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

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman becoming colder and more "hardcore" just seemed like something that built up over time as he got older, lost more loved ones to Supervillains, and just in general kept fighting a war that seemingly would never end.

Like, for example, contrast Batman in the Under the Red Hood flashbacks with Jason as Robin to what he was like in the present-day.

No, it was Frank Miller's fault.

It was (unintentionally) Frank Miller's fault before they retconned in the mind wipes. People took the wrong messages from TDKR.

Bruce getting darker is a natural and realistic consequence of his life, but it's an example of injecting more realism not necessarily being a good thing. If the main character is no longer enjoyable to read about, what is the benefit of it? It's why Morrison's run was a breath of fresh air when it first came out as far as Bruce was concerned.

I know dark edgy Batman is very popular and it seems to have worked for the character. For me though it's because it appeals to the lowest common denominator and has made the character less interesting/engaging, not more.

[Tzigone]

There is also that, though I think Batman being darker and more brutal is so pervasive and longer lasting and the mindwipe explanation is from a specific period that may not even be canon anymore. So I don't think people associate edgy Batman with the mindwipes as much as they did back when that story was published. It's just sort of a given with his character now, which I really hate.

I agree with you. Darker Batman is a general character direction (sometimes retconned back when he was much younger, sometimes not), and the mindwipe explanation was itself a retcon. Since it was retcon for something that had been happening for a very long time, I've never blamed the mindwipe for anything Bruce did (not even the things that followed and were directly tied to it). It felt like a copout, and it blamed other people for Bruce's bad actions (another thing I have massive problems with is Bruce never being held accountable, long-term).

Actually, few are held accountable, long-term, for anything. Once the plot-line is over and the new plot-line requires the character to be (back) in the fold, old sins are swept under the rug until a new plot-line requires they be dragged out again. Particularly frustrating with heel-face-heel-face turns for actual villains where they will inexplicably be trusted despite all prior actions no matter how many times they change sides.

Probably not popular, but unsure it matters enough to be controversial - I didn't like Iris being from the future. There were some aspects that didn't really make sense, and I didn't think it added enough, story or character-wise, to make up for the contrived nature of it.

I think there are too many spinoff characters. I like a lot of them as individuals, don't get me wrong. And once I like a character, I don't want to lose them. But there are so many that it seems only one or two at a time can be used well, which splinters fanbases. And then DC just goes and creates more new characters when current ones don't get enough play, but they rarely create new characters, instead attaching to old properties, because of the built-in fanbase, but further splintering. We've gotten three new Earth Lanterns (if you count Teen Lantern) in 7 years. Hardly the only case.

I liked Wally's nice parents. And the more angsty backstories have gotten (hi, Barry) and the more good parents turned evil (hi, Clark and Kara), the more I dislike it. You were raised by two loving parents from birth - nope, won't work in comic-dom. I don't mind the angsty ones a bit, but there's no completely happy ones left anymore - all bad (even Cassie's mom got rewritten worse in late post-COIE and I understand Jaime's to be different in N52, but heard bad things so didn't read). No variety in that regard. Also, I dislike the relationship between Wally and Barry being rewritten/retconned into something it wasn't. However, I don't think parents were ever actually abusive in the comics? I know a lot of perception goes that way - the problem being if Barry and Iris knew and did nothing about it. But mostly I don't like being told everything I read and saw didn't happen and something totally different did. Big retcons don't usually sit well with me (unless they are "fix-its"). As always, there are exceptions, though. I still don't prefer Alfred as parent to Bruce, either, as an example of another big one I don't like.

Bruce getting darker is a natural and realistic consequence of his life, but it's an example of injecting more realism not necessarily being a good thing. If the main character is no longer enjoyable to read about, what is the benefit of it? It's why Morrison's run was a breath of fresh air when it first came out as far as Bruce was concerned.

I know dark edgy Batman is very popular and it seems to have worked for the character. For me though it's because it appeals to the lowest common denominator and has made the character less interesting/engaging, not more.

I can agree with that - great for DC, but bad for my enjoyment of the character. I don't like the darker, grimmer, more murderous Green Arrow starting in the late '80s, either, but it's much beloved, so far as I can tell. Ended up doing a lot of damage to a character I liked.

[SiegePerilous02]

I agree with you. Darker Batman is a general character direction (sometimes retconned back when he was much younger, sometimes not), and the mindwipe explanation was itself a retcon. Since it was retcon for something that had been happening for a very long time, I've never blamed the mindwipe for anything Bruce did (not even the things that followed and were directly tied to it). It felt like a copout, and it blamed other people for Bruce's bad actions (another thing I have massive problems with is Bruce never being held accountable, long-term).

This may be just a natural consequence of certain writers and fans not being happy with those creative decisions in the first place and not dwelling on them.

Like as a Batman fan, there is a part of me that would want to see Bruce held accountable for some of his actions. But I didn't get any enjoyment from a lot of those stories to begin with, I'm not likely to revisit them, so if a new writer just ignores them/sweeps it under the rug and just moves on, another part of me is 100% okay with that. I'm paying to read something I enjoy, not dwell in misery.

It becomes easier once you stop adhering to continuity and just pick and choose your preferences. Coherent continuity is not something DC has anymore (if it ever really did) and it's pretty much a lie, so just reach self contained runs/stories that you enjoy. For Batman himself, that unfortunately limits me to pre-Crisis, DCAU tie ins and the occasional run by the likes of Dini or Morrison, but that's still a lot more than most characters get.

[Tzigone]

Like as a Batman fan, there is a part of me that would want to see Bruce held accountable for some of his actions. But I didn't get any enjoyment from a lot of those stories to begin with, I'm not likely to revisit them, so if a new writer just ignores them/sweeps it under the rug and just moves on, another part of me is 100% okay with that. I'm paying to read something I enjoy, not dwell in misery.

I think I'm kinda split on it. I'd be happy with it swept under the rug if it didn't keep happening. But that it never stays under the dang rug; the behavior keeps repeating makes it more frustrating.

Some good stories can come from addressing it - I thought there were was some good stuff with transitioning Wally way back in Loebs run, even if I'd have enjoyed just switching away from jerk-Wally personality. The most important thing being to have the character improve so that I can enjoy reading them. But actually showing it as in-universe change can work well.

Then there's the mixed perspective - if you read some 1970s (or early 80s?) JL and like you will see some the characters sometimes being chastised for their sexism. And they are being sexist. Sometimes benevolently sexist, but sexist. And they are often acting in a a manner consistent with how they acted in earlier years, so it's not OOC. And I think it's called attention to specifically because so often readers don't realize that some of those things are sexist and the writer(s) wanted to draw attention to thoughtless sexism - things like expecting the women to play nursemaid when someone is hurt while the men go fight, even though they are all superheroes. I actually think it served a purpose. But as a reader who is reading this all years later, I want the characters I like to just stop being sexist as times change and people (writers and readers) realize those behaviors are sexist. But then, they weren't planning on people reading these comics 35-45 years later when they writing them - had a different audience in mind.

[Agent Z]

After DCeased #6, Superman fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to complaints about his power level not being respected.

[Agent Z]

Like as a Batman fan, there is a part of me that would want to see Bruce held accountable for some of his actions. But I didn't get any enjoyment from a lot of those stories to begin with, I'm not likely to revisit them, so if a new writer just ignores them/sweeps it under the rug and just moves on, another part of me is 100% okay with that. I'm paying to read something I enjoy, not dwell in misery.

To an extent I can understand this. Personally I myself have gotten fed up with Bruce skating responsibility for his actions especially with how writers treat other character like Wonder Woman, Huntress and Zatanna for their sins (or in Diana's case perceived sins)

[Robanker]

After DCeased #6, Superman fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to complaints about his power level not being respected.

I would understand your point if that same book didn't predicate everything on Diana being so poorly portrayed. She's essentially treated as a bar to test Superman's might against, much as Clark often gets used. It doesn't particularly serve either of them. It's just lazy writing and comes across as lip service.

[Agent Z]

I would understand your point if that same book didn't predicate everything on Diana being so poorly portrayed. She's essentially treated as a bar to test Superman's might against, much as Clark often gets used. It doesn't particularly serve either of them. It's just lazy writing and comes across as lip service.

They needed an entire Green Lantern Corps to put down Superman. When was the last time you saw them doing something this for Diana? Or any other superhero for that matter. Superman is consistently shown as the one guy whom cannot be allowed to be turned evil lest the entire DC universe fall to ruin.

[Frontier]

It was (unintentionally) Frank Miller's fault before they retconned in the mind wipes. People took the wrong messages from TDKR.

Bruce getting darker is a natural and realistic consequence of his life, but it's an example of injecting more realism not necessarily being a good thing. If the main character is no longer enjoyable to read about, what is the benefit of it? It's why Morrison's run was a breath of fresh air when it first came out as far as Bruce was concerned.

I know dark edgy Batman is very popular and it seems to have worked for the character. For me though it's because it appeals to the lowest common denominator and has made the character less interesting/engaging, not more.

I mean, I don't like dark Batjerk Batman but I've always felt the "realism" added more dimension to his character, especially seeing him try to grow out of it and still be the Dark Knight defender that fans love him as.

I do agree that they undo this character development so often that it's very problematic.

[SiegePerilous02]

I mean, I don't like dark Batjerk Batman but I've always felt the "realism" added more dimension to his character, especially seeing him try to grow out of it and still be the Dark Knight defender that fans love him as.

I do agree that they undo this character development so often that it's very problematic.

Yeah but even when he grows out of it, it comes with the trade off of sweeping his mistakes under the rug at times. Which can be a breath of fresh air for those who want a fresh start and don't want to revisit that stuff anyway, but can leave a sour taste in other people's mouths. Doesn't seem worth it.

Plus I just don't think any mainstream comic book character, either newer ones or older ones with new dimensions added onto them, are interesting enough to be stretched so thin since these stories are meant to go on indefinitely. I think pre-COIE Batman seemed stale at the time, but so did his modern counterparts after a certain point. Sometimes character progression isn't as constant as people make it out to be, or overstays its welcome in some instances.

[SiegePerilous02]

After DCeased #6, Superman fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to complaints about his power level not being respected.

And yet, regardless of the intent of the film, people still came away from BvS thinking Batman could kick his ass. And he lost to Supergirl. Granted it's her show and he shouldn't upstage her, but they also didn't have to pit them against each other to make her look good. And more people saw those than read a crappy comic.

It's more than WW gets, but Superman fans can complain because it's not as if things are consistent. And it doesn't mean they are fine with Wonder Woman's treatment either.

[Agent Z]

And yet, regardless of the intent of the film, people still came away from BvS thinking Batman could kick his ass.

I don't remember this ever being expressed by people who watched the film whether they hate it or liked it. If anything, most people thought Superman losing was bull from what I saw.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't remember this ever being expressed by people who watched the film whether they hate it or liked it. If anything, most people thought Superman losing was bull from what I saw.

A lot of the casuals, at least the ones I talked to, either came away thinking Batman was better or agreed that the showing was bull for Supes, in which case the film didn't live up to their expectation.

So it really isn't a good representation either way, and it's way more visible to a wider audience than a an elseworld comic.

[Robanker]

They needed an entire Green Lantern Corps to put down Superman. When was the last time you saw them doing something this for Diana? Or any other superhero for that matter. Superman is consistently shown as the one guy whom cannot be allowed to be turned evil lest the entire DC universe fall to ruin.

And yet whenever he's been made into a threat, it's at someone's expense due to poor writing. If they're going to have the GLC check him, did he need to one-punch Diana? You act like Superman fans get excited by this stuff. Feats of strength mean nothing if they're just used as a shock when it makes someone else look terrible. I love Superman and all this did was remind me of the end of Infinite Crisis where Prime got jailed. Same sequel bait, ho hum, absolutely don't care.

You can't mistreat Clark all the time, throw him one bone where he is a big threat when evil (and treating Diana worse) and claim DC respects him. It's a disservice to both.

[Frontier]

Yeah but even when he grows out of it, it comes with the trade off of sweeping his mistakes under the rug at times. Which can be a breath of fresh air for those who want a fresh start and don't want to revisit that stuff anyway, but can leave a sour taste in other people's mouths. Doesn't seem worth it.

Like what, specifically? I know, specifically with Murderer/Fugitive, there were some consequences but he didn't go that far then.

Plus I just don't think any mainstream comic book character, either newer ones or older ones with new dimensions added onto them, are interesting enough to be stretched so thin since these stories are meant to go on indefinitely. I think pre-COIE Batman seemed stale at the time, but so did his modern counterparts after a certain point. Sometimes character progression isn't as constant as people make it out to be, or overstays its welcome in some instances.

But I think the idea of character development is that even when a character can seem stagnant at times, they can still grow when the next writer or year comes along .

I think for the most part people prefer characters with more dimensions, or grow into having more dimensions, rather then not...except in the case where those dimensions work against the character. In the case of Batman it's only when writers are particularly egregious about it with him that I've felt it's a serious issue.