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

[byrd156]

If that was all it took to make Bruce go off the deep end, then his character is a sham and he really is as twisted as the villains he fights.

How is it a sham?

[SiegePerilous02]

If that was all it took to make Bruce go off the deep end, then his character is a sham and he really is as twisted as the villains he fights.

Being afraid to cross the line because he's afraid he won't be able to stop is a documented character flaw of Bruce's, so I don't see how he's a "sham" or as twisted as the villains who have no problem bumping innocent people by the truckloads.

And it's not as if the ostensibly more stable vigilantes and cops in Gotham, not to mention the rest of the superhero community, is in any rush to kill the Joker either. So everyone's a sham.

[phantom1592]

I don't buy the idea that pushing aside the most iconic characters will allow DC to last 50 more years. If anything, it'll do the opposite.

Agreed.

Look at all the comic book companies with brand new characters... that amount to nothing. Even Image after 20 years has only Spawn that's CLOSE to a household name. Valiant, Malibu, any of the others... they have nothing. Characters like the Phantom and Zorro have tried the 'Heroes age and get replaced by legacies...' and amount to... nothing. Phantom and Zorro have their fans... but it's nothing compared to the likes of Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. And they've even had a head start on the DC Iconics…

Dick Grayson and Maybe Wally West are the only legacy characters that even have any meat on their bones. nobody else seems able to hold down a book for more than a couple years. People want Dick's generation to take over... but then every time you turn around the Titans are canceld again....

[DrNewGod]

Batman Beyond is an example of what you want. Bruce aged and Terry was in. A number of Batman villains were allowed a graceful exit. They even tried making a new series with Zeta Force (which I loved). Batman Beyond was great. Terry has yet to completely replace Bruce.

I like the Future Continuity stories, like Batman Beyond, Infinity, Inc. and Marvel's M2 line. They do require a commitment to maintaining a separate line, and (as SilverWarriorWolf also pointed out) it's hard to make a publisher see the point of pushing a line that won't have the kind of brand impact their main offerings do. There's also a danger that the Legacy Futures descend into being a different form of playing the same tune over and over (i.e. Batman Beyond eventually broke out it's own Joker, Infinity, Inc. wound up relying mainly on either their parents' villains or their parents' villains' Legacies).

[jetengine]

No comment. But when you throw death threats and nasty insults to the guy over people who don't exist. Then that's a huge problem.

Thats shitty in any fandom, my issue is his competency not with death threats or insults which are shitty.

[Dred]

Agreed.

Look at all the comic book companies with brand new characters... that amount to nothing. Even Image after 20 years has only Spawn that's CLOSE to a household name. Valiant, Malibu, any of the others... they have nothing. Characters like the Phantom and Zorro have tried the 'Heroes age and get replaced by legacies...' and amount to... nothing. Phantom and Zorro have their fans... but it's nothing compared to the likes of Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. And they've even had a head start on the DC Iconics…

Dick Grayson and Maybe Wally West are the only legacy characters that even have any meat on their bones. nobody else seems able to hold down a book for more than a couple years. People want Dick's generation to take over... but then every time you turn around the Titans are canceld again....

Dick and Wally were the only ones even given a chance and they did great. The only other real example was Kyle who only came in as a failing franchise rebooted and he did as well as Hal(lest we forget GL being reduced to a Flash backup comic in the 70s). Barry and Hal ARE legacy characters, too, though I imagine you don't count them for whatever reason.

Name another major legacy character besides those who have been given more than a couple of years in the limelight. Because, from what I can tell, that's 5 for 5. And Dick's Batman tenure doesn't really qualify, even if he's successful as Nightwing.

[superduperman]

All Star Superman is overrated.

[SiegePerilous02]

Dick and Wally were the only ones even given a chance and they did great. The only other real example was Kyle who only came in as a failing franchise rebooted and he did as well as Hal(lest we forget GL being reduced to a Flash backup comic in the 70s). Barry and Hal ARE legacy characters, too, though I imagine you don't count them for whatever reason.

It wouldn't be easy to replicate Dick and Wally's success with Donna, Roy and Garth. Dick became different than Batman as Nightwing and still struggles to get out of his shadow, plus as Robin, he was already considerably bigger than the rest of the Fab 5 to begin with. Barry had to be taken off the table entirely in order for Wally to come into his own. It worked, but now Barry's back and even before Flashpoint and the mess they've made, his presence is going to screw with Wally's formula. No way in hell are they going to swap out Diana for Donna (who barely has ties to the WW franchise) and Arthur for Garth, especially now.

Barry and Hal are not legacy characters the way we think of the term now, at least historically. That's a pretty obvious reason why they shouldn't be counted. Barry was not a legacy for Jay, he started out as an alternate version. Hal is even more far removed from Alan than Barry is with Jay. The GL franchise as we know it and the one Kyle inherited really started with Hal. And while GL has struggled periodically, it's most successful period happened with Hal as the lead, not Kyle. Even if we removed Hal, there are plenty of other Earth GLs Kyle has to compete with.

[Dred]

My entire point is give others the same chance Wally got. Those are still the best Flash comics ever, but it took a year before we even got good comics and 5 before we got all time great comics.

It took Dick even less time. I still contend that Dickbats was better in quality than the previous two decades of Bruce. Heck, in Snyder's acclaimed Batman run I contend that Black Mirror was his best written story.

None of these other characters we are talking about EVER got a chance. That's the problem. 80 years of Wonder Woman and we never even got a real sniff at Donna trying the mantle on. Just Donna getting fucked repeatedly to conform with Diana's many reboots.

I will say, Conner Hawke got a decent chance in the green arrow shoes, but he was closer to Kyle than, say, Duck or Wally.

Barry and Hal took their predecessor's names and numbering. They were riding coattails as hard as any legacy. Barry, narratively, based his persona on Jay.

We know DC isn't going to try these ideas. That doesn't make them right. Agreeing with DC is often wrong.

[SiegePerilous02]

My entire point is give others the same chance Wally got. Those are still the best Flash comics ever, but it took a year before we even got good comics and 5 before we got all time great comics.

Wally's chance came about due to his mentor dying. That is not an easy success to replicate with the same methods across the board. They are not gonna kill Bruce and Diana for 20 some years like they did with Barry.

It took Dick even less time. I still contend that Dickbats was better in quality than the previous two decades of Bruce. Heck, in Snyder's acclaimed Batman run I contend that Black Mirror was his best written story.

I do love the DickBats era, but it helps that it came about due to Morrison. It's not sustainable long term though, and if it's nor for Dick, it won't be for the rest that are not Wally. Bruce is too big a money maker to make retiring him in any way a sensible business decision. It also doesn't have to be a requirement to make Dick successful.

None of these other characters we are talking about EVER got a chance. That's the problem. 80 years of Wonder Woman and we never even got a real sniff at Donna trying the mantle on. Just Donna getting fucked repeatedly to conform with Diana's many reboots.

Seeing as how Donna barely appears in the WW franchise, and was created by editorial oversight in another book, she frankly doesn't deserve the mantle. She's barely a WW character, why should she replace Wonder Woman who is too big an icon to sideline, especially now? Donna and the Titans should conform to the WW mythos if she's using Diana's brand for a boost. I think Donna needs to be fixed, but there is no indication that a big non-team based push for her would work, and using WW as a shortcut is lame. Not everything needs to be a legacy. Wonder Woman is definitely a mantle that's untouchable for anyone save Diana.

Barry and Hal took their predecessor's names and numbering. They were riding coattails as hard as any legacy. Barry, narratively, based his persona on Jay.

Barry was the first person on his Earth to be the Flash. In his world, Jay was an imaginary character. Jay and Alan also didn't survive the transition from the Golden Age. They were dead properties that Barry and Hal revitalized. Taking up mantles is how we think of legacy now. That's how Wally took over for Barry. Barry did not take over for Jay in the same way, because Jay to him wasn't a real person.

We know DC isn't going to try these ideas. That doesn't make them right. Agreeing with DC is often wrong.

We also know that fans have wrong ideas well. Businesses need to know when to take chances. Yeah, DC definitely makes poor decisions. Giving all these characters a chance when only two of them might be worth it is not a sensible chance.

[Dred]

Wally's chance came about due to his mentor dying. That is not an easy success to replicate with the same methods across the board. They are not gonna kill Bruce and Diana for 20 some years like they did with Barry.

That's incredibly easy to do. You kill them, or otherwise make them incapable of performing their duty. I don't see how that's a difficult thing to accomplish with fictional characters. Ease is not the same as preference.

I do love the DickBats era, but it helps that it came about due to Morrison. It's not sustainable long term though, and if it's nor for Dick, it won't be for the rest that are not Wally. Bruce is too big a money maker to make retiring him in any way a sensible business decision. It also doesn't have to be a requirement to make Dick successful.

How is it not sustainable long term? How could you possibly know that? Everything you're saying about these characters you could say the same about Barry and Wally. Do you honestly think people would stop buying Batman in droves if Dick was Batman for an extended period in a well written way that made sense? It's not like any Batman fan is unfamiliar with Dick, certainly not the ones buying comics. Garth has been too disenfranchised historically to replace Arthur, and Arthur has recently just gone through an incredible stretch of quality so now wouldn't be the best time to replace him. I can't say the same with Wonder Woman which has been up and down, good and bad, off and on for years. And Donna's much more on the cusp than Garth.

Roy's problem is Green Arrow isn't even important enough on his own. So whatever hit you would take from a transition would be rough. That said, if Green Arrow isn't so hot in the first place...why not try something new? Why not try doing something with Roy that isn't shitting on him in the most awful ways imaginable. Surely Roy as the major hero is a better idea than having is arm chopped off, high out of his mind, pretending a cat he found in a piss soaked alley was his dead daughter, no? How integral is Ollie being around to DC, anyhow?

Seeing as how Donna barely appears in the WW franchise, and was created by editorial oversight in another book, she frankly doesn't deserve the mantle. She's barely a WW character, why should she replace Wonder Woman who is too big an icon to sideline, especially now? Donna and the Titans should conform to the WW mythos if she's using Diana's brand for a boost. I think Donna needs to be fixed, but there is no indication that a big non-team based push for her would work, and using WW as a shortcut is lame. Not everything needs to be a legacy. Wonder Woman is definitely a mantle that's untouchable for anyone save Diana.

These are the express, intentional faults of the people you're saying are in the right. She doesn't deserve it? Why? How? What did Wally do to deserve the mantle more than anyone else? He hadn't been relevant in The Flash for a decade prior to Barry's death, short of a brief scene in Trial where his only purpose was to emotionally betray Barry by doing the "right" thing. Wally was a near powerless college student, not in Titans nor Flash. How did he "deserve" the mantle? Donna is whatever the writers want her to be.

I agree that Donna needs to be fixed. I think elevating her is a way to do it. Perhaps she could be better written and brought back into the WW mythos. She was a frequent part of Wonder Woman's post crisis comic, despite COIE completely fucking up her relationship by rebooting Wonder Woman and beginning the never ending woes of Donna's continuity. Donna was fine before that despite the snafu of her creation. That was a really easy to smooth out speed bump -- she just is what she was created as.

Barry was the first person on his Earth to be the Flash. In his world, Jay was an imaginary character. Jay and Alan also didn't survive the transition from the Golden Age. They were dead properties that Barry and Hal revitalized. Taking up mantles is how we think of legacy now. That's how Wally took over for Barry. Barry did not take over for Jay in the same way, because Jay to him wasn't a real person.

If Barry were an all new character and not a legacy he wouldn't be named the same thing and carry on with Jay's franchise. Barry's Flash comics start at #150 for a reason, and it's not because he has relatively nothing to do with Jay. You're a bit closer on Hal, but still, attributing well known name value and powerset is very much a part of legacy. They're not full blown, family style replacements like Wally. But Wally isn't the only kind of legacy character, even if he's the most dyed in the wool and successful one.

I don't know what else you would call Barry. He's not an original character, he's a spinoff/reimagining who inherited his idea from the previous character. Sure, it was roundabout, but if your hero is Jay Garrick and you become a hero with the same name as Jay Garrick...aren't you his legacy? It doesn't hurt that since then Jay's history has merged with Earth to make Barry his direct legacy. We'll be seeing that return within the next year, hopefully. There's not some nebulous ground between legacy and not-legacy that Hal and Barry occupy. Brave and the Bold showed that much years ago. They are their successors, in comics and in spirit.

We also know that fans have wrong ideas well. Businesses need to know when to take chances. Yeah, DC definitely makes poor decisions. Giving all these characters a chance when only two of them might be worth it is not a sensible chance.

Here's the thing. We've been doing it this way for decades. What I'm suggesting is we try it another way instead of, I don't know, The New 52 where they fucked up everything with the world's worst handled reboot because every single title sans Batman and Green Lantern was failing (Batman, amusingly, doing fine with Dick prior to the reboot! So great that they wouldn't dare undo Damian, a character created entirely to pair with Dickbats). We're still living in that awful New 52 universe. Maybe make something better of it.



This is all kind of part of my overwhelming problem with DC: Stagnancy. This is a company that is afraid to move beyond 1960. How pathetic is that? DC's biggest point of progress that they want to sell us is they promoted a minority character from the 80s to the big leagues. But time and time again they revert back to these "iconic" characters who failed them before, so badly that they've rebooted twice! They've stagnated so bad that they've missed the boat on the next generation TWICE. Imagine a DC universe where they never even introduced Hal and Barry because they weren't the original, "iconic" characters of their namesake? Imagine a DC universe where the only comics are the trinity because they happened to be the 3 to survive the collapse of the industry in the 50s. That's what we're advocating right now! Only we moved up the point of stagnation to 1960, before most of us were born and, I'd wager, before most of our parents were born.

I just don't know how so few other people find that insane. There's a reason the Justice League often looks like a Sears catalog from the 90s and it's because they're stuck in a decade where white was right and that's that. We should've moved past these characters ages ago but we're and they're all so stuck on them that history is passing them by. You'd think an archaic medium would at least try to advance elsewhere, but I guess we need another story about how Bruce is sad his parents died and how insane The Joker is. Timeless, unyielding, that'll never go wrong!

[Agent Z]

No comment. But when you throw death threats and nasty insults to the guy over people who don't exist. Then that's a huge problem.

Didio received death threats?

[Agent Z]

How is it a sham?

Because contrary to what superhero fans think, killing a person once doesn't turn you into Hannibal Lecter. A truly moral person isn't going to become a multiple murderer if they kill once, let alone if they kill someone is irredeemable as the Joker.

Being afraid to cross the line because he's afraid he won't be able to stop is a documented character flaw of Bruce's, so I don't see how he's a "sham" or as twisted as the villains who have no problem bumping innocent people by the truckloads.

And it's not as if the ostensibly more stable vigilantes and cops in Gotham, not to mention the rest of the superhero community, is in any rush to kill the Joker either. So everyone's a sham.

It's never treated as a flaw. Every time he brings it up no one mentions how nonsensical and idiotic that line of thinking is.

And maybe other superheroes and cops would be able to take the Joker out if his buddy in the bat costume weren't there to swoop in and rescue him. Bruce puts more effort into protecting the Joker from the consequences of his actions than he does in making sure no one gets hurt by him.

[Frontier]

Because contrary to what superhero fans think, killing a person once doesn't turn you into Hannibal Lecter. A truly moral person isn't going to become a multiple murderer if they kill once, let alone if they kill someone is irredeemable as the Joker.

I think if someone living in as corrupt and violent a place as Gotham City tries to hold themselves up to an absolute ideal, having to break that ideal would compromise them to some degree and make it difficult for them to keep at it. Because as bad as Joker is, he's not the only terrible criminal and villain in Gotham.

I don't think Bruce is worried about turning into Hannibal Lecter. He's worried about becoming The Punisher (who is not supposed to be viewed as a hero). Which is why he won't view killing as a solution.

It's never treated as a flaw. Every time he brings it up no one mentions how nonsensical and idiotic that line of thinking is.

I could swear there have been numerous times people have pointed out how ridiculous it is that Batman keeps Joker alive, especially Jason (who has as much of a right to do it as anyone else).

And maybe other superheroes and cops would be able to take the Joker out if his buddy in the bat costume weren't there to swoop in and rescue him. Bruce puts more effort into protecting the Joker from the consequences of his actions than he does in making sure no one gets hurt by him.

I mean, Batman usually locks Joker up so I don't see Batman "protecting" Joker from consequences, unless the only agreed upon consequence for the things Joker has done is that he has to die.

But I personally don't think Batman not killing Joker invalidates all the people he does save from Joker.

[Agent Z]

I think if someone living in as corrupt and violent a place as Gotham City tries to hold themselves up to an absolute ideal, having to break that ideal would compromise them to some degree and make it difficult for them to keep at it. Because as bad as Joker is, he's not the only terrible criminal and villain in Gotham.

It’s holding yourself to an absolute ideal that is an issue. We’ve seen superheroes kill (and do other questionable things that comic fans don’t seem to care about) without going off the deep end before but a person with a rigid and uncompromising mindset is very likely to snap. If you’re obsessed with not doing something, you’re likely to go down the slippery slope once you do it.

I don't think Bruce is worried about turning into Hannibal Lecter. He's worried about becoming The Punisher (who is not supposed to be viewed as a hero). Which is why he won't view killing as a solution.

See above. Also, there’s plenty Bruce does that would disqualify him as heroic if examined more carefully.

I could swear there have been numerous times people have pointed out how ridiculous it is that Batman keeps Joker alive, especially Jason (who has as much of a right to do it as anyone else).

These people are either villains (like Jason was in Under the Red Hood) or straw men treated as wrong.

I mean, Batman usually locks Joker up so I don't see Batman "protecting" Joker from consequences, unless the only agreed upon consequence for the things Joker has done is that he has to die.

The Joker being locked up hasn’t been taken seriously as a punishment ever since writers started pointing out how easy it is to break out of Arkham or Blackgate.

But I personally don't think Batman not killing Joker invalidates all the people he does save from Joker.

That’s fair. Personally, I don’t think killing the Joker would invalidate Batman’s heroism.