DC characters that are better suited to specific time periods

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The sliding timeline of superhero comics keeps the characters and their origins fresh and relevant so that new audiences can connect with them, but there's something to be said for the idea that some characters are often better suited to specific periods of time than they are to the present day.

This isn't to say that any of the following characters can't work in a modern setting, because there are countless stories in which they've worked just fine set in today's world. I'm simply talking about my personal preferences.

Superman has often been knocked for being a hero that feels outdated because he harkens back to an older sensibility. I think this is one of the reasons that the Donner Superman is so fondly remembered, because it leaned into the idea by having him come from an idealized America that never really was, then skip over the tumultuous 60s and 70s, to arrive in the much more cynical and jaded America that existed in the late 1970s. Stories like Superman Smashes The Klan have also highlighted how wonderfully the character works in his original time period, in which he can more directly face the corruption and fascism he was clearly created to oppose. Again, this isn't to say you can't tell those stories now, but I think they land better if they're set in the past. Your mileage may vary.

Batman is even more complicated, given the enormous inherited wealth the character has and that his entire shtick is extrajudicially enforcing his own justice upon the underclass. If the news suddenly broke that Elon Musk or Donald Trump Jr. were running around New York City in body armor beating up poor people and "anarchists" with the explicit approval of the NYPD, I don't think most people would view them as heroes. The more realistic you make Batman, the more morally abhorrent he becomes, particularly today. However, I think the character works like gangbusters in the 70s and 80s, during which street crime in New York was a particularly big problem, rather than the modern NYC that has largely solved street crime by making the city unlivable for anyone who isn't rich. I think you can also lean into the superhero of it all, as Batman Universe did, and sidestep the problem, but if DC is intent on taking a realistic approach to Batman, they've got to figure out how to not make him someone Fox News would love.

Wonder Woman's origin works much better for me set in the past when women had far less social status and during a global war because it more directly connects to the characters two most compelling aspects, her feminism and her mission of peace. This isn't to say that either of these two goals have been accomplished, but the idea of a powerful female champion arriving in Man's World lacks the same oomph today after all the gains that feminism has managed to win, then it does in the early to mid 20th Century, when women had just barely been granted the right to vote and held no positions of political power.

With The Flash, you've got so many different ones, so there's less of a problem. Jay Garrick is a man of the 40s, but I think he's been a more effective character as a mentor in the present than he ever was in his prime. While Barry Allen is very much a creation of the 1950s, I think he works just as well today. Wally West's heydays were in the 90s, but his old status quo as a celebrity superhero would work just as well today.

The Green Lanterns are similar. I love the new wrinkle of Alan Scott as a closeted man from the 1940s. I look forward to how that gets explored, particularly how his marriages are handled (which will be pretty tricky). New Frontier proved pretty definitively in my mind that Hal Jordan works best in the era of the Space Race that spawned him, when test pilots and astronauts were the coolest human beings around. John Stewart was very much a 70s creation of a black hero born out of the good intentions of white creators. I think he's grown since then, largely thanks to the work of the late great Dwayne McDuffie, but I think the character works in any time period. Guy was very much a Reagan era hero, but loudmouthed hot heads are timeless. Kyle is, unfortunately, a very, very '90s character and I don't think anyone has managed to figure out what to do with him outside of that time.

[Frontier]

I can't think of any character at DC who is particularly beholden to a specific era other than, I guess, the JSA heroes because of how much WWII is part of their backstory, but I feel like there is enough verisimilitude to the Big Seven and others to where they can be used to tell stories across many different periods of time.

You can do a Golden/Silver Age Superman in Superman Smashes the Klan, a Batman in a victorian setting in Gotham by Gaslight, or a WWII era Wonder Woman in Legend of Wonder Woman, but just as easily make them relevant to the modern era as with most modern stories.

[Dboi2001]

Batman is even more complicated, given the enormous inherited wealth the character has and that his entire shtick is extrajudicially enforcing his own justice upon the underclass. If the news suddenly broke that Elon Musk or Donald Trump Jr. were running around New York City in body armor beating up poor people and "anarchists" with the explicit approval of the NYPD, I don't think most people would view them as heroes.

You really think it is morally abhorrent for Batman to go after psychopaths like Joker and Two-Face? Most Batman villains are certainly not poor. You also ignore the fact Bruce Wayne is the single biggest philanthropist and donates millions to reforming ex-cons. That is why he doesn't kill because ideally his villains should be given a chance to reform (and to his credit some have)

Anyways the JSA definitely need to be a WW2 era team. I know they explain that they slowed down their aging because of radiation but they work the best as idealist 1950s WW2 superheroes. Suicide Squad also as a 70s-80s era with maybe an early 2000s period working as well. Doom Patrol also should be a 50s-70s team. Besides that most superheroes work at any period.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

You really think it is morally abhorrent for Batman to go after psychopaths like Joker and Two-Face?

Well, the closest we've got to people like that would be serial killers like Ted Bundy, BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Paul Bernardo. Would you be okay with the FBI or the NYPD allowing Elon Musk to dress up in body armor and go after these guys using extrajudicial means that would allow any decent defense lawyer to help their clients go free?

Most Batman villains are certainly not poor. You also ignore the fact Bruce Wayne is the single biggest philanthropist and donates millions to reforming ex-cons. That is why he doesn't kill because ideally his villains should be given a chance to reform (and to his credit some have)

Most of the henchmen and street thugs that we regularly see Batman fighting are most definitely poor and are almost certainly given severe crippling injuries that they no doubt can't afford given that none of them would have health insurance. I think O'Neil's notion that Batman also helps the poor through the Wayne Foundation was a fantastic one and absolutely necessary, but it strains credulity that any billionaire would have enough money to pay for the endless array of high-tech gadgets that Batman has while also paying for all the social programs required for all the mental and physical rehabilitation of all the henchmen he's bludgeoning his way through on a daily basis.

Again, if you're going full-tilt superhero Batman, none of these concerns really matter. It's a fantasy world that only vaguely connects with our reality. However, since various creators seem to keep wanting a more grounded realistic Batman, they've got to face up to the idea that a realistic Batman is a terrifying idea that few sane people would find even remotely heroic.

[Dboi2001]

Well, the closest we've got to people like that would be serial killers like Ted Bundy, BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Paul Bernardo. Would you be okay with the FBI or the NYPD allowing Elon Musk to dress up in body armor and go after these guys using extrajudicial means that would allow any decent defense lawyer to help their clients go free?

No but at the same time Joker is 20x worse than all those guys combined and constantly escape the police so I'm not sure what I would think. The same logic applies to all superheroes. Would you be fine with a kid in tights webbing up criminals too?

Most of the henchmen and street thugs that we regularly see Batman fighting are most definitely poor and are almost certainly given severe crippling injuries that they no doubt can't afford given that none of them would have health insurance. I think O'Neil's notion that Batman also helps the poor through the Wayne Foundation was a fantastic one and absolutely necessary, but it strains credulity that any billionaire would have enough money to pay for the endless array of high-tech gadgets that Batman has while also paying for all the social programs required for all the mental and physical rehabilitation of all the henchmen he's bludgeoning his way through on a daily basis.

Again, if you're going full-tilt superhero Batman, none of these concerns really matter. It's a fantasy world that only vaguely connects with our reality. However, since various creators seem to keep wanting a more grounded realistic Batman, they've got to face up to the idea that a realistic Batman is a terrifying idea that few sane people would find even remotely heroic.

We have seen multiple times that the henchmen are often just as sadistic and cruel as the people they work for and are rarely your sympathetic average Joe who is trying to make ends me. We do occasionally and we see Batman give some sympathies to them but the majority are straight up bad people. You also get medical treatment in prison that is usually subsidized.

Much of Wayne's money is funneled through various companies. In recent years they've played up the importance of Lucius Fox as the guy who gets Batman his toys

Which writers? Christopher Nolan maybe. Zack Snyder and Goyer both certainly played up the horror aspect of Batman in BvS. In Batman Year One the GCPD and the media are both against Batman. Typically Batman origins start off with him being a public menace like in Arkham Origins but eventually Gordon realizes that they need Batman to reel in the crazies in Gotham and begin a partnership with him. But I can't think of many writer who put Batman in a necessarily realistic setting besides Elseworld stories like TDKR.

[SiegePerilous02]

Morrison was right to lean more into the superhero aspect/adventurer aspects of Batman in his run. There may be a quote out there from him about it, but I think he said you can only do so much of Batman punching thugs and street criminals before it starts to make him look incredibly bad due to his wealth. That's why for the majority of his run, he fights OTT super crime, a cabal of sinister wealthy assholes and even corrupt cops far more than he does street crime (if any at all). It's even pointed out how the Joker doesn't give a crap about money and has flushed more money down the toiler than the Black Glove combined, and from what I recall the only bit of torture Batman engages in is against Charlie Caligula, and thankfully only when he's off his rocker (not "in character").

They need to move Batman further and further away from the right-wing power fantasy he can unfortunately (and easily) slip into at times thanks primarily to Miller, and bring Hairy Chested Love God back. It's this 80s vision of Batman that is dated and doesn't work anymore, but I don't think the general trappings or wealth is dated outside of that take. Especially as the money is largely there as a convenient plot device. I have an easy time believing Bruce somehow has enough money to finance being Batman while using money to help Gotham's citizens less fortunate then himself because that's hardly the most insane thing about the universe he lives in. He ideally should clean up Gotham's normal corruption within a year with his wealth and Gordon's help and have normal crime rates drop off, leaving the Joker and the rest as very loud outliers.

[Noodle]

Sgt. Rock works best as a WWII character, maybe Vietnam at most. Any war after that doesn't really fit him.

Jonah Hex is a western character. They've tried in the past to modernize him and it never works. He's best as a character of that time frame.

Going in the opposite direction, characters like Booster Gold, Kamandi and the Legion have to be tied to the future.

[Frontier]

Morrison was right to lean more into the superhero aspect/adventurer aspects of Batman in his run. There may be a quote out there from him about it, but I think he said you can only do so much of Batman punching thugs and street criminals before it starts to make him look incredibly bad due to his wealth. That's why for the majority of his run, he fights OTT super crime, a cabal of sinister wealthy assholes and even corrupt cops far more than he does street crime (if any at all). It's even pointed out how the Joker doesn't give a crap about money and has flushed more money down the toiler than the Black Glove combined, and from what I recall the only bit of torture Batman engages in is against Charlie Caligula, and thankfully only when he's off his rocker (not "in character").

To be honest, I can't really see a Morrison comic where the hero focuses more on street crime or the nitty gritty stuff, so I would have never expected that from him. If I recall Dini was doing more smaller scale, crime based, stories in his 'Tec run alongside Morrison's run so you had a decent balance of Batman stories.

I tend to think most general audiences don't really overthink Batman fighting and beating the tar out of normal criminals. I mean, it's 90% of what playing an Arkham game is about.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

No but at the same time Joker is 20x worse than all those guys combined and constantly escape the police so I'm not sure what I would think. The same logic applies to all superheroes. Would you be fine with a kid in tights webbing up criminals too?

Since Spider-Man is firmly in the sci-fi/fantasy world, I don't have a problem with it, anymore than I do with a Harry Potter running around shooting magic everywhere. Again, if Batman is played as straight up fantasy, I don't think there's a problem. If Joker is so far removed from anything resembling reality, then whatever Batman does is also untethered to any reasonable concerns we'd have about his methods, as there's no conceivable version of America in which a guy like Joker wouldn't have been straight up killed by a cop, Seal Team 6, or anyone with a gun.

We have seen multiple times that the henchmen are often just as sadistic and cruel as the people they work for and are rarely your sympathetic average Joe who is trying to make ends me. We do occasionally and we see Batman give some sympathies to them but the majority are straight up bad people. You also get medical treatment in prison that is usually subsidized.

Much of Wayne's money is funneled through various companies. In recent years they've played up the importance of Lucius Fox as the guy who gets Batman his toys

Which writers? Christopher Nolan maybe. Zack Snyder and Goyer both certainly played up the horror aspect of Batman in BvS. In Batman Year One the GCPD and the media are both against Batman. Typically Batman origins start off with him being a public menace like in Arkham Origins but eventually Gordon realizes that they need Batman to reel in the crazies in Gotham and begin a partnership with him. But I can't think of many writer who put Batman in a necessarily realistic setting besides Elseworld stories like TDKR.

Denny O'Neil, who shepherded the Batman books for more than a decade, was very much an advocate for taking a realistic approach to the character and you can draw a straight line from that take on Batman to what Christopher Nolan did. I could be wrong, but it seems like Matt Reeves' The Batman will be taking a similar tack. Zack Snyder's Batman, on the other hand, was so heightened and stylized that I don't really have any issues with his version. Same deal with Burton and Schumacher's equally outrageous interpretations.

Pitting Batman against corrupt cops is a necessary component to making the character work today, just as it was for Frank Miller's revamp in the late '80s. If they lean into that and the superhero elements of the character, I don't see it being a problem moving forward in any time period.

However, if anyone wants to take a realistic approach to Batman in a modern setting, they've got to grapple with the deeply troubling notion of a billionaire running around the city violating citizens' civil rights with the full approval of the police department.

[Dboi2001]

Since Spider-Man is firmly in the sci-fi/fantasy world, I don't have a problem with it, anymore than I do with a Harry Potter running around shooting magic everywhere. Again, if Batman is played as straight up fantasy, I don't think there's a problem. If Joker is so far removed from anything resembling reality, then whatever Batman does is also untethered to any reasonable concerns we'd have about his methods, as there's no conceivable version of America in which a guy like Joker wouldn't have been straight up killed by a cop, Seal Team 6, or anyone with a gun.



Denny O'Neil, who shepherded the Batman books for more than a decade, was very much an advocate for taking a realistic approach to the character and you can draw a straight line from that take on Batman to what Christopher Nolan did. I could be wrong, but it seems like Matt Reeves' The Batman will be taking a similar tack. Zack Snyder's Batman, on the other hand, was so heightened and stylized that I don't really have any issues with his version. Same deal with Burton and Schumacher's equally outrageous interpretations.

Pitting Batman against corrupt cops is a necessary component to making the character work today, just as it was for Frank Miller's revamp in the late '80s. If they lean into that and the superhero elements of the character, I don't see it being a problem moving forward in any time period.

However, if anyone wants to take a realistic approach to Batman in a modern setting, they've got to grapple with the deeply troubling notion of a billionaire running around the city violating citizens' civil rights with the full approval of the police department.

Seriously? Batman isn’t any less sci-fi than Spider-Man. You seem to be putting a big emphasis on Batman being rich as if rich people can’t do anything good. Like if he was poor it’d be okay to beat up criminals

TBH I wouldn’t want any superheroes to exist in the real world because it’s too much power for one person to have. However for the most part Batman works perfectly fine in a vaguely modernish setting. Gotham is constantly showed to be a hellhole (which i don’t understand your point about NYC having low crime Gotham isn’t NYC) and has a big corruption problem and where mobsters still thrive. And again even henchmen are typically depicted as cruel and uncaring as well

[Gaius]

Maybe Captain Marvel, though I'd say he's probably better more in his own universe/separate corner than some specific time period like the 30s/40s.

Wonder Woman's origin works much better for me set in the past when women had far less social status and during a global war because it more directly connects to the characters two most compelling aspects, her feminism and her mission of peace. This isn't to say that either of these two goals have been accomplished, but the idea of a powerful female champion arriving in Man's World lacks the same oomph today after all the gains that feminism has managed to win, then it does in the early to mid 20th Century, when women had just barely been granted the right to vote and held no positions of political power.
.

I can get debuting in one of the World Wars works in conjunction with her ambassador for peace gimmick and stuff like the first season of the show, the movie, and LOWW have gotten some use out of it but it's not like that can't be updated like it was in the 80s. And it's not like issues of feminism have really gone away either in the U.S. or globally. Obviously there's been gains since her creation but it's not like there's new issues, or even ones still being grabbled with, that weren't even in consideration back in the 40s.

[PCN24454]

Certain concepts haven’t aged well like “getting your superpowers through lightning” or “secret society of gorillas”.

In that sense, the Flash hasn’t aged well.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Certain concepts haven’t aged well like “getting your superpowers through lightning” or “secret society of gorillas”.

In that sense, the Flash hasn’t aged well.

If the lightning is actually extra-dimensional energy and the gorillas have sufficient technology to keep themselves hidden from the outside world, I don't see the problem.

[iron chimp]

Batman is still relevant today - its just that DC dont want to tell relevant stories or that todays threats are far more complicated and far less visual than in the past.

Huge banks of servers holding everyones personalties, tech companies posing a threat to democracy, crime and wars fought over fibre optic cables isnt something a global media tech company is probably going to want to say in books.

[Restingvoice]

Not the character but Superman and Batman's trunk
Not only because people don't watch Circus anymore, not only because Circus people wear one piece these days, but also because the shape of the trunk looks like a it's from older decades.

Superman adjusted his relevancy by focusing on immigrants and racism, Wonder Woman on sexual freedom by making Themyscira L and B, but it is kinda rare because like we established, DC only thinks of superhero stories as fighting or hero vs villains that they even make a story about mental health into murder mystery.

About Batman, they move forward and backward at the same time by making the villains of Arkham more sympathetic and the Batfam focusing on healing them, but also making Gotham and Arkham itself a cursed old haunted house. Not just that, but Batman's own psyche and their fans/writers demand that Batman should be solo and brooding and the villains still villains, ignoring the healing part of the Batfam in order to preserve the status quo.

Trying to do all this at the same time making Batman status quo a groundhog decade of madness, which also feeds into the image that all of their mental illness is a doomed, incurable horror show.

and I haven't gotten into the cops yet.

Here they're lucky that they've been depicting the GCPD and BPD as mostly corrupt since forever, so it fits, but there's also Jim's back story.

I don't know if they want to keep Jim Gordon's back story of shooting to death a couple of robbers and sending their son into juvie, while Gordon himself was only transferred to Chicago, and manage to grow into a hero cop years later once he's back to Gotham while the son grew into a supervillain cop killer, but I want to see if someone dare to take on this story again some day.