Here we go again Aquaman fans....

[mikelmcknight72]

And those are reasons that they WILL Do it.

YOu forgot....
Black Lightning doesn't have his kids.
Jason Rsuch got tossed aside and was never Firestorm
John Stewart does not have a wife or family
Tattoo Man's wife lost her husband and son



Depends on who gets ticked off.

Abortion-if you try to discuss it-certain youtubers will use that as rants of DC woke Go Broke and pandering to SJW videos for hits.
Murder-if it's Black Manta (again)-you can already see the outrage. Black man kills white baby in 2019.

Let the baby live or let it be a false pregnancy scare.

Less that i forgot, more a combination of unawareness and tired of listing all the dark & hope killing writing decisions at DC.

While more progressive readers would probably absolutely adore Mera written as having an abortion, I do hope that is a bridge too far for DC.

I'd bet on Arthur doing something while fighting Manta that accidentally causes his own child's death. That'd be about DC's speed lately.

I really do miss the days when heroes were heroes, and there was always much more hope that despair. Modern comics, especially out of the big two, are often very depressing.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

They never did. The New 52 happened.

Mera became a non-character, went crazy and went missing. Her perspective never explored and her character more or less tossed aside. Arthur went through his whole 90s hook hand phase. Black Manta, what, became an actual manta ray?

It was a point of no return for all of them, at least in the world of an ongoing superhero narrative. McLaughlin's short run (which I wish continued instead of PAD's) even has Arthur calling into question his "manhood" for not killing Black Manta, something he WOULD have done if not for being tied to an ongoing narrative where Manta can't just be killed off. Aquaman becomes a victim of his own storytelling trapping, which is not a good place for our wonderful seafaring pulp action hero.

Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Agent Z and say that you really are oversimplifying the 90s run...especially when PAD's run is actually credited by a lot of people as one of the best runs the character has ever seen. Aquaman didn't need the New 52 to be cool or to make his stories enjoyable.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, that's exactly what I mean, stories about babies are boring that's my point.
And it doesn't make Mera more interesting, she was already interesting without it.
They end up used mostly as device to become baby hostage to give the hero angst moments.
Once spent since they are non charters they quickly age them into derivative wannabe mini-me's of the hero or faze them out.
Which DC (including the Aquaverse) is already inundated with.

"Dead weight" is to future creators, who now saddled with cleaning up this pile up of derivative garbage, cause the current team couldn't come up with anything other than it's time for a Baby.

Uh, sorry man, but I really think that's more your personal opinion that you're assuming is a fact. I mean, look at Damian Wayne and Jon Kent, who have both become incredibly popular characters. Plus, how many people have been clamoring in recent years (ever since the New 52) for the return of characters like Connor Hawke? How many people were devastated when Lian Harper was killed off? How many people were also upset when Heroes in Crisis did NOT bring back Jai and Irey West like a lot of people hoped it was going to? And, well, didn't Plastic Man's son, Offspring, just return in the Terrifics series?

And that's just DC. Going to Marvel, we have Franklin and Valeria Richards, Cassie Lang, Nadia Pym, Legion, Viv Vision, Annie May Parker (counts even if not in canon), X-23 and Honey Badger (somewhat), etc. all as the "children" more or less of established heroes and all have gone on to become fan favorite heroes in their own right. I'd say that Franklin and Valeria Richards alone refute the idea of heroes having kids being inherently boring or dead weight since FF writers have been finding a way to make it work for literally decades.

So, yes, sometimes heroes having babies devolves into tropes, but there's just as much equal potential for them to become fan favorites.

[Bruce Wayne]

Uh, sorry man, but I really think that's more your personal opinion that you're assuming is a fact. I mean, look at Damian Wayne and Jon Kent, who have both become incredibly popular characters.

These are completely different franchises. It's comparing apples to oranges. Any kid a) Aquaman has is always to be in the shadow of the Bronze Age stories where they are murdered by Black Manta all it's going to take is one lazy editor/writer and b) Aquaman already has a large number of sidekicks and child stand-ins. He is the one of the character where a kid contributes nothing to the premise of his story.

[Korath]

These are completely different franchises. It's comparing apples to oranges. Any kid a) Aquaman has is always to be in the shadow of the Bronze Age stories where they are murdered by Black Manta all it's going to take is one lazy editor/writer and b) Aquaman already has a large number of sidekicks and child stand-ins. He is the one of the character where a kid contributes nothing to the premise of his story.

Whom ?

Ever since New 52, he certainly has none : Koryak and Lorena Marquez are nowhere to be seen and too tied to Pre-Flashpoint runs to be returned, neither of them making sense at all in the current continuity. Garth has been all but non-existent in the Aquaman books for a long time and even then, his powers differentiate him rather well from Arthur nowadays - at least, she should. Kaldur'ham (I always forget his surface name even I know it's his true one in this continuity) is the closest to it and he hasn't even appeared yet in the main book.

I don't disagree with you that a child of Mera and Arthur won't be the same thing as Damian or Jon, because he'll be born a baby, not discovered by readership all aged up, barring incredible shananingans. However, the last two issues of KSD's run have clearly proven that there is a very important theme, parenthood and how to deal with child traumas, that she wants to explore in Aquaman, and I trust her to do a great work, since I've really liked her run so far. She clearly intent to use the baby to develop Arthur, Mera and it's something I want to see. There is basically a whole journey for Aquaman, exploring all his mythos, just waiting to be written around this idea that he doesn't feel ready to be a father, damn it !

Talks of an abortion seems ridiculous to me when Mera clearly want the child. She wants to keep him/her and watch him/her grow with Arthur by her side.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

These are completely different franchises. It's comparing apples to oranges. Any kid a) Aquaman has is always to be in the shadow of the Bronze Age stories where they are murdered by Black Manta all it's going to take is one lazy editor/writer and

Like, where is that written in stone, though? Who says that simply because Aquaman had one child who was murdered, that means he is cursed to never have another one or that any other child he has is doomed to repeat the same fate? In fact, I think its something that could actually be used to explore character in a way that's unique to Aquaman. I can't really think of another hero whose child has died in a way that is so central to their mythology as the death of Aquaman's son. Explore it. Examine how having another child scares Arthur because of the one they already lost. In fact, it could probably be used to explain Arthur's seemingly out of character reaction to Mera telling him she's pregnant.

b) Aquaman already has a large number of sidekicks and child stand-ins. He is the one of the character where a kid contributes nothing to the premise of his story.

And Batman doesn't?? Im sorry, but when Damian was introduced, Bruce had at least six different proteges and had adopted at least one of them.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Whom ?

Ever since New 52, he certainly has none : Koryak and Lorena Marquez are nowhere to be seen and too tied to Pre-Flashpoint runs to be returned, neither of them making sense at all in the current continuity. Garth has been all but non-existent in the Aquaman books for a long time and even then, his powers differentiate him rather well from Arthur nowadays - at least, she should. Kaldur'ham (I always forget his surface name even I know it's his true one in this continuity) is the closest to it and he hasn't even appeared yet in the main book.

And that, my friend, is just one of many reasons why the New 52 sucked and eventually failed. I, for one, would LOVE to see Koryak and Lorena Marquez return and their stories folded back into continuity, if they aren't already in Rebirth. However, even IF they did come back, they don't preclude Aquaman having another kid. Like I just said, Batman had sidekicks up the wazoo and they still introduced Damian, which turned out to work for them.

By the way, Jackson Hyde is the current Aqualad's name.

[Bruce Wayne]

Like, where is that written in stone, though?

Have you seen the overall editorial quality at DC? The Harras era editorial backseat writing, the creative musical chairs on most of these books, all it takes is one guy arguing for a sales boost by making the book darker, that they should redo story beats from the previous continuity to appeal to older fans or that they just want to clear out the deck chairs and do a soft reboot. You are already half way there with them introducing this whole child side plot. It won't take much for them to go the whole way, just some weak sales or someone arguing that they should make the book darker especially given the current editor's obsession with remaking Aquaman. If the KSD run fails in their eyes, they'll just order the next guy to kill any potential offspring.

And Batman doesn't?? Im sorry, but when Damian was introduced, Bruce had at least six different proteges and had adopted at least one of them.

Again apples to oranges, these are completely different franchises and premises. Damien was pretty much introduced full grown. This isn't the case here.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Have you seen the overall editorial quality at DC? The Harras era editorial backseat writing, the creative musical chairs on most of these books, all it takes is one guy arguing for a sales boost by making the book darker, that they should redo story beats from the previous continuity to appeal to older fans or that they just want to clear out the deck chairs and do a soft reboot. You are already half way there with them introducing this whole child side plot. It won't take much for them to go the whole way, just some weak sales or someone arguing that they should make the book darker especially given the current editor's obsession with remaking Aquaman. If the KSD run fails in their eyes, they'll just order the next guy to kill any potential offspring.

In law, there's a saying for what you're doing here: assuming facts not in evidence. In other words, you're jumping the gun. I mean, they could kill off the kid, but then again, they're just as likely NOT to do that. There are plenty of other ways to mine Aquaman's mythos for drama. Does KSD seem like the kind of writer to kill off a kid? And, I'm not giving the editorial team credit here, but when was the last time DC killed off a child? Damian was killed (because that's the story Morrison originally had in mind for him), but then hastily resurrected because he was a fan favorite. Lian is the only one in recent memory that I can think of that's actually stuck.

Point is: they could go the route of killing off any children Arthur has, BUT they could just as likely not. In fact, the fact that Arthur already had one child who died could mean that they might actively avoid killing off the baby.

Again apples to oranges, these are completely different franchises and premises. Damien was pretty much introduced full grown. This isn't the case here.

You specifically mentioned the amount of sidekicks that Aquaman has. I pointed out that Batman in that respect is very similar and not only does Batman have more sidekicks than Aquaman, but the Batman sidekicks are more famous than Aquaman's.

Also, I don't get why them showing us Mera's pregnancy is somehow a count against Aquaman's baby. Is it because it makes him seem old to you? Well, you know what makes a character seem older than having a pregnant wife? Them being presented with their already 10-year-old son. And yet, Batman did just fine with that.

[Bruce Wayne]

Does KSD seem like the kind of writer to kill off a kid?

Whoever said KSD would be the one that pulled the trigger? She is not going to be on the book any longer than Abnett, Bunn or Parker. Furthermore editorial here has far more say in these decisions than you give them credit and I have already outlined several scenarios in how this can unfold and scenarios similar to these have happened before especially since we know the main person who seems to control hiring creators have advocated doing similar things before.

And, I'm not giving the editorial team credit here, but when was the last time DC killed off a child?

You are approaching the question from the wrong direction especially when you know that most superheroes don't have kids. Aquaman has that unfortunate story with Manta hanging over him. And that counts for a lot in a shared fictional universe that loves to reference prior stories.

Also, I don't get why them showing us Mera's pregnancy is somehow a count against Aquaman's baby. Is it because it makes him seem old to you?

No it's superfluous both to his story and to the themes of the books, it's just a cheap shot at referencing his pre-crisis history. As others have pointed the inevitable conclusion is either the baby dies down the road or it's aged up (like Jon).

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Whoever said KSD would be the one that pulled the trigger? She is not going to be on the book any longer than Abnett, Bunn or Parker. Furthermore editorial here has far more say in these decisions than you give them credit and I have already outlined several scenarios in how this can unfold and scenarios similar to these have happened before especially since we know the main person who seems to control hiring creators have advocated doing similar things before.

And as others have pointed out, what happens if future writers don't kill the kid and editorial doesn't mandate the kid to be killed. Again, you're jumping the gun here in assuming that something is going to happen when it hasn't yet. Do I have a lot of faith in DC's editorial? Not really at this moment. But I'm not gonna suppose that they'll kill off a character when we've not even met that character yet.

Plus, the people in charge more often than not seem to mandate the killing off or maiming of characters that they personally have a vendetta against. For example, the rumors that it was Nightwing that was intended to die in Infinite Crisis or that John Stewart was meant to be killed off. That's because they were characters that certain people in editorial just didn't like. I don't know what axe they have to grind with a baby.

If anything, the fact that this development saw the light of day signals at least some progress, since it wasn't that long ago that there was an edict that prohibited DC's heroes from getting married at all.

You are approaching the question from the wrong direction especially when you know that most superheroes don't have kids. Aquaman has that unfortunate story with Manta hanging over him. And that counts for a lot in a shared fictional universe that loves to reference prior stories.

You're failing to state exactly HOW that element hangs over him. You're not explaining how his one son dying in a 40-year-old story is somehow a guarantee that this one will die too.

And the majority of heroes don't have kids, but at least a few very, very notable exceptions do. Let's see, Batman has a son, Superman and Lois have a son, Scott Lang has a daughter, Hank Pym has a daughter, Green Arrow, pre-Flashpoint, had a son, Wally West before Flashpoint had a son and daughter, Animal Man and his wife have a son and a daughter, Reed Richards and Sue Storm have a son and a daughter, etc. Why is it unfathomable for Aquaman to simply join that club?

No it's superfluous both to his story and to the themes of the books, it's just a cheap shot at referencing his pre-crisis history. As others have pointed the inevitable conclusion is either the baby dies down the road or it's aged up (like Jon).

How? How is it superfluous to his story? One would think that, since royalty and lineage tend to play a somewhat important role in Aquaman's story, him and Mera producing an heir would actually tie right into the themes of the series.

And, uh, so what if the baby is aged up?

[hareluyafan1]

PAD's Aquaman basically needed to write out Mera so that they could hook him up with Dolphin. I guess somebody on those books were suffering some sort of midlife crisis. Or else your typical bad idea from the editor, Kevin Dooley.

I sympathise with Arthur/Mera fans, but given that the PAD run brought Dolphin out of obscurity and into a mainstream title, I can't agree with it being called a bad idea