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

[SiegePerilous02]

Only because they didn't keep trying to bring back pre-crisis elements that had no place in modern times in his case.

Broadly speaking, a lot of the general pre-Crisis stuff they banished from Superman and Wonder Woman works perfectly well in modern times. And rebooting them and creating those needlessly difficult story issues harmed them in the long run more than him.

Except for the part were it worked. Which it didn't.

By what metric did it not work?
And by what criteria do things like Superman being Superboy as a kid, a clean connection to Supergirl, Krypto and a clear connection to the Legion have "not place in the modern world"?

[Frontier]

Yeah, I see it that way, too. I'm positive the character was/is supposed to have a Quasimodo element to him. The thing that makes me scratch my head is that if someone doesn't want Quasimodo, why gravitate toward that character to begin with? I'm not saying Cyborg has no worth, Quasimodo obviously does. I just don't really understand why some are drawn to him when they're at odds with so many foundational things about him.

I'm not really into him partially because I'm not too into characters like that. That Beauty and the Beast show from the 80s, Swamp Thing, Quasimodo...that sort of freak archetype just doesn't particularly excite me. It can be okay in a team setting, like with The Thing or...well, Cyborg, but those aren't characters I'm specifically drawn to by themselves.

Maybe to a certain extent, although I've never really seen Vic as being meant to be as grotesque as Quasimodo or how Ben views being The Thing. It's more about coming to terms with an outward disability.

Although the Snyder design was pretty bad.

Of course I think there's enough to like about Cyborg aside from his design like his personality (Booyah!) and his cool tech.

[SiegePerilous02]

I wouldn’t say WW lost much ditching the decades of Pre-Crisis stuff that followed Marston’s death and even of the Marston stuff that was also ditched, the important elements were largely kept.

Wonder Woman is the outlier of the three. Unlike Superman and Batman, she didn't have much going for her in the Silver and Bronze age. Marston was her best pre-COIE author and he was inevitably going to be dated and in need of an update. So she needed something and Perez provided the best stuff since Marston. But it still may have been better if he came on board without a reboot, because while he's much better than most he still contributed to her inconsistencies. He expanded the cast, but the core of her classic cast were either radically altered to the point where they were in-name-only (Steve and Etta), ditched entirely (Darnell, the Holliday Girls, Amazons like Mala) or the continuity surrounding them became an absolute nightmare (Donna). So right out of the gate it was going to lead to less stability than even Superman, who had his own crap to deal with.

Basically, I think if he left her debut earlier in the timeline so she could be a founding JL member (and not screw up Donna), Steve and Etta resembled modern versions of their classic selves and roles, and they let the Amazons have their technology, I could roll with everything else. So she's 50/50, whereas Batman and Superman just sucked post-COIE and became boring.

[mathew101281]

Wonder Woman is the outlier of the three. Unlike Superman and Batman, she didn't have much going for her in the Silver and Bronze age. Marston was her best pre-COIE author and he was inevitably going to be dated and in need of an update. So she needed something and Perez provided the best stuff since Marston. But it still may have been better if he came on board without a reboot, because while he's much better than most he still contributed to her inconsistencies. He expanded the cast, but the core of her classic cast were either radically altered to the point where they were in-name-only (Steve and Etta), ditched entirely (Darnell, the Holliday Girls, Amazons like Mala) or the continuity surrounding them became an absolute nightmare (Donna). So right out of the gate it was going to lead to less stability than even Superman, who had his own crap to deal with.

Basically, I think if he left her debut earlier in the timeline so she could be a founding JL member (and not screw up Donna), Steve and Etta resembled modern versions of their classic selves and roles, and they let the Amazons have their technology, I could roll with everything else. So she's 50/50, whereas Batman and Superman just sucked post-COIE and became boring.

I feel Wonderwoman and Batman are both better post Crisis. I feel all the good Batman stories are post crisis stories. Most people who say Batman was better precrisis are either hard core Adams and O’Neil Fans, or are more in love with a tone then a particular story. Wonderwoman I feel was quite aimless for years after marston died. The Silver Age tried to strip her of her feminist tones. The Bronze Age tried to strip her of her powers. Superman I feel is the only member of the Trinity that I feel lost to much after Crisis. I feel most people realized that to cause they almost immediately started to back peddle. The problem was that most of the backpedaling created characters that were decidedly worse (or convoluted) then what they replaced.

Example 1: Want a Supergirl, here is a strange alien blob/angel thing. Prime example of replacing a popular but simple thing, with a less popular convoluted thing. In superhero comics simple Is almost always better.

[Gaius]

Wonder Woman is the outlier of the three. Unlike Superman and Batman, she didn't have much going for her in the Silver and Bronze age. Marston was her best pre-COIE author and he was inevitably going to be dated and in need of an update. So she needed something and Perez provided the best stuff since Marston. But it still may have been better if he came on board without a reboot, because while he's much better than most he still contributed to her inconsistencies. He expanded the cast, but the core of her classic cast were either radically altered to the point where they were in-name-only (Steve and Etta), ditched entirely (Darnell, the Holliday Girls, Amazons like Mala) or the continuity surrounding them became an absolute nightmare (Donna). So right out of the gate it was going to lead to less stability than even Superman, who had his own crap to deal with.

Basically, I think if he left her debut earlier in the timeline so she could be a founding JL member (and not screw up Donna), Steve and Etta resembled modern versions of their classic selves and roles, and they let the Amazons have their technology, I could roll with everything else. So she's 50/50, whereas Batman and Superman just sucked post-COIE and became boring.

Yeah, I think a lot of continuity headaches (Donna mainly, though JL founding member for others) could have been solved if it was stated Perez's run took place some ambiguous amount of time before the rest of the DC publishing line at the time.

I mostly agree with Steve, I think at the time not making him a love interest was the most interesting thing that could have been done with compared to how he was pre-Crisis but marrying him to Etta ultimately just contributed to removing her two supporting cast stables and the merry-go-round of Diana's supporting cast since then.

[SiegePerilous02]

I feel Wonderwoman and Batman are both better post Crisis. I feel all the good Batman stories are post crisis stories. Most people who say Batman was better precrisis are either hard core Adams and O’Neil Fans, or are more in love with a tone then a particular story. Wonderwoman I feel was quite aimless for years after marston died. The Silver Age tried to strip her of her feminist tones. The Bronze Age tried to strip her of her powers. Superman I feel is the only member of the Trinity that I feel lost to much after Crisis. I feel most people realized that to cause they almost immediately started to back peddle. The problem was that most of the backpedaling created characters that were decidedly worse (or convoluted) then what they replaced.

Example 1: Want a Supergirl, here is a strange alien blob/angel thing. Prime example of replacing a popular but simple thing, with a less popular convoluted thing. In superhero comics simple Is almost always better.

I'm not a hardcore O'Neil fan (love Adams' artwork though), for me Englehart/Rogers is the best Batman. Conway and Wein had good stuff too. I think the tone over any particular story is accurate, but then the tone for a lot of post-Crisis Batman stuff just bores me.

There's some great stuff surrounding him, but Batman himself generally became a one note, boring *******. Whereas before he struck the right balance of fun and serious. I think if the main character starts to be a drag, something went wrong along the way (Clark suffers the same general issue, just in different ways).

Yeah, I think a lot of continuity headaches (Donna mainly, though JL founding member for others) could have been solved if it was stated Perez's run took place some ambiguous amount of time before the rest of the DC publishing line at the time.

I mostly agree with Steve, I think at the time not making him a love interest was the most interesting thing that could have been done with compared to how he was pre-Crisis but marrying him to Etta ultimately just contributed to removing her two supporting cast stables and the merry-go-round of Diana's supporting cast since then.

Yes the Steve thing may have been a breath of fresh air at the time considering how dated the "but mother I love him!" aspect of her origin was and how tedious their romance had been up until that point. But Rucka's Year One and the movie show that such a drastic step wasn't necessary. Etta being saddled with a romance with him also meant that as he faded from relevance from the book, she had to go along with him. Simone was the only writer who wrote post-COIE Etta well, and she had to do it by basically ignoring her previous personality and going with something more in line with classic Etta.

[lemonpeace]

Hawkman should be DC's Avatar, getting rid of the reincarnation angle for good would be a mistake despite Venditti's great run.

[phonogram12]

Broadly speaking, a lot of the general pre-Crisis stuff they banished from Superman and Wonder Woman works perfectly well in modern times. And rebooting them and creating those needlessly difficult story issues harmed them in the long run more than him.




By what metric did it not work?
And by what criteria do things like Superman being Superboy as a kid, a clean connection to Supergirl, Krypto and a clear connection to the Legion have "not place in the modern world"?

I concur on both counts.

[Stanlos]

Hawkman should be DC's Avatar, getting rid of the reincarnation angle for good would be a mistake despite Venditti's great run.

I wonder which style has proven most popular in general over the years. Fantastical re-incarnation focused stories or militaristic space opera stuff.

[Frontier]

I wonder which style has proven most popular in general over the years. Fantastical re-incarnation focused stories or militaristic space opera stuff.

Both seem like they can work depending on the story.

[TheRay]

I think DC could afford to put out a book featuring a less than popular character in their lineup.

[Tzigone]

I think DC could afford to put out a book featuring a less than popular character in their lineup.

I'd been keen on one or two Anthology series again like Detective Comics/Action Comics/More Fun Comics were once upon a time. Not one with random different heroes each issue, but where each hero gets a chance to try to find an audience. Where new solo heroes can tested out. And minor heroes get a showing. I liked reading those Batgirl and Elongated Man and Jason Bard stories when I read some old comics. Some of these subtitles would be discontinued, some would be solid but not exceptional enough to have their own titles, and some might even break out big time.

[TheRay]

At least a 6 issue mini for everyone.

[Agent Z]

Broadly speaking, a lot of the general pre-Crisis stuff they banished from Superman and Wonder Woman works perfectly well in modern times. And rebooting them and creating those needlessly difficult story issues harmed them in the long run more than him.

No it did not. This gets repeated because of DC trying to roll back the reboot but nothing about the post-crisis status quo was harmful in the long term. At least, not so much that it needed to be undone to the extent they did. It all got brought back because of nostalgia, plain and simple.

By what metric did it not work?
And by what criteria do things like Superman being Superboy as a kid, a clean connection to Supergirl, Krypto and a clear connection to the Legion have "not place in the modern world"?

I'm talking about stuff like Diana Prince, Egg Fu and the time they tried to make it like Clark and Lex knew each other as teens. Clark being Superboy as a kid was meaningless when we already had a Superboy and the Supergirl we got back was so unlikable that they might as well not have bothered. Krypto is more of a gag than a character. A funny one at times but not really needed. And the Legion connection was more for their benefit than his. It sure didn't solve the other issues regarding how they were handled.

All the stuff they insisted on bringing back was either outdated to a harmful degree or just not worth it because they added nothing of real value.

[manwhohaseverything]

I wouldn't mind jon kent being superman permanently.Dc future state is really looking good.