DC characters that are better suited to specific time periods

[Agent Z]

Why does deadpool talk to mid air? I know the guy is crazy. So, shouldn't people in universe put him in mental asylum. How the hell does harley use that giant hammer? You would think the weight distribution would be bad.People have taken superman's secret id so seriously. Sheesh!this whole thing is kinda like batmobile's tires going flat.

Deadpool would be too disruptive in a mental health facility and Harley has super strength.

[manwhohaseverything]

Deadpool would be too disruptive in a mental health facility and Harley has super strength.

Then put him with the joker. Either they will both go sane or they will kill each other. It would be a win-win for everyone except them. Since, deadpool can't die. Must be why harley beats up everyone.

[kjn]

I honestly think the DC Universe as a whole is best set in a time before the widespread use of cell phones and the internet. Perhaps keep everything around the timing of the New Frontier

I have absolutely nothing against DC doing period pieces, but I think shifting over to a permanent silver age-equivalent would be giving up about any hope of market relevancy.

I've noted two different trends here in popular fiction. One is of course present-day stories. The other is stories set in some form of mythologised time. Common such examples are Second World War stories, Westerns, Regency Romances, and Mediaeval stories. But note that most of them support only a single kind of story: like war stories, or stories of rugged individualism, or romances. And they are established over a very long time.

BTAS might seem like it contradicts this, but it was using the noir mythological framework. For all that I like and appreciate New Frontier, I do think that it reached its success despite the period it was set in, not because of it.

[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

[Bored at 3:00AM]

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

Gotham City was based on NYC. However, now, I think it's just meant to represent the worst city imaginable

I have kind of talked the whole rich person stuff to death, so you can simply go over all my other replies about it if you are interested. Suffice it to say, it's a little more complicated than rich people = bad.

[son_ofgolem]

JONAH hex sergeant rock.

[DrNewGod]

The Hawk and The Dove were truly creatures of the Late-1960s in the US. Candidly, they should have been left there.

[Cyberstrike]

JONAH hex sergeant rock.

Hex is a western character and should IMHO stay there maybe he meets some of the modern day superheroes in time travel and various multiverse crisis every so often.

Sergeant Rock on the other hand you could do a military family type legacy character with the first one being in WWII. Followed by his son in Vietnam, then the third generation in the war on terror type conflicts each dealing the horrors, moral issues of wars that are somewhat morally grey, changes in the way the US military is viewed, family life, and etc. This might work for a more realistic Sgt. Rock comic that isn't set in a universe that doesn't have superheroes in it that aren't comic books, movies, TV shows, video games, and etc in the book itself.

[Restingvoice]

The Hawk and The Dove were truly creatures of the Late-1960s in the US. Candidly, they should have been left there.

How so? War and Peace are still going on today.

--

About Batman, Oracle and Cyborg have access to everyone's phones and computers and can delete those data. Spyral, the keeper of secrets that are keeping the world safe, has a worldwide mindwipe satellite.

[DrNewGod]

How so? War and Peace are still going on today.

The American argument they were meant to embody is not.

[John Venus]

Superman was created during the Great Depression and the early years of WW2. Likewise, WW was created at a time when women had very few rights and only a decade or so prior had gotten the right to vote and it would be a few decades more before non-white women got the right to vote. These characters weren't created during idyllic times they were created as a reaction against forces that were at play. Superman was the ubermench thrown, the ordinary man with the power to bring about positive change in society against forces beyond ordinary men. Captain America was Hitler's aryan ideal come to life to sock him in the face. Black Panther and Falcon were created during the Civil Rights movement. Likewise, Kamala Khan wasn't created because America was suddenly accepting of muslims or immigrants but as a response against the tide of racism and oppression and to promote positive cultural dialogue.

Superman is more relevant now than ever when you focus on the angle of him being an immigrant, middle class journalist whose greatest enemy is a corrupt xenophobic billionaire. It's always been my belief that the reason why Superman has been so successful on the silver screen while Batman thrived in animation is because one you get past the aliens, Superman's world is real world based. The Daily Planet and Lex Corp have real world equivalents.

Wonder Woman is like a feminist litmus test. It took a quarter of a century for DC to accept WW being bi and by extension the Amazons were lesbians and bisexual. So long as women's rights keep advancing the closer WW herself comes to achieving her full potential. There is a still a long way to go. I keep seeing clips of Nextflix's She-Ra and can't help but think 'where is the multi season WW cartoon show?'.

Batman is one of the most adaptive characters ever. The 50/60's smiling Batman couldn't be anymore different from the brooding, moody borderline insane Batman from the 80's and 90's. I think the constant need to double down on the darkness and edginess has hindered the character. Brave and the Bold and the Adam West based DTV movies have shown that there is still a place for a lighter Batman. A lot of people look at panels of Batman murdering people in the Kane/Finger stories and devolve him into a Punisher but they forget that Finger described Batman as 'Sherlock Holmes meets Douglas Fairbanks' (Douglas played Zoro and did his own stunts). From the 40's-80's, the average Batman stories involved him solving mysteries. If Batman doesn't have a core decency, intellectual acumen and not making a genuine difference, then he is just a glorified thug in a Bat suit.

For Batman to evolve through new 20's and more, I think :

-Stories and adaptations will take cues from Telltale Batman. The Joker movie and the Black Label comic have both followed up on the idea of Thomas Wayne being an evil bastard. This also seems to be the route that the Matt Reeves movie is taking with Riddler trying to hold Batman accountable for something. In Sean Murphy's White Knight we learn that the Wayne fortune was gained through illicit means. It shifts Batman's mission from one of vengeance to one of atonement. Fixing the city that his family broke and the guilt provides justification for putting himself on the line and not just donating to charity. Making Thomas evil also gives the opportunity to make Martha the force for good in Bruce's life and afterwards Alfred.

-Make Bruce a millionaire instead of a billionaire. People still underestimate the scale of wealth a billionaire has. That's enough money to affect things on a national/global level. At that level, what's the point of dressing up as Batman? He could do more good donating money than he could dressing up as Batman and if he does it doesn't reflect very well on the character. Bill Gates donated enough $$$$ to help end polio in Africa. If he is a millionaire, it limits his influence, he has to find a way to keep making money to continue his operations and it forces him to take a more active role in Wayne Enterprises because there will be other businesses competing or trying to take over his business.

The other option would that Wayne Enterprises is run by someone else while Bruce has a limited amount of money and that he has to fight his family's company as much as he has to fight his criminals.

More importantly he needs to go back to his original mission statement of being a Sherlock Holmes/Zoro combo.

[bat39]

Superman was created during the Great Depression and the early years of WW2. Likewise, WW was created at a time when women had very few rights and only a decade or so prior had gotten the right to vote and it would be a few decades more before non-white women got the right to vote. These characters weren't created during idyllic times they were created as a reaction against forces that were at play. Superman was the ubermench thrown, the ordinary man with the power to bring about positive change in society against forces beyond ordinary men. Captain America was Hitler's aryan ideal come to life to sock him in the face. Black Panther and Falcon were created during the Civil Rights movement. Likewise, Kamala Khan wasn't created because America was suddenly accepting of muslims or immigrants but as a response against the tide of racism and oppression and to promote positive cultural dialogue.

Superman is more relevant now than ever when you focus on the angle of him being an immigrant, middle class journalist whose greatest enemy is a corrupt xenophobic billionaire. It's always been my belief that the reason why Superman has been so successful on the silver screen while Batman thrived in animation is because one you get past the aliens, Superman's world is real world based. The Daily Planet and Lex Corp have real world equivalents.

Wonder Woman is like a feminist litmus test. It took a quarter of a century for DC to accept WW being bi and by extension the Amazons were lesbians and bisexual. So long as women's rights keep advancing the closer WW herself comes to achieving her full potential. There is a still a long way to go. I keep seeing clips of Nextflix's She-Ra and can't help but think 'where is the multi season WW cartoon show?'.

Batman is one of the most adaptive characters ever. The 50/60's smiling Batman couldn't be anymore different from the brooding, moody borderline insane Batman from the 80's and 90's. I think the constant need to double down on the darkness and edginess has hindered the character. Brave and the Bold and the Adam West based DTV movies have shown that there is still a place for a lighter Batman. A lot of people look at panels of Batman murdering people in the Kane/Finger stories and devolve him into a Punisher but they forget that Finger described Batman as 'Sherlock Holmes meets Douglas Fairbanks' (Douglas played Zoro and did his own stunts). From the 40's-80's, the average Batman stories involved him solving mysteries. If Batman doesn't have a core decency, intellectual acumen and not making a genuine difference, then he is just a glorified thug in a Bat suit.

For Batman to evolve through new 20's and more, I think :

-Stories and adaptations will take cues from Telltale Batman. The Joker movie and the Black Label comic have both followed up on the idea of Thomas Wayne being an evil bastard. This also seems to be the route that the Matt Reeves movie is taking with Riddler trying to hold Batman accountable for something. In Sean Murphy's White Knight we learn that the Wayne fortune was gained through illicit means. It shifts Batman's mission from one of vengeance to one of atonement. Fixing the city that his family broke and the guilt provides justification for putting himself on the line and not just donating to charity. Making Thomas evil also gives the opportunity to make Martha the force for good in Bruce's life and afterwards Alfred.

-Make Bruce a millionaire instead of a billionaire. People still underestimate the scale of wealth a billionaire has. That's enough money to affect things on a national/global level. At that level, what's the point of dressing up as Batman? He could do more good donating money than he could dressing up as Batman and if he does it doesn't reflect very well on the character. Bill Gates donated enough $$$$ to help end polio in Africa. If he is a millionaire, it limits his influence, he has to find a way to keep making money to continue his operations and it forces him to take a more active role in Wayne Enterprises because there will be other businesses competing or trying to take over his business.

The other option would that Wayne Enterprises is run by someone else while Bruce has a limited amount of money and that he has to fight his family's company as much as he has to fight his criminals.

More importantly he needs to go back to his original mission statement of being a Sherlock Holmes/Zoro combo.

Regarding your points about Batman - all of this assumes that the future of America is 100% left-wing and anti-capitalist, if Thomas Wayne and Wayne Enterprises have to be evil in order for Batman to be 'relevant'.

You do have a point about scale though. Which is why I prefer that if Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, he's still a relatively 'less wealthy' billionaire and not Bill Gates or Carlos Slim rich. He's got a global conglomerate, a limitless personal budget, and significant influence in his hometown - but he isn't one of the most powerful and influential people on the globe. He doesn't have the influence to end polio in Africa - hell, he doesn't really have the power to end police corruption in Gotham!

That's leaving aside the fact that donating money alone isn't going to end Gotham's crime problem overnight.

[SiegePerilous02]

I'd rather leave Thomas alone. Much like the flawed execution of Pa Kent in MOS (though not as bad as people claim) or Hippolyta ruling over a society that kills their male sex partners and trades male babies for weapons, making Thomas evil where he wasn't before just to stay topical seems ill advised.

Rotten apples further back in the family tree (even beginning at the grandparents)? Go nuts. I have no problem believing there was a lot of shady **** in the Wayne family legacy. But I think the goal to make up for the family's past sins should start at Thomas (and Martha).

[iron chimp]

Regarding your points about Batman - all of this assumes that the future of America is 100% left-wing and anti-capitalist, if Thomas Wayne and Wayne Enterprises have to be evil in order for Batman to be 'relevant'.

You do have a point about scale though. Which is why I prefer that if Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, he's still a relatively 'less wealthy' billionaire and not Bill Gates or Carlos Slim rich. He's got a global conglomerate, a limitless personal budget, and significant influence in his hometown - but he isn't one of the most powerful and influential people on the globe. He doesn't have the influence to end polio in Africa - hell, he doesn't really have the power to end police corruption in Gotham!

That's leaving aside the fact that donating money alone isn't going to end Gotham's crime problem overnight.

When a computer game developer can be sold for $7.5bn, a multimillion dollar tech company is basically useless.

Yes you could say ok why hasnt he sorted out drinking water in africa then or whatever. But then why hasnt africa been able to sort out clean water itself. If youve lived in Africa then its pretty obvious why, because huge swathes of it are run by thieves, warlords, kleptocracies, and sharia who have zero interest in putting in any infrastructure at all. Instead they just steal everything and siphon it off. Western money coming in to replace gvt responsibility just perpetuates some absolute rotten rulers power.

Of course no one wants to read that in a batman comic and this is one of the problems with trying to analyse basic comic plot devices too much - you just end up with pretty crass and basic conclusions

[Kaitou D. Kid]

For Batman to evolve through new 20's and more, I think :

-Stories and adaptations will take cues from Telltale Batman. The Joker movie and the Black Label comic have both followed up on the idea of Thomas Wayne being an evil bastard. This also seems to be the route that the Matt Reeves movie is taking with Riddler trying to hold Batman accountable for something. In Sean Murphy's White Knight we learn that the Wayne fortune was gained through illicit means. It shifts Batman's mission from one of vengeance to one of atonement. Fixing the city that his family broke and the guilt provides justification for putting himself on the line and not just donating to charity. Making Thomas evil also gives the opportunity to make Martha the force for good in Bruce's life and afterwards Alfred.

-Make Bruce a millionaire instead of a billionaire. People still underestimate the scale of wealth a billionaire has. That's enough money to affect things on a national/global level. At that level, what's the point of dressing up as Batman? He could do more good donating money than he could dressing up as Batman and if he does it doesn't reflect very well on the character. Bill Gates donated enough $$$$ to help end polio in Africa. If he is a millionaire, it limits his influence, he has to find a way to keep making money to continue his operations and it forces him to take a more active role in Wayne Enterprises because there will be other businesses competing or trying to take over his business.

The other option would that Wayne Enterprises is run by someone else while Bruce has a limited amount of money and that he has to fight his family's company as much as he has to fight his criminals.

The Waynes' connection to Wayne Enterprises is already supercifial. Bruce spends most of his time in a day donating to charities, and Thomas was primarily a doctor.

The problem with the poverty argument is that a lot of Batman's villains are already very privileged. Also while poverty is the main cause of crime, I don't know if all crime can be solely attributed to it (at least in the case of most supervilains I don't think it can - the factors that create supervilains are bit more complicated than the factors that lead to ordinary criminals). Some form of community protection program similar to Batman will probably always have to exist.