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

[Vordan]

Yeah, about that...

Then all anybody ever talks about is how Superman is only being a meathead, never saying anything about his actual character and personality. Which leads to a lot of people assuming that things like Injustice Superman is how his personality really is. Or even the government stooge that's seen in the Dark Knight Rises series.

Can’t really agree with that. Saying he’s about “inspiring hope” says nothing whatsoever about his character or personality, it just shows how other people see him. And in fact those two stories you mentioned are built around subverting public perceptions of Superman, not really having anything to do with his actions. DKR takes the “American Way” Superman and makes him a government stooge. Injustice takes the “hope bringer” and makes him a fear inspiring tyrant. Neither one really cares about who he is beyond his surface level appearance and playing with his pop culture status. I’m not saying get rid of the “hope” stuff but way too many stories are obsessed with “well what does Superman MEAN?” and not enough are about “WHO is Superman and what does he WANT?”. Playing with his iconography is cool but making him solely about “hope” reduces his complexity.

It’s like making Jason Todd just about Batman’s failure as a father and mentor. Is that an important part of him? Absolutely, but it’s not the only part.

I mean, I don't think they've been depicting her skin so brown lately because she got a great tan...not to mention how she's depicted across media.

I try not to assume things before they’re confirmed. A lot of people thought Huntress was black and there was some backlash when it was confirmed she was just Sicilian.

[Frontier]

I try not to assume things before they’re confirmed. A lot of people thought Huntress was black and there was some backlash when it was confirmed she was just Sicilian.

Speaking of, I wonder how much shelf life this take on Huntress has. I'm not really looking forward to the movie take (although I respect Mary Elizabeth Winstead) but it just hasn't seem to caught on much from what I've seen.

[Jim Kelly]

I've never really gotten into the post-COIE Huntress and I might be unjust, but I think of her as "what if Sophia Coppola's character from GODFATHER III became a crime-fighter."

I think for the general public, "what if Batman and Catwoman had a daughter who became a crimefighter" is a better sell than the Godfather's daughter. Now that there's so many variant takes on the Batman world--that kind of Huntress could easily be done.

[stargazer01]

Over emphasis on this can lead him just being generic nice guy flying brick who is there to be inspiring and void of any other nuance. It's putting him on a pedestal without actually showing how awesome and engaging he can be.

It's also a convenient way to get him out of the way so other heroes can be stronger or faster. **** that noise. He inspires hope, so they get to do the actual fun stuff!

Superman's story is that of a very powerful man who is really good and kind.

If he doesn't have the powers, then he's just a nice man like Pa Kent. To me he inspires because despite his amazing powers, he has control over them and don't let it go to his head or abuse it to his own benefit. He doesn't take advantage of the human race, instead he saves us. That's why he's the greatest superhero.

[stargazer01]

It may come across as corny, but I think the best way that Superman can be a symbol of hope to others is by appearing in public, smiling and waving to people, helping get kittens out of trees, making honest speeches about the wonders of the world and the universe, donating mementos of his adventures to the Superman Museum.

That's one way. Superman is the character that people can trust. It's why he doesn't wear a mask. He is friendly and allows people to interact with him. He goes to hospitals and in general kids adore him as their best friend.

He is also a symbol of hope because he arrives to save you when you think everything is lost. He does the impossible. He want to help because he can and it's the right thing to do. It's why Superman in BvS was so gloomy and unlikable and whiny and many couldn't see it as the symbol of hope. I know some will say he still sacrificed himself to kill Doomsday. Yes, but the whole journey there was a lot of brooding and nothing else. That's not entertaining or what a Superman movie is supposed to be for a lot of people.

[Jim Kelly]

My analogy is Muhammad Ali. I wouldn't be so inspired by Ali if the only thing he did was box real good in the ring. It that was all he did, I'd admire him as a boxer and sympathize with how he sacrificed his body to win against his opponents. But it's all the other things that Ali did that made him an inspirational figure--not a perfect man but someone deserving respect. It's his charming way in front of the camera, with his raps, promoting himself and his causes. It's how he was willing to go to prison for his beliefs. It's the way he stood up for others and made people understand that black is beautiful. It's how he showed a quiet dignity when Parkinson's had silenced him. A good boxer yes--but a great human being absolutely.

Movies that just show Superman fighting against his opponents do nothing to get across why the masses would look at him as a symbol of hope. To be that symbol, he has to interact with regular folks.

[Fromper]

I've always been hoping that the comic book form would get enough respect that the mass media would give them equal coverage with TV shows, movies and music. But instead what happened is the movies adapted the comics and now the mass media covers the movie adaptations of the comics. Coverage of comic books still exists in a ghetto for hardcore fandom. Yes, we have the internet, so there's a lot more fan sites that cover comic books--but those are all directed toward us, the fandom. They aren't on general interest sites, where the greater public has a chance of being exposed to comics and maybe developing an interest in reading them.

Then again, it used to be that books in general got a lot more coverage by the mass media. Authors would often appear on the talk shows. A new fiction book got a lot of press and attention. And even further back, poets were celebrated and their work mattered to the general public. So maybe the lack of interest in comics as an artform is part of the general lessening of interest in books of all kinds.

This actually brings up something that I kinda realized 20ish years ago, which has become much more pronounced since then: Comic books have a much more niche audience now than 40+ years ago, not because of some failure on their part, but actually because of their own success.

Comics used to be sold on spinner racks in every grocery store, book store, drug store, gas station, etc, so they had a much wider audience than they've had since moving to pretty much only being sold in comic shops in the 90s. But the types of stories that used to only be available in comics are actually much more popular today than they used to be. They've just moved on to other media.

And I'm not talking superheroes. Or superhero adaptions of comics characters. I'm talking fantasy/sci-fi action/adventure stories, but with ongoing plot lines and character growth, unlike the single episode stories that used to appear in sci-fi TV and movies before the 1990s. It was shows like Babylon 5, Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer that brought comic book style storytelling to television in the 90s. And in the last decade, the MCU obviously brought that type of storytelling to movies for the first time. It's not just the live action adaptions of superheroes - Buffy was a superhero created for that media instead of comics, whose stories were exactly what you'd expect from comics.

That's why comic books aren't as popular as they once were: People who want those types of stories are finding them elsewhere. And those stories are more popular than ever.

[Jim Kelly]

I find "Year of the Villain" to be a very stupid tagline to keep on the top of all the DC covers, for a full year, ruining the aesthetic appeal of the cover. Villains? Really? Are they such an underclass that they need a special theme to promote them? Surely the villains are the most over-represented characters in the books--they don't need a special year to advance their cause. Ever year of DC is a year of the villain. It's actually something that bothers me about the modern DC, that the villains are centre stage all the time and we're supposed to relate to them more than the heroes. DC is not winning me over with the tagline "Year of the Villain." That just discourages me from picking up those books.

[Vordan]

I find "Year of the Villain" to be a very stupid tagline to keep on the top of all the DC covers, for a full year, ruining the aesthetic appeal of the cover. Villains? Really? Are they such an underclass that they need a special theme to promote them? Surely the villains are the most over-represented characters in the books--they don't need a special year to advance their cause. Ever year of DC is a year of the villain. It's actually something that bothers me about the modern DC, that the villains are centre stage all the time and we're supposed to relate to them more than the heroes. DC is not winning me over with the tagline "Year of the Villain." That just discourages me from picking up those books.

I don’t think we’re supposed to “relate” to them per se, it’s more so just DC wants to try to get people interested in the status quo shake-up. Didio seems to really like the idea though, he did something similar during Forever Evil.

[stargazer01]

As much as I like Wonder Woman and Superman's romantic stories, I never want Diana to become Superman's main love interest.

That just seems wrong and a huge disservice to both Diana and Clark. Each has a great mythos and supporting characters that deserve to exist. Lois Lane is too iconic and a great character and partner to Clark to replace permanently.

[superduperman]

Green Arrow is cooler than Batman. There, I said it.

[mathew101281]

As much as I like Wonder Woman and Superman's romantic stories, I never want Diana to become Superman's main love interest.

That just seems wrong and a huge disservice to both Diana and Clark. Each has a great mythos and supporting characters that deserve to exist. Lois Lane is too iconic and a great character and partner to Clark to replace permanently.

This is correct. And it almost always seems to make Wonder Woman seem like a lesser character.

[stargazer01]

This is correct. And it almost always seems to make Wonder Woman seem like a lesser character.

Exactly, agreed. WW was not created to be someone's girlfriend. Superman would pretty much dominate. She was created to be the center in her own stories.

Like I said, the occasional Supes/WW as a pair story is fine. I like them. But Lois is his main lady always and forever. WW works for some stories just not forever.

[Robanker]

Exactly, agreed. WW was not created to be someone's girlfriend. Superman would pretty much dominate. She was created to be the center in her own stories.

Like I said, the occasional Supes/WW as a pair story is fine. I like them. But Lois is his main lady always and forever. WW works for some stories just not forever.

My main problem with it is that he offers nothing to Diana narratively. He gets to develop a story, sure, and technically so does Diana... But for Clark, it's more a break from our normal status quo-- Lois, the Planet, etc. If they announce a Superman movie, I know generally what to expect. Wonder Woman? Your guess is as good as mine.

For Diana? Her status quo upends every couple years. There's no real baseline. Who is her love interest? Steve? There's been decades where that wasn't happening. What's her job? Is she even a diplomat anymore? Who are her immediate supporting cast? Can she go back to Paradise Island? Is she as durable as Superman? Weaker but more skilled?

The Clark/Diana pairing wouldn't irk me as much if it actually served Diana equally, but as it is, Clark gets his "what if they dated" plot whereas Diana is put on hold from establishing a baseline that works until people want Clark back with Lois. I would rather Diana get to develop her own corner of the universe rather than join to Clark or Bruce's until DC decides to split them again and they go back to what works and she returns to DC throwing darts at a board and hoping something sticks.

[Lex Luthor]

I really wish DC would just come clean about how they treat Wonder Woman because Im honestly confused on what their intentions are with the character. I understand if they had stories like Azzarello that appeal to a different demographic and bought traffic but they seem to get writers that write stories for nobody.