lol, right? Arrogance is too easy of an answer/explanation. I also wonder if there was one dude somewhere who was like, “guys we already tried this, that’s what’s so fkd up.” (Paraphrasing Peter Griffin as Han Solo in Fam Guy). Then afterwards that one guy is like, “I told you so!”
“Look, you can’t put the Superman #77s with the #200s. They haven’t even discovered Red Kryptonite yet. And you can’t put the #98s with the #300s, Lori Lemaris hasn’t even been introduced.” — Sam
“Where the hell are you from? Krypton?” — Edgar Frog
Only good versions of Etta Candy that follow the Golden Age style are Simone and LoWW.
Last edited by Gaius; 03-25-2024 at 08:58 PM.
Amy Reeder also has an awesome take on Etta Candy, in the short story she did for the Black & Gold anthology, and the short story in the 80th anniversary special
Last edited by Alpha; 03-26-2024 at 07:12 AM.
King is clearly writing this Diana in a universe where people don't actually know how powerful she is. The persistent thematic thread is that everyone underestimates her. Never mind the fact that King himself seems to underestimate her - he's constantly comparing her to other (male) superheroes rather than letting her exist on her own terms and has on multiple occasions pointed out that she's not as warm, physically powerful, or humanistic as Superman.
It misses the essential point: A key part of her appeal is the fantasy of a super-powerful woman who ISN'T constantly underestimated. I have major issues with the first film, but a big reason why a lot of women were so moved by it at the time is because it wasn't yet another movie all about a strong woman who's assumed lesser and proves herself. She was questioned at first, but it wasn't the thematic foundation of the story - the male characters deferred to her as soon as she demonstrated what she was capable of, and she didn't have to beat them up and humiliate them to accomplish it.
I kinda get the impression that King is narrativizing his own self-consciousness about writing the title.
Whether intentional or not, I feel like in a weird way the backups are a microcosm of the trinity characters and their fan bases to a degree. On the one hand you have Damian poking at Jon by saying he did nothing to deserve his moniker, S standing for hope is lame, etc. On the other hand, you have Jon saying that all Damian does is brood all the time and perch himself in deep thought on a gargoyle in the rain. And then there’s Lizzie, who doesn’t seem to care or be bothered by such trifles. WW is above the fray, as it were, and almost seems to exist independently of the others in that regard. Yet, she’s ultimately dependent upon the both of them even though she cares not about their bickering.
I’m surely reading too deeply in to it, but big picture wise, that’s how I read it. Or not. Depending on my mood. lol.
“Look, you can’t put the Superman #77s with the #200s. They haven’t even discovered Red Kryptonite yet. And you can’t put the #98s with the #300s, Lori Lemaris hasn’t even been introduced.” — Sam
“Where the hell are you from? Krypton?” — Edgar Frog
That's actually pretty interesting. I had my own thoughts that each represent the "pop cultural image" of their respective parent that DC casuals/non-fans think they are vs. how their hardcore fans see them.
Jon - The nicest of the three but largely toothlessly inoffensive.
Damien - Largely an unlikeable jerk but moments of fanservice kindness sprinkled in
Lizzie - Most smugly egotistical and aloof of the three.
“Look, you can’t put the Superman #77s with the #200s. They haven’t even discovered Red Kryptonite yet. And you can’t put the #98s with the #300s, Lori Lemaris hasn’t even been introduced.” — Sam
“Where the hell are you from? Krypton?” — Edgar Frog
I kinda hate every time the Amazon's call the outside world "Man's World".
~I just keep swimming through these threads~