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

[byrd156]

I’d say as far as silly things go, it all depends on execution.

I think this is probably the most common answer I find but I only ask because sometimes people say the weirdest things that are "too far." Trunks on superheroes, insert hero's powers, etc. I'm curious how many people think basic building blocks of superhero comics are too weird.

[phantom1592]

I think this is probably the most common answer I find but I only ask because sometimes people say the weirdest things that are "too far." Trunks on superheroes, insert hero's powers, etc. I'm curious how many people think basic building blocks of superhero comics are too weird.

That's a good example. For me, Superman having trunks and Robin in the pixie boots is never too silly. I have zero issue with that. What I have issues with is some kind of meta commentary where suddenly Clark and Dick are ashamed and embarrassed that they wore those costumes. The elements may be silly to us... but to the characters of the world, they liked them. They wore them, it was normal. Robin's costume was a) A product of his circus background. b) increased mobility and maximized his natural dexterity c) reminiscent of his hero Robin Hood d) an honor to wear as a legitimate SUPER HERO.

I don't really care WHICH answer Dick Grayson would give... or if he latched on to all of them. But the answer is absolutely not e) A weird impractical thing that I was embarrassed the old man made me wear and I couldn't wait till I could get out and put on some PANTS!!!

That may be what ROY says about Dicks early suits.... but Dick wouldn't be ashamed. Same with Superman. The red trunks can have any number of reasons for their design.... but ditching them because people on the internet make fun of them isn't what Clark would do. He wore them because he liked them, they were part of his costume, he loves his costume.

[Caivu]

Maybe I haven't read enough stories with Batwoman but in the stories I have seen her in, her character usually boils down to "I'm a soldier, it's what i do" and those type of characters just don't interest me. Maybe I'm just not well versed on her character and still a little salty that she attempted murdered on my boy Clayface, she just tends to rub me the wrong way in the stories I've seen of her. Not enough to be like "ugh this bitch again" but just not my cup of tea.

Your not really wrong to say that she views herself and her vigilantism as a soldier, because she does, but "overly militaristic" is the wrong way to describe it. That applies more to someone like Nuke. She's also too complex for the sort of "boiling down" you describe; she's not just a soldier and certainly not a stereotype of one.

[SilverWarriorWolf]

I think this is probably the most common answer I find but I only ask because sometimes people say the weirdest things that are "too far." Trunks on superheroes, insert hero's powers, etc. I'm curious how many people think basic building blocks of superhero comics are too weird.

It’s hard to describe, but I’d say it depends on how the author wants us to take it. I tend to like things that revel in their silliness, and things that are silly that are taken incredibly seriously in-story (HER NAME IS MARTHA!!!!!) are annoying.

[Jim Kelly]

Many many years ago I went to a presentation at the local art school by a great European comics artist who was doing genius things with book design and format. But I remember he got off on this tangent about American comic books, where he was giving some background on his first exposure to them, and he thought the American super-hero comics were so ridiculous, he couldn't understand them. He himself could do stories with funny animals, but the super-hero conceits were a bridge too far.

Clearly, he didn't grow up in that milieu and he came at the American comics with the critical mind of an adult. If he'd been immersed in those comics from an early age, he wouldn't have questioned the conventions and he'd just have seen that as their idiom. It's no more or less ridiculous than anything else in comics. The basics of all comics is hyperbole. Even Neal Adams and Alex Ross do not create truly realistic images--there is always some hyperbolic effect.

When you're used to that idiom you don't find it strange. It's just like conventional language. English is a really weird language and we say things in daily conversation that are absolutely silly if you don't understand the idiom. ESL learners who think literally when they encounter English (but not in their own native language) have a hard time with idiomatic expressions.

I expect comics to be silly, so I don't put up barriers in my mind to things that might appear abnormal in comics. However, comics that try too hard to be serious are the ones that often inadvertently become bathetic. This is an effect when you keep pushing a serious tone in a story, without any comic relief--people become punch drunk from too much of one tone and they will start to laugh at things that weren't supposed to be funny.

I loved the Martha scene in BVS. It gave me a different kind of relief--a feeling of hopefulness. But for other people, because of the unrelenting tone in the movie they just needed to laugh, to let off steam--and that's the place where a lot of people had the opportunity to do that.

I often feel this with comics that are trying too hard to be dark and gritty. I become dismissive of them, because it's just too much. I'm apt to drop the comic, as it feels like the writer and artist don't know how to vary the tone and give readers a break from all the sturm und drang.

The level to which somes fans take comic books so seriously--especially super-hero comics--would be funny if it wasn't so toxic. One wishes we could just laugh these people away--they clearly have a problem if they don't know where to draw the line between fandom and fanaticism.

[SilverWarriorWolf]

Many many years ago I went to a presentation at the local art school by a great European comics artist who was doing genius things with book design and format. But I remember he got off on this tangent about American comic books, where he was giving some background on his first exposure to them, and he thought the American super-hero comics were so ridiculous, he couldn't understand them. He himself could do stories with funny animals, but the super-hero conceits were a bridge too far.

Clearly, he didn't grow up in that milieu and he came at the American comics with the critical mind of an adult. If he'd been immersed in those comics from an early age, he wouldn't have questioned the conventions and he'd just have seen that as their idiom. It's no more or less ridiculous than anything else in comics. The basics of all comics is hyperbole. Even Neal Adams and Alex Ross do not create truly realistic images--there is always some hyperbolic effect.

When you're used to that idiom you don't find it strange. It's just like conventional language. English is a really weird language and we say things in daily conversation that are absolutely silly if you don't understand the idiom. ESL learners who think literally when they encounter English (but not in their own native language) have a hard time with idiomatic expressions.

I expect comics to be silly, so I don't put up barriers in my mind to things that might appear abnormal in comics. However, comics that try too hard to be serious are the ones that often inadvertently become bathetic. This is an effect when you keep pushing a serious tone in a story, without any comic relief--people become punch drunk from too much of one tone and they will start to laugh at things that weren't supposed to be funny.

I loved the Martha scene in BVS. It gave me a different kind of relief--a feeling of hopefulness. But for other people, because of the unrelenting tone in the movie they just needed to laugh, to let off steam--and that's the place where a lot of people had the opportunity to do that.

I often feel this with comics that are trying too hard to be dark and gritty. I become dismissive of them, because it's just too much. I'm apt to drop the comic, as it feels like the writer and artist don't know how to vary the tone and give readers a break from all the sturm und drang.

The level to which somes fans take comic books so seriously--especially super-hero comics--would be funny if it wasn't so toxic. One wishes we could just laugh these people away--they clearly have a problem if they don't know where to draw the line between fandom and fanaticism.

While I was one person who found the Martha scene too silly, otherwise I agree, and I agree the super dark tone made it even worse. I think you described it better than I could.

[phantom1592]

Many many years ago I went to a presentation at the local art school by a great European comics artist who was doing genius things with book design and format. But I remember he got off on this tangent about American comic books, where he was giving some background on his first exposure to them, and he thought the American super-hero comics were so ridiculous, he couldn't understand them. He himself could do stories with funny animals, but the super-hero conceits were a bridge too far.

Clearly, he didn't grow up in that milieu and he came at the American comics with the critical mind of an adult. If he'd been immersed in those comics from an early age, he wouldn't have questioned the conventions and he'd just have seen that as their idiom. It's no more or less ridiculous than anything else in comics. The basics of all comics is hyperbole. Even Neal Adams and Alex Ross do not create truly realistic images--there is always some hyperbolic effect.

When you're used to that idiom you don't find it strange. It's just like conventional language. English is a really weird language and we say things in daily conversation that are absolutely silly if you don't understand the idiom. ESL learners who think literally when they encounter English (but not in their own native language) have a hard time with idiomatic expressions.

Was it the concept of the comics or the tropes that he found too far I wonder? Superheroes go back so far in history right to the greek gods and Hercules and such. These greater than mortal men and woman doing amazing things wasn't strictly an American concept.

Capes and glasses that hide identity... Yeah, I can see that being tough to get around if it wasn't something you grew up with...

I expect comics to be silly, so I don't put up barriers in my mind to things that might appear abnormal in comics. However, comics that try too hard to be serious are the ones that often inadvertently become bathetic. This is an effect when you keep pushing a serious tone in a story, without any comic relief--people become punch drunk from too much of one tone and they will start to laugh at things that weren't supposed to be funny.

I loved the Martha scene in BVS. It gave me a different kind of relief--a feeling of hopefulness. But for other people, because of the unrelenting tone in the movie they just needed to laugh, to let off steam--and that's the place where a lot of people had the opportunity to do that.

I often feel this with comics that are trying too hard to be dark and gritty. I become dismissive of them, because it's just too much. I'm apt to drop the comic, as it feels like the writer and artist don't know how to vary the tone and give readers a break from all the sturm und drang.

The level to which somes fans take comic books so seriously--especially super-hero comics--would be funny if it wasn't so toxic. One wishes we could just laugh these people away--they clearly have a problem if they don't know where to draw the line between fandom and fanaticism.

YES!!! I always like to point out that Comics NEED that bit of absurdity to work. They simply do not WORK if you take them TOO seriously. I remember when people talk about the Nolan-verse and how realistic it is and dark and gritty and everything was explained and serious... I always point out that the guy STILL dresses like a Bat in order to punch clowns... The core concept of Batman is so ridiculous that you NEED to embrace it and take it on it's own terms or it collapses under it's own logic.

[byrd156]

That's a good example. For me, Superman having trunks and Robin in the pixie boots is never too silly. I have zero issue with that. What I have issues with is some kind of meta commentary where suddenly Clark and Dick are ashamed and embarrassed that they wore those costumes. The elements may be silly to us... but to the characters of the world, they liked them. They wore them, it was normal. Robin's costume was a) A product of his circus background. b) increased mobility and maximized his natural dexterity c) reminiscent of his hero Robin Hood d) an honor to wear as a legitimate SUPER HERO.

I don't really care WHICH answer Dick Grayson would give... or if he latched on to all of them. But the answer is absolutely not e) A weird impractical thing that I was embarrassed the old man made me wear and I couldn't wait till I could get out and put on some PANTS!!!

That may be what ROY says about Dicks early suits.... but Dick wouldn't be ashamed. Same with Superman. The red trunks can have any number of reasons for their design.... but ditching them because people on the internet make fun of them isn't what Clark would do. He wore them because he liked them, they were part of his costume, he loves his costume.

Totally agree 100%.

[Jim Kelly]

Was it the concept of the comics or the tropes that he found too far I wonder? Superheroes go back so far in history right to the greek gods and Hercules and such. These greater than mortal men and woman doing amazing things wasn't strictly an American concept.

Not having the same background as him, it was hard for me to relate to his feelings about super-heroes. He seemed to find the whole idea of them--not just the costumes or the powers but that we could for a moment invest our time in reading about such fantastic characters, it was bonkers to him. But when you see someone in the flesh giving his opinion, you can better understand that sense of the subject, as you see the person as human and genuine. You don't get that from the internet as much. So I respected his opinion, even if I didn't share it.

Wish I could remember the guy's name. I know Drawn & Quarterly published some of his stuff in Canada. Perhaps I will do some research, because I'd like to know what else he did in the years since I saw his presentation.

[Arsenal]

This is kinda just a general question to everyone in the thread. What is too silly for superhero comic books and how much is a turn off to you?

Nothing is to silly for superhero comic books.


Anything can work as long as it's executed well and/or so weird yet fun of an idea that makes it worth reading (such as turning Frank Castle into a cosmic Ghost Rider who travels through time to teach a baby thanos to be better).

[lemonpeace]

Your not really wrong to say that she views herself and her vigilantism as a soldier, because she does, but "overly militaristic" is the wrong way to describe it. That applies more to someone like Nuke. She's also too complex for the sort of "boiling down" you describe; she's not just a soldier and certainly not a stereotype of one.

Meh maybe I just haven't read enough on her to see the complexity, because this far I don't see it. To me, all I can gleam from her is soilder and gay and while there are more extreme examples of overly militaristic characters like Nuke (who was more on the fanatically patriotic side of the militant spectrum), Batwoman a lot of the times reads as the same type of typical soilder turned hero character, but with a queer twist. when that's the only thing I can take away from her character it comes off like she's fallen into the same trap these characters (especially when they're women and particularly lgbt women) end up written into, where they're so focused on how "strong" and hardassed they are that they don't have much personality outside of that and they're robbed of any emotional hook and makes the character feel limited and pointlessly obnoxious; to me at least. While this isn't a trait that only applies to Batwoman (again, it's commonly attributed to a lot of militant hero types), nor is Batwoman the worst offender of this kind if character trope (Damian at his worst was 10x more annoying and obnoxious), it makes it difficult for me to gel with Batwoman. In her title maybe there's more room for nuance and complexity but up to this point nothing from that character (in the appearances i've seen of her) has made me want to check that out. Maybe other writers have just been painting her with too broad a brush and I just need to take a gander at her title to get it. Maybe it's because i usually see her when she's being juxtaposed with characters I am more interested in. Maybe the character just isn't for me. Iunno bruh. I respect the space she occupies tho, representation is important and having a consistently prominent female LGBT character in the batfamily is great (especially when DC has been fumbling with their black batfamily members for years now) but I just haven't seen the hype for the character yet.

[Buried Alien]

I've never liked Ross Andru's artwork in the later years of the Silver Age FLASH comics.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Caivu]

Meh maybe I just haven't read enough on her to see the complexity, because this far I don't see it.

I think that has to be true, because she's really not how you're describing her at all (except maybe in Andreyko's run).

[SilverWarriorWolf]

Not having the same background as him, it was hard for me to relate to his feelings about super-heroes. He seemed to find the whole idea of them--not just the costumes or the powers but that we could for a moment invest our time in reading about such fantastic characters, it was bonkers to him. But when you see someone in the flesh giving his opinion, you can better understand that sense of the subject, as you see the person as human and genuine. You don't get that from the internet as much. So I respected his opinion, even if I didn't share it.

Wish I could remember the guy's name. I know Drawn & Quarterly published some of his stuff in Canada. Perhaps I will do some research, because I'd like to know what else he did in the years since I saw his presentation.

I find it kind of funny the disdain he had for superheroes consider how silly European comics can be. Don’t get me wrong, I think Asterix and Tin-Tin are great, but boy could they be silly.

It’s an opinion thing, though, so it’s no big deal.

[Jim Kelly]

I've never liked Ross Andru's artwork in the later years of the Silver Age FLASH comics.

Yeah, while a great art team on other things, Andru & Esposito didn't really suit the Flash. Hard to say why, but I guess their art made the Scarlet Speedster look too thick--and Barry needs to be slim, because he's a runner not a boxer.