Does The Other Side of DC universe tarnish the DC superheroes?

[HandofPrometheus]

I wish people would realize that Ridley wrote in the perspective of the characters and not his. Theres nothing being tarnished because Ridley is not writing about how Superman is ignorant but instead how this character sees how Superman is.

And as someone just said, their perspective comes off either too judgemental or wrong and they then learn something about themselves.

[atomicskull]

That shouldn't be that surprising. Batman is a popular whipping boy at the moment.

And it's honestly well-deserved imo

[Riv86672]

I think of it less as tarnishing, and more of showing the point of view of certain street-level heroes and their views on A-Listers "Big Boy Scout" heroes (Kinda like the TV Series "Invincible" when Titan said to Invincible "Let me show you what you don't see up there!")

^^^in universe, that’s spot on.

Story wise (and in just my opinion) it’s a case of the creator(s) making one character look good at the expense of another.
Some creators can’t seem to do the former without doing the latter.

[Jody Garland]

If this tarnishes the big wigs, "Must There Be a Superman?" (from 1972) and Green Lantern #76 (from 1970) alchemically turned them into pure iron oxide. Comparing, contrasting and look at how superheroes interact with real world issues has been part and parcel of the tools of the Superhero genre for at least 51 years now. It doesn't make Superman look bad, nor was Ridley trying to. Especially not with having a well-known and somewhat unlikable loudmouth like Bronze Age Black Lightning as the viewpoint in question.

[HsssH]

My issue with the series is not that someone says something negative about hero X, but that editors and writers did lots of stupid things back then (they still do today!) and the blame is shifted from them to characters. No, Titans ain't assholes for ignoring Karen's and Mal's wedding, either writer or a editor figured that nobody is going to care about two black characters getting married and thats why it was so low key. That editor or writer is an *******, not Titans. Same for drugs, serial killers and wars. Its not that superheroes can't solve "real problems" or that they ignore them, but that editors/writers don't want to go there.

I wish people would realize that Ridley wrote in the perspective of the characters and not his.

Unfortunately I think that whole perspective thing is lost art at this point. Everyone just assumes that everything character X says is true.

[Johnrevenge]

I wish people would realize that Ridley wrote in the perspective of the characters and not his. Theres nothing being tarnished because Ridley is not writing about how Superman is ignorant but instead how this character sees how Superman is.

And as someone just said, their perspective comes off either too judgemental or wrong and they then learn something about themselves.

Yes exactly. The issues showed how the main character of each story sees other heroes around them.

[charliehustle415]

Identity Crisis tarnished the DC heroes more than anything Ridley wrote

[Jabare]

to view this as tarnishing heroes in any way would be missing the point and the context of the comic

Especially when there are comics such as The Dark Knight Returns, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, Wonder Woman: The True Amazon, Injustice, Infinite Crisis, Infinity Crisis, Flashpoint, Emerald Twilight etc. etc.

if no one is raising a stink about comics like these, that come out all the time mind you. I have to question why this comic is supposedly raising such a stink

[Aahz]

No, Titans ain't assholes for ignoring Karen's and Mal's wedding, either writer or a editor figured that nobody is going to care about two black characters getting married and thats why it was so low key.

I think it was more like, "those characters haven't appeared in a while so wouldn't it be nice if they had married between their last appearance and now" (I'm actually not really sure when it was first said that they got married).

It just doesn't make much sense to make a wedding issue for two relatively obscure characters that aren't even appearing regularly in any book.

[bat39]

Not really, because it’s not as if Ridley is making any thing up to make characters look bad in the series. Like every criticism against say Batman or the Teen Titans for instance is from the specific point of view of a character who was actually involved with a previous story from the era but now we are in the POV characters headspace from those events that may not have been touched on back when the story came out.

Also there are plenty of times throughout each story where Ridley flips the discussion back on the main characters because they were wrong or learned something new along the way. Examples are Black Lightning learning why did he ever hate John Stewart, Mal and Karen as they talk about Supergirl and how Superman hid her away but it was because of his fear of losing her, and etc. Ridley in the last issue even pushes the spot light on Black Lightning by questioning his feelings those in same sex relationships through the lens of his daughter.

Ridley in the entire series isn’t necessarily saying these characters are wrong or right in there treatment he’s showing you a preexisting history and showing it to you through the eyes of actual characters who did not get the focus previously in those stories.

Pretty much this.

The way I see it, in real life, we have plenty of people who dislike or have a certain less-than-flattering perception of some prominent figure (be it a politician, actor, businessman or some other kind of celebrity), and social media (and even mainstream media) gives them an audience for their 'controversial' views. Sometimes, you have people who are personally associated with these prominent individuals and have a window to their world which ordinary citizens don't...they know where the dirty linen is (or are aware that there even is dirty linen the public knows nothing about) and/or simply get to see these individuals as people and not as the flawless paragons they may be seen as by their fans.

I think this is basically what Ridley's series does. These characters have an insight into the worlds of the A-list heroes that most people (in and out of universe) don't, and they are sharing that perspective with us. And sometimes, their perspective doesn't match up to our perceptions of those heroes. Which is okay, because they aren't 100% right, but neither are they likely 100% wrong either.

[lemonpeace]

if you interpreted it as "tarnishing" or "making x character look good at the expense of y character" you missed the point of the series and likely need to really look at and within yourself as to why you feel that way. simple as that.

[Darrin Kelley]

The thing I think is tarnishing DC? Having Events be front and center. And the dominant role that places them above the importance of the individual monthly titles

It's to the point now that nearly every book DC puts out has to have a tie-in with whatever Event that raises its head. It's a dngerous piece of role reversal that is costing DC Comics dearly. And is making actually following the monthly books almost impossible for new readership.

New readership is where the focus should be. Treating every comic as someone's first. Like they did in the 70's and 80's.

But right now, the books are either being written for the sake of eventual trade paperback version. Or written to prop up Events. And honestly? That's unsustainable.

[Stanlos]

Hi guys

Do you think that The Other Side of DC universe tranches the legacy of DC superheroes, like Superman and Wonder Woman?

Because through it's issues I find that while it does shine the spot on lesser known heroes like thunder, Black Lightning, and Katina it also shames heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman for almost no reason.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that they explore these characters and their issues but I feel like trashing Superman and Wonder woman for no real reason is disrespectful. Take for example Thunder's issue with Wonder Woman, her argument is that the media doesn't show the carnage that is left from her fight to save the planet and only praises her work. A lot of comic books and parodies have tackled this issue before, so why did they find it necessary for it to be tackled again? And the article described Thunder's view as "Superman and Wonder woman are like The Boys", how did they come up with this conclusion?
One is a bunch of guys legitimately saving the world, while the other is a bunch of guys craving media attention and power.

Another example is Katina's jealousy for Superman, the main point of that issue was that Superman was accepted more than her because of his skin and not for what he did to be likeable.

I like The Other Side of DC universe, but I feel it didn't need to attack Superman, Wonder woman, or any other hero. They can cause damage when they fight crime, albeit minor, they can't save everyone just like the other heroes can't.

So what do you guys think?

Does The Other Side of DC universe tarnish the DC superheroes?

Short answer is "No". It just provides different points of view

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I haven’t read it in years but wasn’t he initially a part of the whole mind wiping thing until he got in a fight with everyone and they wiped him.

No. Bruce actually walked in on the other Leaguers as they were mindwiping Dr. Light and they then mindwiped him to cover it up.