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

[Jackalope89]

Here's is my controversial opinion for the day:

The young Justice cartoon does the comics universe much, much better than the comics.

Almost everything that makes DC "DC" is there, while the comics have become a soulless editorially mandated empty shell.

I don't think that's as controversial as it may sound.

[SiegePerilous02]

The people running DC decided that the best choice was to reboot the universe back to square one, and when they need another sales bump they'll do it again.

So stop rebooting. Simple enough. It's not like Marvel needs to do it to keep their characters forever in their primes or younger.

And we'll have the 6 white people 1 token minority JL frontlining it again.

So stop doing it and increase the ranks. John Stewart is already there, put Steel, Element Woman, Vixen, Batwoman, Black Lightning, Blue Beetle, Katana or whomever on the team. You don't have to get rid of the 6 white people and make it so there isn't 1 minority anymore. You don't need to throw out characters that have fans and easily acquire new fans to give a boost to others.

All of their big comics that they push are frontlined by characters made in a time when white was right. This isn't a strawman, it's literally part of my opinion. I can't have a strawman about my own opinion. You're the one who just doesn't want to broach the subject of the core of DC being forever stuck in a time period of homogeneity.

It's easy for me to not accept that as the whole truth when a casual glance at modern comics and those written in the 60s don't resemble each other.

They still have a lot of work to do, but they're not the same.

So yeah, the older generations not going anywhere? That's kind of the problem! That creates this situation

Aquaman and Wonder Woman have been around since the 40s, and just killed it at the box office in a time period of less homogeneity. Clearly there isn't an issue with older characters. Not being able to capitalize on that success and transfer over to the comics is part of the problem.

Because all of these older characters? Aside from Batman and (to a much lesser extent currently) Superman, DC has barely scratched the surface of their potential. Wonder Woman only just got her first movie, which is ridiculous. They need to capitalize on the potential of ALL their characters.

Capturing lightning in a bottle twice, no thrice, no four times, five. It works so often but is used so little. It has a higher success rate than making new characters. There was no demand for any of these things that worked. If you're only playing by demand then never make any new comics or characters because no one's demanding those, either. THAT is a strawman.

I wouldn't consider five times (none of which are exactly alike in execution) as a lot or something that is easy to replicate. A good business will experiment and take risks when necessary, and meet the demands of guaranteed successes to remain stable. Sacrificing one for the other isn't wise. They are skewed too far towards stagnation right now, but swinging the pendulum in the other direction just because it MIGHT be worth it is stupid.

I'm convinced that it'd make for better storytelling and a richer universe. I'm also of the opinion that it's worth a shot because it's not like DC's been financially stable the past decade of sticking to your point of view.

I've made no claims that DC is financially stable or that they don't have serious work to do, or that their treatment of (let's be honest) any character that isn't Batman is dodgy at best.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that people not reading comics or knowing where to find them is a big cause of the lack of financial stability with not just DC, but the industry as a whole. Like I overhead a 6 year old kid in a comic shop asking his dad for an Aquaman comic. He's lucky his dad was into the hobby and knew where to take him. A lot of other kids will happily consume Aquaman media no matter how old a character he is, because it's all new to them, but good luck finding the comics. They wouldn't know where to find Garth or Jackson either if Arthur gets phased out for them.

Like seriously, Wally, Jack and Dick worked. Why not try elsewhere? What is so crazy about that?

It's good to try when it is appropriate. Wally took over when DC was overhauling its entire universe when Barry's star had fallen and they killed him off in a heroic blaze of glory. Dick is already one of the biggest characters they have even without being Batman, him taking over the mantle even if it was temporary with a big name author behind it was huge.

Nobody gave a shit about Starman before Jack anyway. Other heroic names you think should be phased out are not on that level.

I'm not talking about the next generation. I'm talking about EVERY generation besides the 1960s. I'm talking about a world and universe that breathes and moves and progresses instead of retells Batman's guilt for the billionth time or retcons what blew up Krypton for the literal 8th time.

And I'd agree with you, but that kind of world building and story telling works better when it has one author (or one narrative taken over by a succession of authors) who can map it out and has an ending in mind. That doesn't work with DC and Marvel at this point for pretty obvious reasons, the biggest being that they are not designed to end and the list of creators with contradictory ideas and agendas is enormous. And that's before you add in the fanbase who cannot agree on anything.

Another poster compared them to the Simpsons or Disney icons. I think that's closer to what they are than what you are thinking, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. You add more icons to the list, not ditch the ones you have. If a fan wants a break from the icons, that's their responsibility to take a break and try out something else and leave the icon to others, especially the next generation of fans for whom it's all new.

If I get sick of Batman, I take a break and read someone else. Batman vs. Joker stories were old before I was born, but it was all new to me the first time I read it. These character's narratives were not designed to be followed for a person's entire life. Batman doesn't need to age up and go away, it's up to us to grow up and let go of him.

[DrNewGod]

Here's is my controversial opinion for the day:

The young Justice cartoon does the comics universe much, much better than the comics.

Almost everything that makes DC "DC" is there, while the comics have become a soulless editorially mandated empty shell.

I haven't seen the new show yet. I agree with you on the previous two. My only beef was that the JL came off looking a bit inferior to "the kid's table." Perhaps unavoidable, but it was the only thing holding it back from being my favorite comic adaptation ever (spoken as if my ratings mattered).

You were right about YJ showing a more enjoyable, respectful DCU. Of course, they didn't have to go as deep into the details as the comics do.

[Buried Alien]

I haven't seen the new show yet. I agree with you on the previous two. My only beef was that the JL came off looking a bit inferior to "the kid's table." Perhaps unavoidable, but it was the only thing holding it back from being my favorite comic adaptation ever (spoken as if my ratings mattered).

You were right about YJ showing a more enjoyable, respectful DCU. Of course, they didn't have to go as deep into the details as the comics do.

They also have the advantage of being finite. There's no perpetual "next month" that they need to be indefinitely mindful of servicing.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[SiegePerilous02]

They also have the advantage of being finite. There's no perpetual "next month" that they need to be indefinitely mindful of servicing.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

And has one main mind (Weisman) behind it, not a hodge podge of creators.

I think I'd rather see Weisman on one DC property instead of a general one. YJ does well by a lot of characters, but it's not as focused. I don't find it anywhere near as satisfying as Spectacular Spider-Man or Gargoyles.

[Jackalope89]

And has one main mind (Weisman) behind it, not a hodge podge of creators.

I think I'd rather see Weisman on one DC property instead of a general one. YJ does well by a lot of characters, but it's not as focused. I don't find it anywhere near as satisfying as Spectacular Spider-Man or Gargoyles.

It seems that Weisman actually wanted to greatly expand Gargoyles, like giving Brooklyn his own arc and what not. And down the line, having Demona redeem herself, with Goliath and Elisa adopting a child.

[TheBatman]

This idea that "We need to replace the older gen for the sake of the company" comes off as disingenuous.

If you truly want fresh, new ideas, do away with the concept of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. in general. Create entirely new superheroes that speak to today's world.

Oh, and how come people complain about Barry taking back his role as the face of The Flash franchise, but these same people seemingly have nothing to say about Wally taking back the mantle from Bart?

[Frontier]

Oh, and how come people complain about Barry taking back his role as the face of The Flash franchise, but these same people seemingly have nothing to say about Wally taking back the mantle from Bart?

Probably because nobody wants to talk about when Bart was The Flash .

[Buried Alien]

Probably because nobody wants to talk about when Bart was The Flash .

I didn't find it that bad, but it was too short-lived to really judge it. I wouldn't mind seeing Bart get another, longer, more legit shot someday.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Frontier]

And has one main mind (Weisman) behind it, not a hodge podge of creators.

I think I'd rather see Weisman on one DC property instead of a general one. YJ does well by a lot of characters, but it's not as focused. I don't find it anywhere near as satisfying as Spectacular Spider-Man or Gargoyles.

Yeah, I think part of the reason Young Justice is as cohesive and comprehensive a series as it is is because it has a strong, singular, creative mind and vision and the freedom of a huge backlog of comic material to pick-and-choose from.

That's not something I think you could really apply to the comics line.

I think godisawesome compared YJ to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and I'd say that comparison is pretty apt, with Kevin Feige being the Weisman of the MCU, even though it doesn't have the benefit of solo spotlights like the MCU does.

[Dred]

So stop rebooting. Simple enough. It's not like Marvel needs to do it to keep their characters forever in their primes or younger.




So stop doing it and increase the ranks. John Stewart is already there, put Steel, Element Woman, Vixen, Batwoman, Black Lightning, Blue Beetle, Katana or whomever on the team. You don't have to get rid of the 6 white people and make it so there isn't 1 minority anymore. You don't need to throw out characters that have fans and easily acquire new fans to give a boost to others.



It's easy for me to not accept that as the whole truth when a casual glance at modern comics and those written in the 60s don't resemble each other.

They still have a lot of work to do, but they're not the same.




Aquaman and Wonder Woman have been around since the 40s, and just killed it at the box office in a time period of less homogeneity. Clearly there isn't an issue with older characters. Not being able to capitalize on that success and transfer over to the comics is part of the problem.

Because all of these older characters? Aside from Batman and (to a much lesser extent currently) Superman, DC has barely scratched the surface of their potential. Wonder Woman only just got her first movie, which is ridiculous. They need to capitalize on the potential of ALL their characters.



I wouldn't consider five times (none of which are exactly alike in execution) as a lot or something that is easy to replicate. A good business will experiment and take risks when necessary, and meet the demands of guaranteed successes to remain stable. Sacrificing one for the other isn't wise. They are skewed too far towards stagnation right now, but swinging the pendulum in the other direction just because it MIGHT be worth it is stupid.



I've made no claims that DC is financially stable or that they don't have serious work to do, or that their treatment of (let's be honest) any character that isn't Batman is dodgy at best.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that people not reading comics or knowing where to find them is a big cause of the lack of financial stability with not just DC, but the industry as a whole. Like I overhead a 6 year old kid in a comic shop asking his dad for an Aquaman comic. He's lucky his dad was into the hobby and knew where to take him. A lot of other kids will happily consume Aquaman media no matter how old a character he is, because it's all new to them, but good luck finding the comics. They wouldn't know where to find Garth or Jackson either if Arthur gets phased out for them.



It's good to try when it is appropriate. Wally took over when DC was overhauling its entire universe when Barry's star had fallen and they killed him off in a heroic blaze of glory. Dick is already one of the biggest characters they have even without being Batman, him taking over the mantle even if it was temporary with a big name author behind it was huge.

Nobody gave a shit about Starman before Jack anyway. Other heroic names you think should be phased out are not on that level.



And I'd agree with you, but that kind of world building and story telling works better when it has one author (or one narrative taken over by a succession of authors) who can map it out and has an ending in mind. That doesn't work with DC and Marvel at this point for pretty obvious reasons, the biggest being that they are not designed to end and the list of creators with contradictory ideas and agendas is enormous. And that's before you add in the fanbase who cannot agree on anything.

Another poster compared them to the Simpsons or Disney icons. I think that's closer to what they are than what you are thinking, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. You add more icons to the list, not ditch the ones you have. If a fan wants a break from the icons, that's their responsibility to take a break and try out something else and leave the icon to others, especially the next generation of fans for whom it's all new.

If I get sick of Batman, I take a break and read someone else. Batman vs. Joker stories were old before I was born, but it was all new to me the first time I read it. These character's narratives were not designed to be followed for a person's entire life. Batman doesn't need to age up and go away, it's up to us to grow up and let go of him.

If your response just boils down to that DC are too incompetent to have the long term planning required to execute good character growth and progression then I think we might have some middle ground. I guess my opinion is they should be more competent.

As far as the homogeneity thing, it sure as heck doesn't look much different. The headline characters are the same ones from the 60s. You take the top 10 most important comics DC is running and it's all core JL members and Batman spinoffs. If you think the bottom of their ranks is what I'm talking about then I don't think you get what I'm saying. Diversity isn't just having a technical volume of characters who represent others. It's putting diverse characters in positions of importance to the universe. One way or another that means the "core" "iconic" "important" characters that you're saying should never step back...have to step back. They have to cede pagetime. If that's the case then why not do it in literally the most natural way possible, to their successors?

Part of what makes Wally so great is that the torch was narratively handed down. I think other characters and franchises can recreate that much easier than you do, apparently.

This idea that "We need to replace the older gen for the sake of the company" comes off as disingenuous.

If you truly want fresh, new ideas, do away with the concept of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. in general. Create entirely new superheroes that speak to today's world.

Oh, and how come people complain about Barry taking back his role as the face of The Flash franchise, but these same people seemingly have nothing to say about Wally taking back the mantle from Bart?

Bart suffered from planned obsolescence. They came into it not expecting him to last a year and got their wish and did not do anything to set it up. A core, and great, part of the handing down of a mantle is the story where you hand it down. Barry's COIE death, Bruce's in Final Crisis, and the first arc of Starman all make a story out of what leads to passing the mantle down. Wally didn't get so much respect and what little we saw was in a flashback a few issues in.

I'm all for Bart getting an earnest shot. I'd love nothing more than a retired Wally and Bart + Kid Iris being the new speedster duo. It'd be awesome for the same reason Dick and Damian were awesome. You'd have a goofy, reckless, funny Flash and an overly responsible, serious Kid Flash. The funny thing about Bart was the hype was real at the time. His first six comics, despite being utter garbage, sold absurd numbers.

New ideas are cool. I'm not against that. But I do believe in the power of symbolism and importance of station. Batman, no matter who's under the cowl, is a station of power. The underworld fears Batman, they don't fear Bruce Wayne. The comic is called Batman. It is not called Bruce Wayne. There is weight and importance behind the mantle (all of the mantles), which is why the very first successful legacy characters took the names and capabilities with Barry and Hal taking over for Jay and Alan.

[josai21]

It's honestly not that hard to do if you have a strong editorial team. But that's the problem, writers are given free reign to do whatever they want.

[byrd156]

Probably because nobody wants to talk about when Bart was The Flash .

It was too short to say anything about it. He came and went just like that.

[byrd156]

This idea that "We need to replace the older gen for the sake of the company" comes off as disingenuous.

If you truly want fresh, new ideas, do away with the concept of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. in general. Create entirely new superheroes that speak to today's world.

Oh, and how come people complain about Barry taking back his role as the face of The Flash franchise, but these same people seemingly have nothing to say about Wally taking back the mantle from Bart?

Creating more heroes adds to the problem. DC doesn't give the sheer amount of characters that they have on the backburner the time of day.

In today's age of superhero movies why isn't there a Blue Devil series that can be a commentary on it or something like that. That's a fresh idea with an established character.

[Frontier]

It's honestly not that hard to do if you have a strong editorial team. But that's the problem, writers are given free reign to do whatever they want.

I think even a strong editorial team wouldn't be able to keep things razor-focus when you have a variety of different writers writing different titles and with completely different sense and sensibilities to their comics and sometimes that can infringe on what the writers want to do.

Like, we probably wouldn't have Morisson being Morisson, and what would the DCU be without that?

I'm all for Bart getting an earnest shot. I'd love nothing more than a retired Wally and Bart + Kid Iris being the new speedster duo. It'd be awesome for the same reason Dick and Damian were awesome. You'd have a goofy, reckless, funny Flash and an overly responsible, serious Kid Flash.

I think the main draw of Dick as Batman was partially his dynamic with Damian. When most people think of DickBats they think of Morrison's Batman and probably not a lot of the other stuff he was running around in at the time (or probably doesn't want to remember Tony Daniel's writing work).