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

[Dred]

If Huntress was kicked off the Justice League for killing Prometheus, the JL members who mindwiped people should have suffered the same consequences.

Every single JL member is unfit to be a JL member by their own rules because of all the wonky **** they go through.

[Mataza]

I don't think that is very controversial. They were acting like villains.

What could they have done if not that to protect their identities?

[Agent Z]

What could they have done if not that to protect their identities?

At least in the case of Dr Light, they didn't need to mindwipe him to protect their identities. He only knew who Sue was because her husband's secret identity was a matter of public record. They also weren't protecting their identities when they mindwiped Catwoman to make her more heroic so as to help her relationship with Batman and there was no justification for mindwiping Batman.

[kjn]

Fantasy is already pretty inherent in comics. A book focusing on connections with Greek myth and the actual Greek Gods shouldn't focus on relatability. At least on Diana's side. That's why Steve and Etta are around, to give that human connection with all the emotions and relatable life decisions and what not. Diana is a princess made from clay or a demigod that was raised on a mystical island of all women protected by gods. The word relatable shouldn't be near Wonder Woman I think. At least initially, there are some things like her discovering the world through naive and loving eyes like we have at some point. And others but that's not really my point.

I think that's a false take—worse, I think it's a dangerous and damaging take. Because Diana can and should be relatable. However, writers need to show and handle that in different ways than mere relatability by identification: i.e. stop being lazy.

The movie handled this excellently, partly through excellent body language acting from Gal Gadot, and by Wonder Woman listen to and reach out to Steve's companions. That's the key. You might not relate to a "ten-foot-tall supermodel action superhero goddess", but she will by all that is holy attempt to relate to the people around her.

Tynion did it JLD #6 by having Diana pouring her heart out to Detective Chimp, and then asking him to trust himself, just as she trusts him. Wilson had her console, protect, encourage, and bring joy to the two kids in WW #61. Orlando spent the entire WW #51 with Diana and Mayfly just talking and becoming friends, and it was hailed as a superior issue. Even King managed it in Batman #40 with the discussion about Jumpa, once he got the "Diana as temptress" plotline out of his system.

[byrd156]

I think that's a false take—worse, I think it's a dangerous and damaging take. Because Diana can and should be relatable. However, writers need to show and handle that in different ways than mere relatability by identification: i.e. stop being lazy.

The movie handled this excellently, partly through excellent body language acting from Gal Gadot, and by Wonder Woman listen to and reach out to Steve's companions. That's the key. You might not relate to a "ten-foot-tall supermodel action superhero goddess", but she will by all that is holy attempt to relate to the people around her.

Tynion did it JLD #6 by having Diana pouring her heart out to Detective Chimp, and then asking him to trust himself, just as she trusts him. Wilson had her console, protect, encourage, and bring joy to the two kids in WW #61. Orlando spent the entire WW #51 with Diana and Mayfly just talking and becoming friends, and it was hailed as a superior issue. Even King managed it in Batman #40 with the discussion about Jumpa, once he got the "Diana as temptress" plotline out of his system.

I like how you don't bold the part where I say initially.

[jetengine]

Dan Didio is so overhated that it’s beyond ridiculous now. It has fans thinking they know the business when in fact they should stay in their lanes. No you wouldn’t be able to do better if you were in charge. Imagine being so arrogant. And the fact that folks are so disrespectful towards this man because of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS just makes it worse.

I'd disagree on the basis that his irrational hatred of character's is affecting buisness. Theres also his incredible lack of PR savvy.

[Kon93]

Cir El should be brought back and retooled into Jon's older sister.

OR younger sister, depending on what age Jon will be when bendis stops bendissing.


I like that all the Super family have unique powers
Superman-basic kryptonain powerset
Kara- after being bombarded by solar energy for 30 years in her shuttle, he normal level of power is equal to supermans, even though she is a teenager.
Karen- the kryptonain normal powerset
Jon- normal kryptonain powerset, but with ability to Amp up with emotional state,and he has control over his solar flares
SB- physically stuck as a teen, physically a teen kryptonain with super hearing and heat vision, but with TTK to round out his powers(Amp physical, senses, flight, extras) to make him equal to any kryptonain
Cir-el- teen kryptonain with control of red sun energy

All cool and different
(BTW I made up most of those on what I want them to be)

I wouldn't mind wonder woman not flying, works for her in the movies

Black lightning and vixen should be mainstay JLers, not vic, he should be with his friends in the Titans

[Lightning Rider]

On an earlier point, an Earth where the heroes age out would be fine by me. (Wasn't that Earth 2 before COIE?)

[SiegePerilous02]

The 2000s were a lot more recent and a lot more progressive than the 60s and 70s.

Them being more recent doesn't automatically equate to the concepts either being better or worse. It's also a given that they are more progressive, but it's also a given that fans who like or prefer the older eras can recognize that not everything there is worth carrying over (especially the further back you go into the Golden age). But it's ultimately fan x's nostalgia vs. fan y's nostalgia.

The supposed Silver/Bronze age obsession on DC's part never really holds up. Today's comics don't resemble the Bronze age comics in craft or content, so if they are desperate to return to that era, they have a funny way of showing it. Dick's generation wouldn't be getting the shaft, because they are the Bronze age all stars, not the Young Justice crew or Damian's generation. The big name characters who were around throughout that era continue to resemble their selves from the 2000s instead of the Bronze age.

[stargazer01]

I think that's a false take—worse, I think it's a dangerous and damaging take. Because Diana can and should be relatable. However, writers need to show and handle that in different ways than mere relatability by identification: i.e. stop being lazy.

The movie handled this excellently, partly through excellent body language acting from Gal Gadot, and by Wonder Woman listen to and reach out to Steve's companions. That's the key. You might not relate to a "ten-foot-tall supermodel action superhero goddess", but she will by all that is holy attempt to relate to the people around her.

Tynion did it JLD #6 by having Diana pouring her heart out to Detective Chimp, and then asking him to trust himself, just as she trusts him. Wilson had her console, protect, encourage, and bring joy to the two kids in WW #61. Orlando spent the entire WW #51 with Diana and Mayfly just talking and becoming friends, and it was hailed as a superior issue. Even King managed it in Batman #40 with the discussion about Jumpa, once he got the "Diana as temptress" plotline out of his system.

I think all fictional characters need to be relatable and/or charismatic and charming in some way. It's why we like them or want to be like them, or fear them. Even villains need clear motivations for what they do, otherwise we criticize them for being one-dimensional or boring.

Diana may be too perfect, but she can be relatable by the way she feels and her ideals and the way she cares for others.

[Jim Kelly]

I feel like I don't need to say this, since we all know it already, but DC and Marvel are in a position now where they can't really create anything new. They can only create the illusion of new.

I suppose some things slip through. For example, Harley Quinn, but she was created for BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm. And they probably have a sweet share of the royalties. But for the comics, the publishers don't want to give away the creative rights. And creators don't want to create something for the comics that they could get rich creating on their own.

It must be a strange feeling for writers and artists to see their Batman legacy character or X-Man new mutant take off in popularity and make millions in licensing dollars--when they can only get a taste of the profits, because DC or Marvel own most of the rights.

And what about editors? Since it's usually the editor working behind the scenes to shepherd this new character into publication, yet the editor is working for the corporation, does the editor get to enjoy any dividends?

This is why DC and Marvel are so invested in making their old properties turn a profit--because they usually have all the rights sewn up for those. It must be killing the executives at DC that they have to fork over money to the Siegel family for Superman. I wonder if that extends to characters like Supergirl, that Joe Siegel had nothing to do with--I do see the Siegel family getting a special credit on the SUPERGIRL TV show.

The "new" generation of DC characters is not really very new. Dick Grayson was created a year after Bruce Wayne. Roy Harper debuted at the same time as Oliver Queen. Wally West appeared only three years after Barry Allen. Kara Zor-El existed before Hal Jordan, Ray Palmer, Ralph Dibny or Katar Hol. Garth swam with Aquaman when Rex Mason, Guy Gardner, Kirk Langstrom and Jefferson Pierce were never even an idea at a pitch meeting.

[superduperman]

Catwoman is hotter than Harley Quinn. Yes, I said it.

[king81992]

Catwoman is hotter than Harley Quinn. Yes, I said it.

This doesn't sound controversial.

[byrd156]

This doesn't sound controversial.

I don't think it's controversial.

[TheJudge95]

In the future, people will regard Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman as belonging to the mid-20th century. There will still be stories about them set in the present day (whatever the present day is at that time), but these will be seen as variant "what if" type stories and not the bona fide thing.

Take for example, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes and Dracula. There have been plenty of stories about these characters that imagine IF they existed in the present day, but we know that the urtext isn't in the present day. We know that Dracula belongs to the late 19th century, Holmes belongs to the later Victorian period and Tarzan belongs to the first half of the 20th century.

In part, the reason the vampire, the detective and the apeman belong to their respective eras is because that's where the stories work best. The 19th century is a time when it was possible for a vampire count to exist on the edges of European society. Scientific detection was in its infancy during the Victorian period, so a consulting detective could make his mark in England. A white man could have lived in the jungles of "darkest Africa" in the first half of the 20th century, with a species of great ape unknown now. It gets harder to make these characters work further and further into the futue, without giving up some of their distinguishing features. They seem more real in those earlier times, but they seem more fake in the present moment.

In the same way, too many changes have to be made to Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman for them to be part of the future. And even when they are imagined in that way, we know that this is just an imaginary exercise, the same way SHERLOCK is an imaginary exercise, in seeing how we can adapt the original stories to the current era.

James Bond might be an example that is right on the knife's edge as we speak. Is he a contemporary character and do his new movies have the same authenticity as his earlier movies--or do we think of the new movies as simply adaptations of a story that rightfully belongs in the Cold War era?

Sorry for the late reply, but I was perusing this thread and I agree with this for Batman. Maybe Batman himself can withstand the test of time and keep up with the times forever, but some aspects of his world are part of the 20th century. For example: Harvey Bullock (an archetype of the pulp/hard-boiled detective - he still wears a fedora), the Ventriloquist (you don't see ventriloquists or the mafia around anymore), the Penguin (in his original top-hat + tuxedo + monocle appearance), Thomas and Martha Wayne (they're always depicted in outdated clothing), the Flying Graysons (circuses are becoming less and less popular), Ra's al Ghul (he's inspired by the Fu Manchu archetype) etc. You can keep reinventing these characters to update them and that has worked for a lot of Batman characters but at what point do they become too far removed from the original? I guess what I'm saying is Bullock needs some love too.