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

[Valentonis]

Also, DC has purposely destroyed many popular IP’s before like Supergirl, Batgirl, Superboy, All Star Squadron, Oliver Queen, the GLC, etc, BUT THE ONLY TIME PEOPLE GET BUTT HURT ABOUT IT IS WHEN IT HAPPENS TO THEIR FAVOURITE CHARACTERS.

I mean, isn't this obvious? It's only natural to want your favorite treated well. Supergirl, Batgirl, Superboy etc fans complain when their characters are mistreated and they're right to. Why is it a travesty when Grayson's fans do it?

[jetengine]

I mean, isn't this obvious? It's only natural to want your favorite treated well. Supergirl, Batgirl, Superboy etc fans complain when their characters are mistreated and they're right to. Why is it a travesty when Grayson's fans do it?

Because Dicks a big deal and (as has been mentioned) theres a strong inclination that its done out of personal bias.

[Dr. Ellingham]

I mean, isn't this obvious? It's only natural to want your favorite treated well. Supergirl, Batgirl, Superboy etc fans complain when their characters are mistreated and they're right to. Why is it a travesty when Grayson's fans do it?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

But - publishers try new things, and that often includes generating controversy with people's favorite characters, ruffling the feathers of longtime fans.

And for everyone that sits below Batman and Superman in marketability, once they're removed from their main roles, they aren't really marketable / important. They can be shelved, killed off, ignored - and the business goes on just fine.

Just because we all want Dick Grayson around doesn't mean it's bad business for him to go offstage for awhile, while DC tries something different. Partly because no change is truly permanent - they can always bring him back onstage. Ditto Wally West, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Oliver Queen, etc. There is already a huge library of material available for all these characters - so DC will periodically try new stories, new characters, new scenarios. And when the time is right, back comes Dick Grayson, Hal, Ollie, etc. - these characters are part of DC's DNA, and always will be.

But while they're shelved, their most ardent fans will either have to learn to live without a monthly comic, or complain.

[superduperman]

I think there's a huge difference between changing something because a character's sales are down and they need to shake things up and changing something just because an editor or publisher just doesn't like it personally. Superman was rebooted in 1986 because there was an argument that if he had stayed on the path that he was on, his title would have died. It was a business decision. That's not the same thing as Joe Quesada undoing the Spider-Marriage just because he personally doesn't like it. It's not a secret that Didio has been trying to find various ways of getting rid of Dick Grayson for nearly 15 years now. All for personal reasons. Someone in upper management having a personal vendetta against a character or a story line is not a business decision. Marvel went bankrupt in the nineties because they tried to undo the Spider-Marriage and when that didn't take, instead of learning from it, Marvel just found another way of doing it.

[Valentonis]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

But - publishers try new things, and that often includes generating controversy with people's favorite characters, ruffling the feathers of longtime fans.

And for everyone that sits below Batman and Superman in marketability, once they're removed from their main roles, they aren't really marketable / important. They can be shelved, killed off, ignored - and the business goes on just fine.

Just because we all want Dick Grayson around doesn't mean it's bad business for him to go offstage for awhile, while DC tries something different. Partly because no change is truly permanent - they can always bring him back onstage. Ditto Wally West, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Oliver Queen, etc. There is already a huge library of material available for all these characters - so DC will periodically try new stories, new characters, new scenarios. And when the time is right, back comes Dick Grayson, Hal, Ollie, etc. - these characters are part of DC's DNA, and always will be.

But while they're shelved, their most ardent fans will either have to learn to live without a monthly comic, or complain.

I understand the business sense in controversy/shelving characters. But I don't think the Ric situation is a good example of this. If the character was killed during King's run and shelved for a bit, or if the incident led to a radical new branding for the character a la Grayson that would be one thing. But they're still trying to brand and sell the book as Nightwing, he's still "onstage" so to speak they're just kinda half-assing it. It's controversy yes, but someone who isn't already reading Nightwing or otherwise in the DC fold probably wouldn't even realize what's going on, and the poor sales are evidence of this.

But I'm not really heartbroken or losing sleep over it, the best version of Dick Grayson is in the Young Justice cartoon, and season 4 of that is on the way. I'm way too excited for that to be worrying about this Ric stuff.

[phantom1592]

I love Barbara as Batgirl and don't agree that she had to pass up the mantle even when she was paralysed. In fact, I feel that it would have been an amazing excuse to idealise mobility equipment in the fantastical sense for the disabled in the same way that all super-heroics idealise the incredible feats that able-bodied people are (potentially) able to pull off. Her being paralysed shouldn't limit her to just co-ordinating others, she should have the opportunity to get out there and enjoy having made as big a name for herself as any of the costumed heroes out there.

I also feel that, while Cassandra Cain is a great character, I don't necessarily agree that she 'deserves' to be Batgirl just by virtue of being the better fighter. I think there's more to the Batgirl name than that, i.e Babs' craftiness and wiley nature, even so far back as the Bronze Age, is grossly understated and that works from the 2011 reboot and beyond have done a great job at putting that back into the forefront.

Additionally: I firmly believe that Babs was never a side-kick. Batgirl was a name inspired by Batman, but not designed to work 'beneath' him--Babs has her own way of doing things and that, to her, puts the people of Gotham at the front and centre.

I usually go a step farther. I dont' think Cassandra Caine has any rights to the character name 'Batgirl' at all. She had no interest in becoming Batgirl... Batman just decided she would be. He gave her the costume and the identity... when it wasn't his to give. It's bad enough that he unilaterally decided that 'Robin' was a mantle that would be given to whoever he has as a sidekick... but Batgirl was a costume and identity that Barbara created ON HER OWN and had zero say when 'Batgirl 2 or 3' was decided to be a thing. Add to that, Batman even KNEW he was in the wrong with the whole 'Protect the clocktower... and make sure you're not seen by Anyone.." He put off Barbara knowing about Cass as long as he could.


It's like Mr. Fantastic giving out the Iron Spider armor to random guy #3 because he decided there should be a new Spider-man… he didn't build it, he didn't create the legend around it... he really has no right to do it.

Cassandra existing is fine... but she needs her own identity.

[Dr. Ellingham]

I think there's a huge difference between changing something because a character's sales are down and they need to shake things up and changing something just because an editor or publisher just doesn't like it personally. Superman was rebooted in 1986 because there was an argument that if he had stayed on the path that he was on, his title would have died. It was a business decision.

Absolutely. At the same time, you don't always wait for sales to go down to try new things. Often times there's little risk. Say if Nightwing is going to sell in the neighborhood of 25K copies per month regardless of whether it's Dick, a different character, or a bad direction - they're free to mix things up whenever they see fit.

Basically - they can do whatever they want and know it won't break the bank either way.

That's not the same thing as Joe Quesada undoing the Spider-Marriage just because he personally doesn't like it. It's not a secret that Didio has been trying to find various ways of getting rid of Dick Grayson for nearly 15 years now.

First, I think it is the same thing - because an EIC's job is to put out the books they think will sell best, which is typically based on what they think makes for the best stories - their perspective, their preferences. That's a great example of exactly what I'm talking about - longtime fans howl because they want the status quo, but an editor says - we can tell better stories this way. That's the job.

Second, if Didio wanted Grayson gone, Morrison's Batman run would never have happened. Didio has the power to erase Dick if he wanted. He hasn't.

[Dr. Ellingham]

I understand the business sense in controversy/shelving characters. But I don't think the Ric situation is a good example of this. If the character was killed during King's run and shelved for a bit, or if the incident led to a radical new branding for the character a la Grayson that would be one thing. But they're still trying to brand and sell the book as Nightwing, he's still "onstage" so to speak they're just kinda half-assing it. It's controversy yes, but someone who isn't already reading Nightwing or otherwise in the DC fold probably wouldn't even realize what's going on, and the poor sales are evidence of this.

Totally fair - a move like Ric Grayson, it's hard (for me) to figure out who is even supposed to be into the story. Not every story idea is a good one. I'd say most aren't, in fact. And a great pitch doesn't always lead to a great story, either. Things get changed on the way, or execution falters.

[Ascended]

I have zero interest in a Robin book but Damian is way too popular not to have one and it annoys me that there's no Robin book.

Agreed. Well, I like Damian (hated him at first but he won me over) so I'd be interested in a book with him anyway, but Robin on its own is big enough to support and book, and has.

I'm not sure why Damian doesn't have one, honestly. I feel like he easily could.

Probably a stupid question but I'll ask anyway (because sometimes superhero comics are a closed book for me): How's "most well known IP" defined?
Is this somehow connected to these mysterious "pillars" some people are talking about?
And why are Dick and Harley "pillars" and characters like Joker, Hal Jordan, Flash, Aquaman, Batgirl etc. are not?
What's the advantage of being a "pillar" for a character? Is it important to be a "pillar"?

There's no real definition for any of this, as far as I know. But the term is used to express that a character is a central, uber important part of DC as a multi-media entity as well as the DCU as a fictional universe. So who has the biggest presence in larger media, who's the most well known IP, sells the most merchandise, and has the most books and/or the highest selling titles.

DC has three pillars, and they are, of course, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. For obvious reasons. The idea of the "4th pillar" was first mentioned (that I know of) in an off-hand comment during Johns' Green Lantern run when that property was at its height and carrying as many books as Batman. The 4th pillar then became Harley, with Jim Lee using the term and popularizing it, once her profile spiked, and she had something like 4-5 titles (if we include mini's). Not sure if she's still considered the 4th pillar or not.

Taking the idea of a more permanent, timless 4th pillar (because right now it's kind of the flavor of the month) is a fan thing more than a professional thing I think, and debates about who that pillar is usually revolve around Aquaman, Lantern, Flash, or Dick Grayson. A really solid argument can be made for any of them.

As much as I love Mari and animal powers are vastly underrated considering what some of them can do, DC was kind of one minded in inventing her. A African character with no good family members, one family member that killed her father, adopted by a white one (which is not a problem, but you know) and given animal powers where if she doesn't have her necklace she starts acting like an animal while named Vixen. Just feels like a lot of oversight.

What was the context around her creation anyway? Was she made as part of a ensemble cast or larger roster, or designed as a solo character? I've noticed the same things (I love Vixen, but you speak truth) and I've wondered if it was just a sign of the times she was made in, or if her creator/s didn't put more thought into it because she was just one character in a larger context, or what.

Just because we all want Dick Grayson around doesn't mean it's bad business for him to go offstage for awhile, while DC tries something different. Partly because no change is truly permanent - they can always bring him back onstage.

Absolutely, (I actually thinking killing him temporarily in 06 might've been good for us, long term) but that's not what I was talking about. I'm not getting into the whole thing again because I've explained the business as well as I know how, and if someone isn't following the logic and confusing it with fandom bitterness I don't know how to make them see the difference. But it isn't me being a disgruntled fan pissed off by a creative direction I don't like, it's me as a businessman being concerned by what appears to be intentional self-sabotage.

[Shockingjustice]

Agreed. Well, I like Damian (hated him at first but he won me over) so I'd be interested in a book with him anyway, but Robin on its own is big enough to support and book, and has.

I'm not sure why Damian doesn't have one, honestly. I feel like he easily could.



There's no real definition for any of this, as far as I know. But the term is used to express that a character is a central, uber important part of DC as a multi-media entity as well as the DCU as a fictional universe. So who has the biggest presence in larger media, who's the most well known IP, sells the most merchandise, and has the most books and/or the highest selling titles.

DC has three pillars, and they are, of course, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. For obvious reasons. The idea of the "4th pillar" was first mentioned (that I know of) in an off-hand comment during Johns' Green Lantern run when that property was at its height and carrying as many books as Batman. The 4th pillar then became Harley, with Jim Lee using the term and popularizing it, once her profile spiked, and she had something like 4-5 titles (if we include mini's). Not sure if she's still considered the 4th pillar or not.

Taking the idea of a more permanent, timless 4th pillar (because right now it's kind of the flavor of the month) is a fan thing more than a professional thing I think, and debates about who that pillar is usually revolve around Aquaman, Lantern, Flash, or Dick Grayson. A really solid argument can be made for any of them.



What was the context around her creation anyway? Was she made as part of a ensemble cast or larger roster, or designed as a solo character? I've noticed the same things (I love Vixen, but you speak truth) and I've wondered if it was just a sign of the times she was made in, or if her creator/s didn't put more thought into it because she was just one character in a larger context, or what.



Absolutely, (I actually thinking killing him temporarily in 06 might've been good for us, long term) but that's not what I was talking about. I'm not getting into the whole thing again because I've explained the business as well as I know how, and if someone isn't following the logic and confusing it with fandom bitterness I don't know how to make them see the difference. But it isn't me being a disgruntled fan pissed off by a creative direction I don't like, it's me as a businessman being concerned by what appears to be intentional self-sabotage.

She was actually made to be a solo character at first. She would have been DC first African female to have a solo, but was cancelled during DC's implosion and was introduced in Action Comics later. She's been in nothing but team books sense. It's a shame because of the lost potential. A magical totem was granted to her Ancestor by an African God for crying out loud. You think they would give her something else with that premise.

[Ascended]

She was actually made to be a solo character at first. She would have been DC first African female to have a solo, but was cancelled during DC's implosion and was introduced in Action Comics later. She's been in nothing but team books sense. It's a shame because of the lost potential. A magical totem was granted to her Ancestor by an African God for crying out loud. You think they would give her something else with that premise.

Yknow, now you mention it that does sound familiar.

Yeah, Vixen's situation is a real shame. She could have been, and could still be, so much more. I don't get why more effort hasn't been put into her the last few years. You'd think that when Marvel started hitting it big with Kamala Khan and Carol Danvers and Miles and everyone, that DC would've countered that by giving characters like Vixen (among others) a push.

You ever see the CW cartoon series? I actually thought that was pretty decent (especially by CW standards). I feel like that would be a solid foundation to build a franchise mythos out of.

That old mini she had in the 00's....Return of the Lion or something? wasn't too bad either, I thought.

Ah well, we'll always have McDuffie's JLA I guess.

[phantom1592]

Totally fair - a move like Ric Grayson, it's hard (for me) to figure out who is even supposed to be into the story. Not every story idea is a good one. I'd say most aren't, in fact. And a great pitch doesn't always lead to a great story, either. Things get changed on the way, or execution falters.

I don't know... Nightwing gets amnesia and forgets his past as Robin and has to make his way without his history sounds pretty intriguing to me. All leading up to the inevitable 'realizes who he is and what makes Nightwing 'nightwing'.... If anything it's a little cliché, but for a good reason. The pitch isn't bad. The execution sucked, but I can see from a business perspective what the idea was.

Pretty much the same deconstructive concept that Knightfall was. Break the character down and replace him with someone/something unlikable, to remind the world why the main character is an icon in the first place.

[Shockingjustice]

Yknow, now you mention it that does sound familiar.

Yeah, Vixen's situation is a real shame. She could have been, and could still be, so much more. I don't get why more effort hasn't been put into her the last few years. You'd think that when Marvel started hitting it big with Kamala Khan and Carol Danvers and Miles and everyone, that DC would've countered that by giving characters like Vixen (among others) a push.

You ever see the CW cartoon series? I actually thought that was pretty decent (especially by CW standards). I feel like that would be a solid foundation to build a franchise mythos out of.

That old mini she had in the 00's....Return of the Lion or something? wasn't too bad either, I thought.

Ah well, we'll always have McDuffie's JLA I guess.

I did see the animated series and enjoyed most of what I saw. But the 5 minute timer really bogged it down. Plus it was all erased anyway when her Grandmother saved her family (which honestly can't blame her for wanting to save her children) and gave Mari's New Existent sister, who was mad at Mari because their mother abandoned her ????, the totem instead.

[red winter]

Grayson should have been a longer ongoing series about aFormer superhero turn spy because it was the best book to come out of the 52.

[Restingvoice]

I don't know... Nightwing gets amnesia and forgets his past as Robin and has to make his way without his history sounds pretty intriguing to me. All leading up to the inevitable 'realizes who he is and what makes Nightwing 'nightwing'.... If anything it's a little cliché, but for a good reason. The pitch isn't bad. The execution sucked, but I can see from a business perspective what the idea was.

Pretty much the same deconstructive concept that Knightfall was. Break the character down and replace him with someone/something unlikable, to remind the world why the main character is an icon in the first place.

On its own, yeah, but we have to remember that this isn't his Knightfall, this is his Killing Joke. Kinda. Since he's shot not even in his story but as angst fodder for Sad Bat. So even if it's good, I'm still not gonna be happy about that. Especially when they interrupt two ongoing to do it.