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

[josai21]

And I would completely disagree. I think DC has done many interesting and new things with that generation of heroes.

Have you read the past 70 years of comics and stories? Or just the stuff from the past ten years?

Those stories have already been told. If people want to read that, let them go to the older comics where those stories were originally told.

If we must keep them around, then writers should have the option to write in-continuity oneshots or what not, but don't keep them the main focus.

[KC]

Have you read the past 70 years of comics and stories? Or just the stuff from the past ten years?

Those stories have already been told. If people want to read that, let them go to the older comics where those stories were originally told.

If we must keep them around, then writers should have the option to write in-continuity oneshots or what not, but don't keep them the main focus.

All stories have been told at this point. But DC is reimaging and adding new things and wrinkles to the stories of these characters to keep them interesting.

I would rather they keep them as the main focus and keep adding things to their stories.

[josai21]

All stories have been told at this point. But DC is reimaging and adding new things and wrinkles to the stories of these characters to keep them interesting.

I would rather they keep them as the main focus and keep adding things to their stories.

Fare enough. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth I'm glad you do enjoy the stories.

[Lightning Rider]

I disagree.

I think we are reaching an over saturation point with the iconic heroes and the only way to grow storytelling is to let those characters move on. Soon, all the possible good stories that can be told with these characters at their current age will have been told. DC writers are simply rehashing old stories with the illusion of being new.

If DC/Marvel want to last another 50 years as comic books they have to grow and change.

There are too many untapped writers and ideas to throw the icons out just yet, IMO. I'm only an amateur but I know I have stuff up my sleeve that hasn't been told, at least not my way, and same with many posters on here who live and breathe the stuff.

[SiegePerilous02]

This thread isn't, "What is the best business decision for DC," you realize that, right? My opinion of "Bruce Wayne should be dead or stop being Batman," has to be the most unpopular opinion possible among DC's current audience. That said, Batman would still be around and that's more important than Bruce Wayne. I'm not saying eliminate the franchises.

Yes, and people debate the controversial opinions in this thread.

Also I can only heartily chuckle at maintaining the status quo in perpetuity as a "wise business decision" from DC. They've been doing that for ages and it sure as hell struggles. Seriously, wise business decisions from the company that, with its current crop of decision makers, was months away from going into reprinting?

Not everything they do is a wise business decision, but phasing out the big names to give shots to a relative handful of characters who have been around almost as long as them is not much better. The industry struggles for a multitude of reasons, not just because they aren't telling enough good stories with the Fab 5. The comics are not as readily available to hook new generations of young readers, and they have to compete with a lot of other media that offers more bang for their buck. Not even Batman is as healthy as he could be if his comics weren't relegated only to dusty comic book shops.

Comics readers can complain about wanting new things all we want, but we ultimately prove to them that we want to read about our favorites over and over again. getting rid of the biggest generation is just gonna piss of their largest fanbase with no guarantee that they can get a new one into the comic shops to try out the rest.

Who cares about what was DELIBERATE by writers from 60 years ago? Why is this such a sticking point to you? Those stories aren't even canon two times over right now. Those writers are dead or dying. Move on past that. The biggest influence on modern Diana, Rucka, has expressed that he would really love to include Donna multiple times but was not allowed. There are people who force this status quo on the characters and you're using that status quo as a reason to disenfranchise them. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Did Rucka want to use Donna more, or replace Diana with her altogether?

It's a sticking point because what has Donna done to deserve the WW mantle, especially now when Wonder Woman's fans are already pissed enough at DC for doing so little to capitalize her even with her movie? Those old stories, the accidental ones, are not canon anymore but they were actually closer to making sense than what we have now. She's gotten worse ever since. She hasn't contributed anything to the WW franchise, she mooches off of the brand.

I don't want Donna to be disenfranchised anymore and I want her sorted out once and for all. But to have her take on the mantle asking too much. What do the Diana fans get out of it?

Wally's deliberate creation didn't make him more worthy of a title. It's such a trivial aspect that actually doesn't even affect the characters themselves, so should have no bearing on how you write them. Lots of dumb **** from the Silver Age hasn't survived, why should Donna's weirdness be the one thing we stick to? Why should any of it, really? Wally was DELIBERATELY created as Kid Flash. If you're so gung ho about the 1960s should he have never become The Flash? He was deliberately created for that, after all! And what you're deliberately created as is the most important thing.

It is not trivial at all. You're kidding yourself if you think Wally being a Silver Age sidekick who got promoted to the main hero didn't play a large part in his success. It certainly wasn't the only thing, but replacing one of their iconic heroes with a major supporting character probably played a part in Wally lasting longer in his role than Kyle or Connor.

He was deliberately created as part of the parent franchise. Donna was created by non WW writers and the WW franchise doesn't want her. It's pretty straightforward. Wally's long history with Barry gave him an advantage Donna didn't really have back then, let alone now. Barry as a commodity also wasn't what Wonder Woman is now, so phasing out Diana for Donna makes even less sense than it does already.

Wonder Woman is Diana of Themyscira but Donna should still be treated better.

Yes, I have mixed feelings about Donna. I really liked her during pre-Crisis, so I will forever hold out hope she can be salvaged.

Maybe it's an age thing...but Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana, and their generation do feel irrelevant and I have little desire to read about them. Reading about them is like reading about my father or grandfather's generation. I mean, they might have cool stories, but I don't relate. I grew up reading the Titans/Young Justice etc. and watching them flounder because DC refuses to allow the OG to age and move on (Like they would have in any other story telling medium) does hinder story telling.

I don't know how many people feel that way though. Look how big the cinematic Marvel characters are now among kids, and most of them have been around since the Silver Age (Cap even longer). All of them are the same age as DC's all stars, who are themselves pretty beloved. Lots of little girls love Wonder Woman. I loved Batman when I was a child, and I love him still even though I'm approaching my 30s (ugh). I loved the Teen Titans when I watched the cartoon too. People relate to different things, and they don't always need to be the same age.

Dick Grayson is as old as my grandparents anyway.

And I would argue that the stories being told aren't good. They are just the same stories that have been told over the past 70 years being told in a different package.

And if they continued to use the same franchises just with different people behind the masks, they would be repackaging things just the same. It wouldn't be truly new ideas. We'd need another Silver Age Marvel type explosion to get that, as in brand new properties.

Good story telling requires progression.

It does. It also requires endings. DC and Marvel are quite unlike other stories in that they are designed to be published indefinitely. How to you write progression if it's not progressing towards anything, and when the audience should really be aging out of the damn thing anyway?

Have you read the past 70 years of comics and stories? Or just the stuff from the past ten years?

Those stories have already been told. If people want to read that, let them go to the older comics where those stories were originally told.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to hunt down old stories. Or if they are interested in these characters, they may not want to have to deal with the older writing style.

People can also go read the older comics with the Fab 5 if they are so inclined.

[kjn]

And I would argue that the stories being told aren't good. They are just the same stories that have been told over the past 70 years being told in a different package.

Good story telling requires progression.

It has never been the case that all the stories told are good, or are told well.

In a way, I think the problem for DC (and Marvel) isn't that they have those old characters around, but that they are trying to force all of their stories into the same continuity and chronology, as an ultra-long form ultra-sprawling soap opera. There is another option, which I dub the Matter of DC (similar to how mediaeval storytelling largely was focused on the Matter of Britain, the Matter of France, and the Matter of Rome). It requires both a different way of writing from DC (or Marvel), but perhaps even more a different way of reading them.

It means you have some central characters and stories, and everything else relates to them, but different stories are free to be told at different points—in time or in space—in the evolution of the Matter. You might have a specific endpoint past which stories cannot go, but writers are free to introduce stories at any point in the meta-narrative. At an extreme, every story builds its own continuity, based on the stories it refers to. Was Barbara Gordon a congresswoman before she became Oracle or afterwards? The timing doesn't really matter, as long as she becomes a congresswoman sometime in her career.

This style of storytelling flies in the face of the way that many fans have conditioned themselves to read works, but it has been around since the dawn of civilisation.

[byrd156]

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....

That's because DC keeps kneecapping their Titans books. The Grayson run from the late 90s early 2000s got a new editor that took over the book and wanted to focus more on new random kids that the DEO was after. Helfer wanted them to become the new Titans halfway through an established run. That's insane and crazy things like it keeps happening to the Titans.

[Jackalope89]

Either the main line or an Elseworlds, needs to have the Titans and their generation take over from the Justice League. Bruce has been 30 something for 40 something years. And him continually being an awful parent to basically all of his wards/kids is a constant outside of Super Sons (but that title got axed anyway). Bruce needs to take a step back, and let Dick take over the Bat mantle until Damian is old enough. Maybe that way he'll have more emotional depth than an egg. Particularly when it comes to being a father figure. He's either cold, in using them as partners or straight up ignoring them, or hot mad at them and beating them up and kicking them out of their home.

Diana really needs to get in touch more with at least Donna. Maybe not necessarily retire from hero work, being practically immortal, but help Donna out (more than making her a prisoner) and bond with her.

Supes... During Rebirth I was all on board with him. A few issues into the Bendis run, and suddenly he's as bad as Bruce is as a parent, if for different reasons. Ditto for Lois.




Plus, I would really like to see the next generation of Justice League. Greg Weisman and Brandon Vieti have done a great setup with Young Justice, for example.

[DrNewGod]

The debate between "stick with the icons" and "age/progress the continuity" proponents is built on a false dichotomy. DC was able to successfully run two different lines (the "main" continuity, Earth -1, and the "legacy" continuity of Earth-2) for more than a decade. It can be done.

[Jcady59]

Either the main line or an Elseworlds, needs to have the Titans and their generation take over from the Justice League. Bruce has been 30 something for 40 something years. And him continually being an awful parent to basically all of his wards/kids is a constant outside of Super Sons (but that title got axed anyway). Bruce needs to take a step back, and let Dick take over the Bat mantle until Damian is old enough. Maybe that way he'll have more emotional depth than an egg. Particularly when it comes to being a father figure. He's either cold, in using them as partners or straight up ignoring them, or hot mad at them and beating them up and kicking them out of their home.

Diana really needs to get in touch more with at least Donna. Maybe not necessarily retire from hero work, being practically immortal, but help Donna out (more than making her a prisoner) and bond with her.

Supes... During Rebirth I was all on board with him. A few issues into the Bendis run, and suddenly he's as bad as Bruce is as a parent, if for different reasons. Ditto for Lois.




Plus, I would really like to see the next generation of Justice League. Greg Weisman and Brandon Vieti have done a great setup with Young Justice, for example.

I would rather they just write Bruce better,use the stories of him being a bad father to your advantage and have Bruce try and be better for all his kids. This way you get more stories and character development and don’t have to toss anyone away.

[Jackalope89]

I would rather they just write Bruce better,use the stories of him being a bad father to your advantage and have Bruce try and be better for all his kids. This way you get more stories and character development and don’t have to toss anyone away.

Except, its pretty clear the writers of Batman have no real urge to do so. That, or editorial. Maybe both. And any time one writer DOES make progress with it, the next one goes back to the old status quo of Bruce ignoring his kids. And that's on the good days.

[Frontier]

The debate between "stick with the icons" and "age/progress the continuity" proponents is built on a false dichotomy. DC was able to successfully run two different lines (the "main" continuity, Earth -1, and the "legacy" continuity of Earth-2) for more than a decade. It can be done.

Even in a Post-Crisis/Merged Earth I think DC was able to, while not perfect, find a better balance then they did with the subsequent reboots.

[Dred]

Yes, and people debate the controversial opinions in this thread.



Not everything they do is a wise business decision, but phasing out the big names to give shots to a relative handful of characters who have been around almost as long as them is not much better. The industry struggles for a multitude of reasons, not just because they aren't telling enough good stories with the Fab 5. The comics are not as readily available to hook new generations of young readers, and they have to compete with a lot of other media that offers more bang for their buck. Not even Batman is as healthy as he could be if his comics weren't relegated only to dusty comic book shops.

Comics readers can complain about wanting new things all we want, but we ultimately prove to them that we want to read about our favorites over and over again. getting rid of the biggest generation is just gonna piss of their largest fanbase with no guarantee that they can get a new one into the comic shops to try out the rest.



Did Rucka want to use Donna more, or replace Diana with her altogether?

It's a sticking point because what has Donna done to deserve the WW mantle, especially now when Wonder Woman's fans are already pissed enough at DC for doing so little to capitalize her even with her movie? Those old stories, the accidental ones, are not canon anymore but they were actually closer to making sense than what we have now. She's gotten worse ever since. She hasn't contributed anything to the WW franchise, she mooches off of the brand.

I don't want Donna to be disenfranchised anymore and I want her sorted out once and for all. But to have her take on the mantle asking too much. What do the Diana fans get out of it?



It is not trivial at all. You're kidding yourself if you think Wally being a Silver Age sidekick who got promoted to the main hero didn't play a large part in his success. It certainly wasn't the only thing, but replacing one of their iconic heroes with a major supporting character probably played a part in Wally lasting longer in his role than Kyle or Connor.

He was deliberately created as part of the parent franchise. Donna was created by non WW writers and the WW franchise doesn't want her. It's pretty straightforward. Wally's long history with Barry gave him an advantage Donna didn't really have back then, let alone now. Barry as a commodity also wasn't what Wonder Woman is now, so phasing out Diana for Donna makes even less sense than it does already.




Yes, I have mixed feelings about Donna. I really liked her during pre-Crisis, so I will forever hold out hope she can be salvaged.



I don't know how many people feel that way though. Look how big the cinematic Marvel characters are now among kids, and most of them have been around since the Silver Age (Cap even longer). All of them are the same age as DC's all stars, who are themselves pretty beloved. Lots of little girls love Wonder Woman. I loved Batman when I was a child, and I love him still even though I'm approaching my 30s (ugh). I loved the Teen Titans when I watched the cartoon too. People relate to different things, and they don't always need to be the same age.

Dick Grayson is as old as my grandparents anyway.



And if they continued to use the same franchises just with different people behind the masks, they would be repackaging things just the same. It wouldn't be truly new ideas. We'd need another Silver Age Marvel type explosion to get that, as in brand new properties.



It does. It also requires endings. DC and Marvel are quite unlike other stories in that they are designed to be published indefinitely. How to you write progression if it's not progressing towards anything, and when the audience should really be aging out of the damn thing anyway?



Not everyone has the time or inclination to hunt down old stories. Or if they are interested in these characters, they may not want to have to deal with the older writing style.

People can also go read the older comics with the Fab 5 if they are so inclined.

You realize the reason Wally was good wasn't because he was a "deliberate" addition to the cast during the 60s, right? Everything that made Wally amazing was good writing and good, new character beats that the previous generation did not have. These are the same things ANY new hero brings to the table in the hands of a good writer. You give them a less established character in a new role and let them loose. I know we've been primarily arguing Donna but this applies for anyone. And I know these characters aren't spring chickens, but you'd have to start SOMEWHERE.

And here's the issue. The characters you're saying protect and push at all costs until the industry dies? They're crippling and ruining characters around them. Literally, from Didio's mouth, he said the reason Dick and Wally keep getting fucked over, reverted, rebooted, what have you is entirely because characters like Batman can't age and can't progress. The entire DC universe is held ransom by the fact that editorial gets squeamish at the idea of Bruce's age ticking over into the 40s. Every single character who has the GALL to grow, and age, and progress as a person the way any real person does eventually gets knocked back to square one because of this toxic idea that the universe revolves around Bruce Wayne and straying from his godly light is the way to death and doom.

You're right! Batman is by far the most financially successful DC hero. There's no arguing that and I'm guessing that will be the case until there aren't enough comic stores and online sales around to support the industry, and DC just makes some online trash junk to maintain Warner's copyrights. That inevitability is coming soon and we'll have an entire backlog of characters who never even got a chance because Bruce Wayne -- not Batman, JUST Bruce Wayne -- can't take a step back for any significant period of time. Despite the fact that the one time he did for a character who could legitimately carry the mantle it...worked great? Go figure.

Wally is not an exceptional character -- at least, his situation was not exceptional. His stories are great but they're not wholly unique only to him in a way other legacy characters can't replicate. Wally's quality has actually been reproduced elsewhere, just to less notoriety because his franchise isn't as well known -- Jack Knight and Starman. Jack Knight is everything Wally is in quality and execution from the same vantage point of a successor to the title. These characters are amazing, and they are birthed out of a situation that Bruce and Diana and Clark literally cannot have. Their status as the OG crowd prevents them from being involved in an entire dimension of stories. They can not struggle under the weight of a superior predecessor, they can not be the unwanting hero forced into a position of need and authority, they can not tackle the same problems of the past in a way their predecessor couldn't. They are who they are and that limits the stories you can tell, because you can never tell any stories in their world through the perspective of someone else. These stories don't even get a chance! They don't have to be permanent -- though if they're good enough it very well could be! Wally's run should've been permanent. Jack Knight's is! But we rolled back Wally's entire history because Barry's is from Bruce's generation and it's important he's around so Bruce doesn't look too old. The Flash Franchise couldn't keep moving on ahead of the rest of the "important" characters so characters like Wally, characters like Dick, characters like Connor and Cassie and, one day, characters like Damian and Jon will suffer under the weight of stagnancy and the abused idea of "iconic."

This isn't just about the Fab 5. They're just the easiest and first case to look at because they contain Wally West, the ur-example that can't be argued against, along with Dick, whose brief time in the spotlight was stellar. This isn't just about Donna though, given half a second, I beat you I could pitch an amazing Donna idea that beats out well over half the WW runs we've gotten this past decade PURELY on the value of Donna as a Wonder Woman who is not Diana. Trying to distill this down to just the Fab Five is disingenuous, though. This is about literally every character who is not from the golden age or on the Satellite JLA...besides Cyborg, I guess, since he got the diversity call up as Johns' personal choice. Which is hilarious because the diversity they want WOULD EXIST in the future generation if they ever allowed that future generation to grow up. Imagine a world where we're talking about the korean fastest woman alive Iris West. The half arabic Batman Damian Wayne. A Justice League with Static Shock and Jaime Reyes! These are potentially great characters, potentially great character beats, and certainly those ideas are worth eventually giving a shot, right? What's so bad about those ideas that they don't deserve a story in the course of DC comics like everyone else?

Instead we're forever stuck with the 1960s country club until the industry dies, never even giving these characters a CHANCE!

Maybe I should use the argument everyone tells me when I complain about Wally West -- just go read the back issues. There's thousands of Bruce Wayne comics, Diana Prince comics, Clark Kent comics, Satellite JLA comics already, why don't you go read some back issues while some new characters get some shine, eh?

[The True Detective]

Maybe it's an age thing...but Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana, and their generation do feel irrelevant and I have little desire to read about them. Reading about them is like reading about my father or grandfather's generation. I mean, they might have cool stories, but I don't relate. I grew up reading the Titans/Young Justice etc. and watching them flounder because DC refuses to allow the OG to age and move on (Like they would have in any other story telling medium) does hinder story telling.

And I would argue that the stories being told aren't good. They are just the same stories that have been told over the past 70 years being told in a different package.

Good story telling requires progression.

Um, you do realize Dick has been around since 1940, only a year after Bruce, only 2 after Clark and a year BEFORE Diana so if they're old and need to move on why doesn't he? Should he be killed off so younger heroes not created during WW2 can get some shine? You should be advocating Jason, Tim and Damien replacing Dick since he's such an old character.

[Dred]

Um, you do realize Dick has been around since 1940, only a year after Bruce, only 2 after Clark and a year BEFORE Diana so if they're old and need to move on why doesn't he? Should he be killed off so younger heroes not created during WW2 can get some shine? You should be advocating Jason, Tim and Damien replacing Dick since he's such an old character.

The issue is if you're going to naturally age out Bruce then Dick is the next in line. The problem is we're starting super late because of clutched pearls but this is just reframing the problem with a strawman. If you think progression should happen then it's better to start sooner than later. The next jump after Dick (who could have a much shorter, realistic reign that's NOT 80 years like Bruce) would be Tim, a child of the 90s (who could reasonably be in his late 20s right now along with most the readers who followed him in his heyday!), or even Damian, an 00s character. We're not that far off after Dick so this argument is silly. The second generation was just that for so damn long that the progression catches up VERY fast. Characters like Bart and Iris and Cassie and Lian are easily waiting in the wings.

It only gets worse the longer you wait. Unless your plan is DC dies with Bruce in the cowl and we never try. Which is a perfectly fine opinion to have and is what WILL happen. It's just not terribly imaginative.