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

[SiegePerilous02]

She's a beautiful, capable, woman with strong ideals (that sometimes run counter to her father) but on the wrong side of the law, seems absolutely devoted to him, and wears a catsuit...I can see it.

Yeah but there are other times when the ideals do not run counter to her father and she is at least passively on board with the whole "wipe out most of the world's population" thing. And the last two seem like pretty shallow reasons, I would think the rest of the package would outweigh them.

Even in the bronze age, Dick Grayson was like "their opening salvo was kidnapping me from my dorm room to test you into being worthy, what the f*** are you even doing?". Morrison's take seemed like the inevitable instance of "reality ensues."

[DrNewGod]

Bruce falling for Talia has always been a little weird even before Morrison tbh. I know Bruce likes the "bad girls," but I can understand what draws him to Selina and Andrea (at least *before* she became the Phantasm) whereas I never understood why Talia's whole "Beloved!" deal would draw him in.

Yeah, I think it's a needless holdover from when Batman was aping the Bond films.

It's not everybody's experience, but many of us have been beguiled by a woman we just knew was bad news, no matter how hopeless the situation.

Ultimately, for better or worse, Talia is an integral part of the Batman lore.

[godisawesome]

I always thought she was popular as far as DC female villains go. Maybe that was just re-approprating her popularity from her cartoon incarnation.

I think that's a holdover from when the show was still meant for kids and they couldn't show any on-screen deaths...not that she killed anyone in Outsiders, but that's besides the point in my opinion.

She's a beautiful, capable, woman with strong ideals (that sometimes run counter to her father) but on the wrong side of the law, seems absolutely devoted to him, and wears a catsuit...I can see it.

I actually think we didn’t see Cheshire kill anyone in Season One in part because we were meant to eventually find her someone we could accept Artemis letting go and who”s relationship was important, and Roy falling for her - I think only her first appearances features her acting as an assassin who’s goal is to actually kill someone, and by her second she’d part of the giant sleight-of-hand the Light was pulling with Lex and Ra’s to cover for debriefing Red Arrow, and then her next major appearance is the ambush of the Team, with her saving her sister, before later abandoning Sportsmaster when Artemis and the others use their attempted recruitment to ambush their recruiters.

At the end of the day, I think Cheshire in Young Justice is defined far more as Artemis’s sister and Roy’s wife/girlfriend than she is as a villain... which is replacing mostly antagonistic functions with quite a bit more supporting cast functions. And that does create a new character in a lot of ways.

With Talia, I think part of the weird thing is that Denny O’Neill and DC as a whole seemed to change their mind to a while and try more clearly redeeming Talia after the Legacy story in Batman - they had her abandon her father, become LexCorps leader and then dissolve it when Bruce requested it, and even before that had her get Bruce back in action to go to No Man’s Land. Then, when they decided to change her back, they felt they had to have Nyssa torture her, kill her, and repeat until she was brainwashed back into evil... and then Morrison came in and used that “they were always a villain from an awesome pantomime” card on her.

So I think the issue people have with Talia is the lack of consistency in how evil she is and why she’s evil and attractive to Batman, with some feeling that we’re missing what could be a heartbreaking story that would flow from more consistency and nuance. For a comparison, I think there’s a feeling she could be a character like Demona from Gargoyles - absolutely monstrous now, but someone the audience can understand, regret for her devolution into villainy, and be fascinated by.

Though I do want to use this comment about Cheshire to make a point:

There were times when she has been shown to actually care about her family in the comics. She hasn't committed genocide like the comic version did, but she's still a dangerous criminal.

She was basically a femme fatale for Roy before they got married. And even then...

Removing the genocide from Chesire’s past is soemthing that I think massively changes the character and the context of her relationship with Roy... in the same way Talia’s connection to her fathers genocidal plans always undermined the more sympathetic intents for the character.

Genocide and mass murder in general is such an over the top monstrosity of a crime that it’s really, really hard to portray someone as a plausible romance issue at that point, or to have a character get fans either. I mean, I fundamentally rejected *everything* about The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker’s ideas for Kylo Ren and Rey crushing on him because he’s basically a school shooter Neo-Nazi who committed mass murder in his first scene, and she doesn’t have any previous tie to him to explain their writing; in that case, the monstrosity of the badguy hurt the characterization of the hero by begging the question of how they could be so shallow and blind.

And I think that’s ultimately part of the reason for Morrison just treating Talia as the Ex from Hell And it working in a holistic sense , but also why some fans just find that bluntness off-putting. Removing the ambiguity about her nature means looking at her time with Bruce and and finding *him* shallow and stupid, and to a degree that doesn’t neccessarily work.

(For the record, I like Talia as the bad guy, and generally agree with Morrison... but I feel that there should be a period before she accepted genocide, where she and Bruce could fall for each other and conceive Damian, and *then* she goes evil, so that there’s some maturity and evolution there that causes heartache with Batman.)

[Frontier]

Yeah but there are other times when the ideals do not run counter to her father and she is at least passively on board with the whole "wipe out most of the world's population" thing. And the last two seem like pretty shallow reasons, I would think the rest of the package would outweigh them.

I'm just saying Bruce has a type .

She does go along with it to some extent but Bruce also knows that internally she's not 100% into it and is only in it out of familial loyalty (like he is to some extent). At least that's my take on it.

Even in the bronze age, Dick Grayson was like "their opening salvo was kidnapping me from my dorm room to test you into being worthy, what the f*** are you even doing?". Morrison's take seemed like the inevitable instance of "reality ensues."

Robin's have called out the relationship with Catwoman too.

[Midnight_v]

Since we last talked all hell broke lose in the country. Already there was a plague and quarantine, and then the woman in the park, cop murders... protests...riots... I thought about it out there at night had it working in back of my mind and finally
I got time:

Oh I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. You like those stories, cool, they're very popular so you're not alone. My point is that, especially with Supes, there's a lot of flavors out there. Who am I to tell you you're wrong?

Honestly I think it bears mentioning that I was asking your favorites so I could gain some insight into why you'd think sometime like Action #775 and Kingdom Come were bad Superman Stories. Where as I think they're perfect. I'm right just so you know. That being said you're one of the people on the boards Ive personally come to have a lot of respect for so you might see something I don't. I do have good arguments WHY those are perfect Superman stories and the proper characterizations.

Though my core conceit of superman is this: From a narrative sense I don't believe any physical challenge is relevant to Kal-el (outside of elseworlds) his story in such that he is the strongest fastest MOST for the BULK of his stories and appearances. So every meaningful superman story ISN'T about whether or not he can swim through a black hole or punch god in the face(Darkseid is btw) because ostensibly he CAN or has. Superman Stories that are defining have to have the narrative conflicts:
"Man vs Society" OR "Man vs Self"
So... lets start with: "...Whats so funny about truth Justice and the American way"Superman v. The Elite/Action Comics#775 and consider the view its written from vs what you said earlier:

Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age.....different kinds of "edge" in each. OG Superman is a bully of bullies, a rather classically macho man's man. Silver Age had, at times, an almost "mad scientist" vibe going on where a lot of the stuff he did, especially as it pertained to his human supporting cast, was almost like a large scale sociology experiment. Super Dickery at its finest.

Meanwhile you also say

Action 775 is framed as a political debate and, at every single turn, Clark loses the argument. He provides an opinion in each scene, Manchester Black counters with valid arguments and Clark, not once, has a good rebuttal. Then at the end he beats everyone up and preens as if he won the debate. Clark's argument ultimately boils down to "getting murdered is scary!" while Black can cite multiple, logical (cold blooded, but logical) reasons why lethal force saves lives in the long run. But Clark beats him up in the end and calls himself the winner.

See I see that different. I think Clarks real argument is the same one he made in the JLU "Destroyer" when he smacks around Darkseid.
"THERE IS ALWAYS A GREATER POWER" and "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT". Superman makes this argument unintentionally most times simply by existing. Simply by virtue of having feats in any book ever in any format in which he's defeated every other flying brick on earth. He is the bully of bullies as you say and that's where "The Elite" comes in. The Elite are narratively speaking bullies. Powerful people who have decided amongst themselves what the rules are. They don't care about world politics they don't care about the status quo (in fact they hate it), an have decided THEY are going to make the rules about right and wrong, and life and death. Now, this decision ISN'T about them telling society that, because superheroes already operate outside the law. Effectively anyway, no ones trying to arrest superman really, and Jim Gordon actually calls IN a vigilante. This is about them defying the modern superhero contract with the the world as established by Clark and Bruce. (not Diana tho... Diana will fn' kill you). MORE importantly it causes NORMAL people to question the contract even if they don't see the ramifications.
Superman's position is: Because I'm your farther and I said so. or "I have the moral HIGH GROUND" and the strength to back it up so you must adhere. He's about the status quo and frankly I think its established that if superman lands in your country as a baby your ideology automatically wins. Nazi superman, Superman Redson, and a few others So I don't THINK that's a bad thing. They show just to be glad that superman is on your side.
Manchester black does make some strong arguments but in a very meta sense superman is like Tommy Lee Jones in No country for old men. Superman literally CAN'T defeat the joker under his current rule set. Nor conceptualize that type of idea is contagious. Joker can't be bullied or reasoned with. He's not just a physical threat but an ideological one which is why in memorable elseworlds stories where they interact causes drastic changes to his operandi. Also its not just the Joker, its anyone who superman can't bully, or convince. In the Justice Lords it was President lex in Injustice it's another joker, likewise... in kingdom come. Yet again another Joker. "...What so funny" IS a proper characterization because right back to the start, there's no argument by which we can convince OUR superman to kill a joker like figure and very little reason to not to at least phantom zone him.
Next... Kingdom come.

TL;DR: Action #775 as well as other showing it illustrates superman as "The bully of bullies" and I accept that from the superfans. However, one can't do that without being stronger than the bad guys physically. Therefore, he can't do that without making right-makes-right one of his pillars unintentionally. Manchester Black is right in that story from a tactical and factual viewpoint. However, superman is often on the truth vs facts spectrum of understanding. Its inherent to the character to the point that its echoed through nearly every incarnation of him. This isn't bad. Than main superman is: Hope, but in other universes he's war, or hate, or death.

[Ascended]

Since we last talked all hell broke lose in the country. Already there was a plague and quarantine, and then the woman in the park, cop murders... protests...riots... I thought about it out there at night had it working in back of my mind and finally
I got time:

Hey man, haven't seen you around lately. Hope you're staying safe....or at least as safe as can be expected.

I'm right just so you know.

Ha! Gimme a sec to put on my pandering voice....

Of course you are.

That being said you're one of the people on the boards Ive personally come to have a lot of respect for so you might see something I don't.

Same. I appreciate your insights, you often catch stuff that I miss. So let's see what ya got.....

TL;DR: Action #775 as well as other showing it illustrates superman as "The bully of bullies" and I accept that from the superfans. However, one can't do that without being stronger than the bad guys physically. Therefore, he can't do that without making right-makes-right one of his pillars unintentionally. Manchester Black is right in that story from a tactical and factual viewpoint. However, superman is often on the truth vs facts spectrum of understanding. Its inherent to the character to the point that its echoed through nearly every incarnation of him. This isn't bad. Than main superman is: Hope, but in other universes he's war, or hate, or death.

You're not "wrong" about any of that. Clark *is* the bully of bullies, he usually *does* solve his problems with raw might (in the modern age) and what you're saying about the thematics is (generally) spot on. And most stories that do this are totally valid approaches the the character.

Action 775, however, is playing a different game, and by the rules the story itself establishes, requires a different set of win conditions. So we can't judge it by the standards we usually use for Superman. It's normally okay for Clark to solve his problems with raw strength (in the modern age) because that's the rules of engagement the story operates on, but in this issue the story makes different demands of him.

I used an example a while back (you may have missed it so I'll reiterate), where Biden and trump go on the debate floor and after two hours of losing the arguments, trump punches Biden in the nose and calls himself the winner. That's what 775 does. And while it might be "in character" for trump to do this, it's not in character for Clark. 775 forgets two very important aspects of Superman; adaptability and intelligence.

Clark's not a one-trick pony who only has one answer to any given problem. He's capable of changing tactics. There's plenty of stories out there where Clark has to change his approach and finds the win not through raw strength but through crafty exploitation of the situation. If you look at a lot of Silver and Bronze age comics, you'll find that Clark wins with his mind at least as often (probably more often) than he does with his fists. 775 writes him as being unable to adapt, as a static figure that can't function in any other way. That's not a correct viewing of him.

Clark's also highly, highly intelligent. Now yes, Clark does operate on a "moral" level more than a "factual" one, but he's gods damn smart and backs up his moral stance with facts. What he offers in 775 isn't that, it's just pontificating while standing on empty air. Now, Clark didn't have to win the debate with Black; it's not really a debate that has a clear winner in the first place and there are objective facts that support both sides of that argument (not that Clark could recall any). But Clark could have and should have backed up his opinion with something far more substantial than what we got.

Ultimately 775 is a great example of DC's own flawed analysis of the character. He *is* the bully of bullies, but he's also a statesman and leader, and through his entire career has been locked in a political battle with Lex Luthor for the future of the human soul; he has solved tons and tons of problems with his mind and his words rather than his fists.

I will give 775 this; it's a valid approach to that single, particular version of Superman we had in the early 00's. But that guy was a moron and a very limited, wrong-headed image of Superman in the first place, so at best we can say 775 is a good showing for the dude who "hadn't inspired anyone since he died." But if we consider Superman as a whole? It's a lackluster showing that ignores a big chunk of his characterization and history and focuses solely on one particular element.

[90'sCartoonMan]

Bruce falling for Talia has always been a little weird even before Morrison tbh. I know Bruce likes the "bad girls," but I can understand what draws him to Selina and Andrea (at least *before* she became the Phantasm) whereas I never understood why Talia's whole "Beloved!" deal would draw him in.

If we're talking DCAU, it's probably that Talia knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne and was still into him (as opposed to Selina who would brush Bruce off). It's telling that in Batman Beyond, when Old Bruce was looking at pictures of his ex-girlfriends, Talia's was the only picture to include Bruce (and I guess Barbara too).

[manwhohaseverything]

I used an example a while back (you may have missed it so I'll reiterate), where Biden and trump go on the debate floor and after two hours of losing the arguments, trump punches Biden in the nose and calls himself the winner. That's what 775 does. And while it might be "in character" for trump to do this, it's not in character for Clark. 775 forgets two very important aspects of Superman; adaptability and intelligence.

Actually, no superman would challenge a guy to a debate and start punching cause he loses the debate. Especially, goldenage one. That's not bullying a bully. That's just being a bully. Superman had a more fight fire with fire attitude,this ain't that.Even then it wasn't personal. it was merely defensive, never offensive . Regardless of the intelligence level, The story's problem is just that. We also don't have clear idea what specifically Superman was arguing for. It's just preposterous writing. Nothing in 775 story is goldenage superman. The guy had no trouble making his point by going debate route. With that superman it would also be in action as well.For instance like diogenes, superman would have thrown a plucked chicken at plato's feet and said "Behold. Plato's man". Superman is sassy and humorous as well.

[SiegePerilous02]

If we're talking DCAU, it's probably that Talia knew that Batman was Bruce Wayne and was still into him (as opposed to Selina who would brush Bruce off). It's telling that in Batman Beyond, when Old Bruce was looking at pictures of his ex-girlfriends, Talia's was the only picture to include Bruce (and I guess Barbara too).

I suppose, though even as a kid Talia never did much for me. And it's not like he let Selina in on the secret to give her a chance.

A line from Amanda Waller indicated that he and Selina got together between the present day and Batman Beyond before she left him, and it seemed he drove her away like he did everyone else, not that she could only accept one identity over another.

[Ascended]

Actually, no superman would challenge a guy to a debate and start punching cause he loses the debate.

We're not talking of just the Golden Age Superman. But even that version was capable of using his words. 775 gives us a Superman who can barely articulate what his position is, let alone defend it in an argument.

775 was always going to end in a fight. It's superhero comics and Black was never going to let his mind be changed even if he had been presented with a superior argument. It's not that which I take issue with, it's Clark inability to argue his opinion in a narrative that breaks away from the standard superhero structure and enters the realm of legit political argument. Clark's supposed to be a journalist; a man of rational and intelligent thought, and for a story that's meant to dive into the inner workings of his worldview beyond the binary morality of "hero v villain," we get nothing but empty platitudes which provide only a shallow, surface-level exploration of his opinions.

[manwhohaseverything]

We're not talking of just the Golden Age Superman. But even that version was capable of using his words. 775 gives us a Superman who can barely articulate what his position is, let alone defend it in an argument.

I was agreeing with you and adding to your point. Goldenage and silverage guys were pretty sassy and humorous. To make a point they would absolutely pull a diogenes. Many forms of supedickery is just that.Usimg satire or parody to make a point.

[Ascended]

I was agreeing with you and adding to your point. Goldenage and silverage guys were pretty sassy and humorous.

Yeah, exactly. Sorry if it came across wrong? But yeah (when written right) Clark's got a real fun dry wit and sass to him.

[Gaius]

It's not everybody's experience, but many of us have been beguiled by a woman we just knew was bad news, no matter how hopeless the situation.

Ultimately, for better or worse, Talia is an integral part of the Batman lore.

Not saying you have to get rid of Talia but I just think the romance angle (at least from Bruce's end) could be dropped.

Though even with Bruce's other love interests (Selina mainly), his romances usually comes off as more based off of physical attraction or allure than anything particularly deeper.

[DrNewGod]

Not saying you have to get rid of Talia but I just think the romance angle (at least from Bruce's end) could be dropped.

Though even with Bruce's other love interests (Selina mainly), his romances usually comes off as more based off of physical attraction or allure than anything particularly deeper.

Not so sure. True, Batman has always had a thing for beauty, but his relationships that I enjoyed the most always seemed to present Bruce with something he longed for. With Catwoman, it was someone who found joy in the adventure to which he was compelled to enter. With Silver St. Cloud, it was her gentleness and civility. With Vicki Vale, it was her forthrightness.

Talia al-Ghul was a bit different, and rather unhealthy. It's like he found the danger irresistible. He knew her devotion to Ras al-Ghul would put them in dangerous opposition, but had moth-to-the-flame syndrome. I sometimes wonder if she speaks to a self-destructive piece of his soul that he'd rather deny his mission has fostered in him.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah, exactly. Sorry if it came across wrong? But yeah (when written right) Clark's got a real fun dry wit and sass to him.

Technically, clark does go for that kind of humour there. But, the problem is the context of him not winning the debate and just using the satire without addressing the issue.As i said, i still don't have clear idea of what clark was arguing against. If its vengeance or anger based violence, then his satire is more functional. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Action comic 775 is just bad at execution in my opinion with some good ideas. I like the dreams speech as well. But, i firmly believe the protagonist shouldn't be the one making it. He is the man of action, you know.