DC characters that are better suited to specific time periods

[iron chimp]

Well, we do agree on one thing. About half of America would applaud if Elon Musk dressed up in body armor and started beating up protestors.

It doesn't really follow that billionaire = blunt tool of capitalism tho. Plenty of the theorists of anarchism and communism were industrialists and members of the elite (bakunin, kropotkin, engels etc etc). And between them all they inspired a reign of terror that accounted for over a hundred million dead so...

[Bored at 3:00AM]

It doesn't really follow that billionaire = blunt tool of capitalism tho. Plenty of the theorists of anarchism and communism were industrialists and members of the elite (bakunin, kropotkin, engels etc etc). And between them all they inspired a reign of terror that accounted for over a hundred million dead so...

I don't quite get what you're talking about here. Is this in reference to something I said?

[Tony]

Batman and the like are the most problematic. The Bat super crime computer is now a phone, there is no possible way he could keep his identity with facial recognition and satellites tracking his Batmobile among so many other reasons the character is unrealistic in the modern world.

[iron chimp]

I don't quite get what you're talking about here. Is this in reference to something I said?

What difference does being a billionaire make to doling out justice?

[SiegePerilous02]

I'd argue Marston's ideas have been avoided for a reason and that the more mainstream takes aren't any more hollow than his. It doesn't make later versions hollow, it just means times change. A fact DC frequently struggles with. When it comes to Marston, I feel too many people don't really understand the troubling implications of his ideas and why Diana had to evolve past them and you don't need a throwback comic to do that.

There are definitely some updated versions of Wonder Woman that aren't hollow, but I think they are few and far between. Rucka and Perez are pretty much it. They do some things differently/better than Marston due to the times changing like you say, but there are cues from him I think they would have been better taking their cues from. In terms of definitive and interesting runs, she doesn't have much to brag about besides Marston.

I'd put Morrison over Rucka's most recent take, which I found too dour and humorless for my tastes. I'm glad he finally explicitly made the Amazons bi and lesbians, but otherwise, it left me cold. Morrison's Earth One stuff is certainly not his best work, but he's at least trying to wrestle with who the character actually is and what her creator's intentions were for her.

And, yes, his Doctor Psycho and Etta Candy are great.

My ideal Wonder Woman mythos might be a fusion of the two takes. Rucka did better with making the Amazons positive role models who raised Diana, but I'd like some of Morrison/Marston's kink and technology mixed in. Morrison did better at understanding what makes Etta important and distinct whereas Perez and Rucka just put her in Steve's orbit, which misses the point.

Both did very well with the villains they used. Rucka's single best achievement in his second run was finally bringing together the disparate elements of Barbara Minerva and how she compares and contrasts with Diana as a symbolic and literal nemesis. Dr. Cyber was given an awesome revamp, and Veronica Cale became a great modern equivalent to the classic Paula von Gunther. Morrison meanwhile used actual Paula in a neat way, and as we said his Psycho was perfect.

I feel really ripped off that he will most likely be wrapping up Earth One without using Priscilla Rich though. Like if we're doing this, let's go all in here.

[Gaius]

I agree that some versions of Wonder Woman certainly aren't hollow. I think both Perez and Rucka had some very clear notions of who Diana is and what she was meant to represent. Unfortunately, the majority of writers who write Wonder Woman don't seem to have that strong a vision, nor does editorial. We'll see if Patty Jenkins & Gal Gadot's version has anything substantial to say in the sequel.

That said, Wonder Woman is also an incredibly difficult character to write well period. I think only Superman comes close in mainstream superhero comics. I don't blame creators for struggling with what to do with her. Yet I think there's something truly special about the character, which is why I keep coming back to her after continually being disappointed by creative team after creative team.

Honestly, I’ve become rather unsympathetic to the statement “Wonder Woman is hard to write for”. Mainly because the more I hear it, the more it sounds like an excuse writers or fans of said writers want to give when a story they wrote involving her or about her didn’t set the world on fire or was recieved well.

[bat39]

Disagree. Especially if those "poor people" were robbing/raping/killing someone at the time. Anarchists. . . we are legitimately in the the era in the U.S. where about half ... or MORE would literally applaud if Elon Musk dressed in body armor one day and beat the snot out of 20+ Antifa Thugs in one sitting live on video. Especially if they were rioting and burning things, in his area of the city... honestly... just the wildfires that could start from that alone give people pause after the recent events.

Not only would "the people" love him... he wouldn't do not one day full day in jail. In court? Sure. In jail? Not statistically. So while the people on these particular boards are of a particular bent about such things. . . we really aren't representative of what society at large things about "what a hero is".

I mean... just how popular was the punisher on netflix for example. All of this question about stadning up to the test of time is a misnomer from my view.

Because... I mean. ... really Clark is an Alien God, smallville is easily idealized america because thats how it was taught to him. WW, needs a war but not really because the world of man is always in conflicts and destruction of the world in some way shape or form. I wouldn't make her a posion ivy level environmentalist or anything, but that is a thing that she'd be aware of. Plus, if she harbors the belief that Matriarchal leadership is a big reason why the world isn't like paradise Island well she's not there yet by far.

Finally... the core conceit of the super-hero genre is

"We accept vigilantism"

We accept it when the police and/or forces or earth aren't strong enough to stop a threat.... in the case of Bats

We accept is it when the police and/or forces of earth aren't' "COMPETENT" enough to protect the status quo.

Gotta agree with you there.

The notion that Batman is 'problematic' only arises if you assume that the whole of America (leave aside the rest of the world) has embraced a left-wing conception of the world, wherein all crime is justified as class warfare, law enforcement is inherently an evil concept, and the wealthy (by which I don't even necessarily mean billionaires, but simply people living a reasonably good life) 'deserve' to be robbed, victimized and killed by 'poor' criminals.

As far as politics go, Batman is only political to the extent that he is an upholder of law and order. If you want to pin him somewhere on the political spectrum, I'd argue that he's somewhere right in the middle. He certainly isn't a crusader for the left-wing or the right-wing (then again, those labels are pretty relative...to a hardcore left-wing, even centrists are right-wingers, and to a hardocre right-winger...well, you get the drift).

I think Batman is pretty class-agnostic when it comes to visiting his wrath upon criminals. He's take down a rich and powerful politician or industrialist as easily as he'd punch the face of a mugger on the street. He respects and supports good cops, but he'd be the first to bring down bad cops.

[SiegePerilous02]

Gotta agree with you there.

The notion that Batman is 'problematic' only arises if you assume that the whole of America (leave aside the rest of the world) has embraced a left-wing conception of the world, wherein all crime is justified as class warfare, law enforcement is inherently an evil concept, and the wealthy (by which I don't even necessarily mean billionaires, but simply people living a reasonably good life) 'deserve' to be robbed, victimized and killed by 'poor' criminals.

As far as politics go, Batman is only political to the extent that he is an upholder of law and order. If you want to pin him somewhere on the political spectrum, I'd argue that he's somewhere right in the middle. He certainly isn't a crusader for the left-wing or the right-wing (then again, those labels are pretty relative...to a hardcore left-wing, even centrists are right-wingers, and to a hardocre right-winger...well, you get the drift).

I think Batman is pretty class-agnostic when it comes to visiting his wrath upon criminals. He's take down a rich and powerful politician or industrialist as easily as he'd punch the face of a mugger on the street. He respects and supports good cops, but he'd be the first to bring down bad cops.

yeah that's really the main way Batman should be looked at. He can slip into problematic territory very easily, but it's not at the core of the character. He dispenses justice against criminals no matter what walk of life they come from; he's about protecting/avenging victims more than punishing the guilty, regardless of which class any of the parties are from. I would want him to intervene and save a woman from getting gang raped in a Gotham alley no matter what, it doesn't matter how wealthy he is or what class the criminals or their victim are.

[Frontier]

I think Batman is pretty class-agnostic when it comes to visiting his wrath upon criminals. He's take down a rich and powerful politician or industrialist as easily as he'd punch the face of a mugger on the street. He respects and supports good cops, but he'd be the first to bring down bad cops.

I think we see this pretty clearly in Year One.

In that story he targets the mob, the corrupt upper class and police, and still finds the time to stop some low level hoodlums stealing a TV.

His whole oath to his parents was to wage war on all criminals.

[iron chimp]

Gotta agree with you there.

The notion that Batman is 'problematic' only arises if you assume that the whole of America (leave aside the rest of the world) has embraced a left-wing conception of the world, wherein all crime is justified as class warfare, law enforcement is inherently an evil concept, and the wealthy (by which I don't even necessarily mean billionaires, but simply people living a reasonably good life) 'deserve' to be robbed, victimized and killed by 'poor' criminals.

As far as politics go, Batman is only political to the extent that he is an upholder of law and order. If you want to pin him somewhere on the political spectrum, I'd argue that he's somewhere right in the middle. He certainly isn't a crusader for the left-wing or the right-wing (then again, those labels are pretty relative...to a hardcore left-wing, even centrists are right-wingers, and to a hardocre right-winger...well, you get the drift).

I think Batman is pretty class-agnostic when it comes to visiting his wrath upon criminals. He's take down a rich and powerful politician or industrialist as easily as he'd punch the face of a mugger on the street. He respects and supports good cops, but he'd be the first to bring down bad cops.

I would agree with that excellent summary but to play devils advocate and because i do think bored at 3am does have make some good points even if i learn towards disagreeing with them:

For example in the 60s tv show hes main protecting dowagers jewels, art collectors and the like. There hes pretty obviously a vigilante of the elite while an incompetent police force do nothing.

Obviously over time hes tackled 'big stories' too but it does seem that more recently there is less of this and more a weird symbiotic relationship between him and a pulp / 'meaningless' rogues gallery codependent on each other rather than actual justice. Can you even tell a 'real' story today ?
(I only read occasional batman trade and catwoman monthly so this is just an ill informed impression)

[PCN24454]

Gotta agree with you there.

The notion that Batman is 'problematic' only arises if you assume that the whole of America (leave aside the rest of the world) has embraced a left-wing conception of the world, wherein all crime is justified as class warfare, law enforcement is inherently an evil concept, and the wealthy (by which I don't even necessarily mean billionaires, but simply people living a reasonably good life) 'deserve' to be robbed, victimized and killed by 'poor' criminals.

As far as politics go, Batman is only political to the extent that he is an upholder of law and order. If you want to pin him somewhere on the political spectrum, I'd argue that he's somewhere right in the middle. He certainly isn't a crusader for the left-wing or the right-wing (then again, those labels are pretty relative...to a hardcore left-wing, even centrists are right-wingers, and to a hardocre right-winger...well, you get the drift).

I think Batman is pretty class-agnostic when it comes to visiting his wrath upon criminals. He's take down a rich and powerful politician or industrialist as easily as he'd punch the face of a mugger on the street. He respects and supports good cops, but he'd be the first to bring down bad cops.

That reminds me of someone’s criticism that the NYPD in Spider-Man PS4 were too nice. Arguably, all the New Yorkers were too nice.

[bat39]

I would agree with that excellent summary but to play devils advocate and because i do think bored at 3am does have make some good points even if i learn towards disagreeing with them:

For example in the 60s tv show hes main protecting dowagers jewels, art collectors and the like. There hes pretty obviously a vigilante of the elite while an incompetent police force do nothing.

Obviously over time hes tackled 'big stories' too but it does seem that more recently there is less of this and more a weird symbiotic relationship between him and a pulp / 'meaningless' rogues gallery codependent on each other rather than actual justice. Can you even tell a 'real' story today ?
(I only read occasional batman trade and catwoman monthly so this is just an ill informed impression)

Well, the 60's Batman is pretty much a cop (a "duly deputized officer of the law"!) And Gotham City on that show was actually a pretty idyllic American city with no real crime rate to speak of, apart from eccentric criminal masterminds with elaborate plots. In the world of that show, protecting jewels and artwork is the primary job of the crime-fighter...no one's pushing drugs or weapons on the streets.

That said, while in general I tend not to care too much for left-wing political critiques of Batman, I've always thought it'd be an interesting exercise to do a kind of modern reboot of the 60's show. Basically, do Batman'66 in a 'realistic' version of 1966, based on modern sensibilities. In an era of political tumult, how would Batman and Robin be perceived by sections of the public, particularly the youth? Would there be pushback against them from counter-culture forces?

[kjn]

Honestly, I’ve become rather unsympathetic to the statement “Wonder Woman is hard to write for”. Mainly because the more I hear it, the more it sounds like an excuse writers or fans of said writers want to give when a story they wrote involving her or about her didn’t set the world on fire or was recieved well.

There is a truth to it, in that fundamentally Wonder Woman is about changing society, and a lot of the writers (and editors) of DC have a poor imagination of a changed society, and a lot of them also have a huge problem of engaging constructively with feminism. Any character is hard to write if you insist on chopping away vital parts of their construction.

It's somewhat similar to the problems that Superman faces on a narrative level today, but on steroids: Superman is the immigrant who believes in America and wants to improve it. It also doesn't help that a lot of comic readers are rather firm in their opinions on their favourite characters.

[iron chimp]

Well, the 60's Batman is pretty much a cop (a "duly deputized officer of the law"!) And Gotham City on that show was actually a pretty idyllic American city with no real crime rate to speak of, apart from eccentric criminal masterminds with elaborate plots. In the world of that show, protecting jewels and artwork is the primary job of the crime-fighter...no one's pushing drugs or weapons on the streets.

That said, while in general I tend not to care too much for left-wing political critiques of Batman, I've always thought it'd be an interesting exercise to do a kind of modern reboot of the 60's show. Basically, do Batman'66 in a 'realistic' version of 1966, based on modern sensibilities. In an era of political tumult, how would Batman and Robin be perceived by sections of the public, particularly the youth? Would there be pushback against them from counter-culture forces?

Yes thats a good idea. People seem interested in issues around representation and identity in comics - stories like that are a good way to make relevant books by examining the past through todays lens - plus you get some cool looking different visuals.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

What difference does being a billionaire make to doling out justice?

Power. The wealthy have it while the rest of the world largely doesn't.

It's the reason why your boss flirting with you is viewed significantly differently than if a coworker does the same thing.

A traumatized billionaire dressing up in body armor to beat the $#@! out of the mentally ill works just fine if it's firmly in the realm of fantasy wish fulfilment, though.

On the other hand, the MCU's Tony Stark worked very well for me, because each movie took pains to explore Stark's actions and the moral implications of them. Nolan's films tried to do that, as well, but did a pretty piss poor job of doing so in the end, and just ended up falling back on fantastical secret societies of ninja assassins despite the realistic trappings.

Granted, Nolan's Batman movies are beloved, so what do I know?