creep in because of stuff like Doomsday and Max Lord.

With respect to at least Doomsday (the first time), I think the story made a pretty good case for why Clark had to stop it by any means necessary with his death afterward punctuating that he really didn't have a chance for otherwise. The three he kills at the end of Byrne's run is significantly less defensible, but it at least gave way to Exile to soften the blow.

[John Venus]

The thing that bugs me about Doomsday is, why didn't Clark just fly him into the sun or toss him on the far side of the moon?

Even for Post Crisis Superman, that's a feasible feat.

[Robanker]

The thing that bugs me about Doomsday is, why didn't Clark just fly him into the sun or toss him on the far side of the moon?

Even for Post Crisis Superman, that's a feasible feat.

Presumably he couldn't pacify it or get that kind of leverage. I've taken my crack at the fight and the first thing I established is that Clark tries to relocate it and is unable to. If Doomsday is going to be the unstoppable force, well he needs to not be something that can be so simply mitigated.

[Stanlos]

What's the story on Mars in the DCU these days. The YOUNG JUSTICE cartoon has Mars quite populated by multiple races of Martians, Pale, Verdans, and others. Is Jonn still the last Green Martian?

[marhawkman]

I think it started in the 70’s. There was a kriptonian posing as Wonder Woman to get Superman’s eye (which worked). Lois Lane got jealous (as 70’s Lois does) and there’s the plot.

Granted it wasn’t the actual Wonder Woman and it was resolved in one issue. But since then it’s only gone down hill.

What issue was THAT O_O'

Diana having a "does sometimes kill" policy is one I don't mind, but it got spun so out of control I rather it just go back to being a "no-kill" policy.

TBH It doesn't make sense for either Batman or Superman to have a hard rule on no-kill. Reluctance to kill is understandable. But... sometimes it needs to be done.

[CosmiComic]

What issue was THAT O_O'

TBH It doesn't make sense for either Batman or Superman to have a hard rule on no-kill. Reluctance to kill is understandable. But... sometimes it needs to be done.

Because most of the time they're not killers. Idk why anyone wants superheroes to be so willing to kill

[SiegePerilous02]

With respect to at least Doomsday (the first time), I think the story made a pretty good case for why Clark had to stop it by any means necessary with his death afterward punctuating that he really didn't have a chance for otherwise. The three he kills at the end of Byrne's run is significantly less defensible, but it at least gave way to Exile to soften the blow.

I think its more the reaction to Max Lord that makes Clark look really bad after both the Doomsday and Zod scenarios in post-Crisis canon. The Doomsday scenario is justified, he just really shouldn't be giving Diana any **** after it. Or he should be consistent and give her **** for both Max AND Medusa and not just the former, even though he'd still be a hypocrite.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if Rucka had been able to write what he originally planned.

[I'm a Fish]

What issue was THAT O_O'

TBH It doesn't make sense for either Batman or Superman to have a hard rule on no-kill. Reluctance to kill is understandable. But... sometimes it needs to be done.

[marhawkman]

Because most of the time they're not killers. Idk why anyone wants superheroes to be so willing to kill

Enh.... isn't that the opposite of what I said though?

TY!

[John Venus]

Presumably he couldn't pacify it or get that kind of leverage. I've taken my crack at the fight and the first thing I established is that Clark tries to relocate it and is unable to. If Doomsday is going to be the unstoppable force, well he needs to not be something that can be so simply mitigated.

It's harder to explain because Superman can still just drill underground and attack Doomsday from below. Grab him and then carry him into space or the sun.

I think in the first animated Doomsday movie, he carried him into space......and then meteor slams him back to earth again. Which is dumb, he could have just dumped Doomsday on the Moon.

Thinking about it now, if there is a character whom I can see plausibly fighting Superman to the death and he can't just beat him by throwing him into the sun, moon, space or where, it's the android AMAZO. The latter would just adapt to the conditions of the sun and then just fly back to earth.

Because most of the time they're not killers. Idk why anyone wants superheroes to be so willing to kill

It's just a consequence of writers telling stories where villains have an ever escalating body count and then taunt the heroes over their no kill rules leading to the impression that heroes who kill are 'better' than heroes who don't.

[Primal Slayer]

Maybe controversial, maybe not but part of me thinks the amount of child/teen superheroes should be cut in half which is part of the reason I cant really get into Titans Academy.