Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64
  1. #46
    Astonishing Member DieHard200904's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Backwoods of Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Super-Wonder View Post
    I don't know what to think of all of this.
    N52 Superman is my favorite incarnation of the character, I didn't like the design in the beginning but it grew on me as did other aspects of the New 52 as a whole.
    The 5 year void was a mistake and after all of this time there are still lingering questions about so many characters and that lost time period.

    Perhaps the powers that be and have been are taking the whole genre of "Comic Books" too seriously and need to loosen up a bit and just have fun with it.
    There's been a lot of fun elements lost for a long time. Let's just tell stories and make art and just try to keep an eye on what's going on for consistency, like if a character has been dead for 3 issues they shouldn't mysteriously show up in another title like nothing had ever happened.
    This is exactly why I enjoyed Silver/Bronze Age Superman. They did have fun with that character, then, and it really showed.

  2. #47
    Astonishing Member Doctor Know's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,843

    Default

    Funny how DC You (Truth) was supposed to reinvigorate Superman's line, but it ends up being his death knell.

    Nuperman could've been saved with better editors, writes and an actual direction for the character.

  3. #48
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    4,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperCrab View Post
    This is an interesting theory, and you guys may be right. I would just say, on the trunks thing, there is no legal trouble between DC Comics and the Batman creator(s)' estate(s) on the same level as the legal trouble between DC Comics and the creators of Superman (I remember a brief minor legal issue there- something about Bob Kane, but I believe it was resolved), and they got rid of Batman's trunks years ago. I think not using the trunks is an aesthetic choice. Legal trouble or no legal trouble, trunks are just viewed as, and made fun of, as underwear on the outside of your pants by the general public these days. If you want to appeal to the general public, it's a good idea to get rid of what really does appear to be underwear on the outside of your costume. I mean, a modern villain would be defeated just by looking at the trunks and keeling over in laughter, rending him unable to bring his dastardly plan to fruition.

    Now, yes, trunks made sense in the 1930s, when people still got the association with "strong men" circus acts and saw the trunks not as underwear on the outside, but as strong men trunks. It communicated visually that this guy was physically very strong. But we're way closer to the 2030s than the 1930s these days, and almost nobody gets that connotation anymore, unless they are fans of Superman who have looked the matter up. It's just not a modern look, and a turn-off to potential new fans. Superman is a much better symbol of hope, and much more intimidating (storyline wise) to his enemies without the underwear on the outside- unless they were doing a Superman series set in the past, in which case, I might see the reasoning behind trunks, if it was in a time period where they'd have been understood as such by the general public within the fictionalized universe.

    The rest of your conspiracy theory, I actually think stands a good chance of being correct. And it's had unfortunate results at times in terms of the quality of the Superman line, if it's been the cause of all these things. However, losing the trunks might have happened naturally even if it wasn't or hadn't been part of a legal maneuver, and should have happened. The time had come.

    And I did like the armored high necked suit. They ditched those, though, which makes me wonder if it was really a legal thing, because if it was a legal thing, they'd either have kept them or replaced them with new innovations. You don't go back to stuff your lawyers have told you won't fly (No pun intended, given the subject matter), which they would have essentially been doing going back to the more "classic" SuperDad uniform.

    If you really thought you imminently were going to lose the rights to any Superman elements present in the 1938 comics but not beyond, what you'd do is something like have new52 Superman change his last name and secret identity because the Clark Kent name and identity had been compromised by the Truth saga. He gets his new52 costume and powers back, but has to be Clark Jones, bartender, or whatever it is if you can't use Clark Kent, reporter, with the storyline explanation above. He'd let some of his friends like Jimmy know what was going on, and they'd come in and hang out at the bar. I'm not saying that's what I'd want to see, I'm saying if they really legally were having trouble with the usual setup, that's a much better why to handle it than SuperDad. I'd rather see him as Clark Kent, reporter, who is really Superman (New52 Superman with the New52 costume, presumably) than either of those scenarios if there aren't significant legal issues, though.

    *Also* if you don't think you can use Lois Lane legally, then you just go with the Superman-Wonder Woman romance and make it work, which means you again you don't ditch new52 Superman. I am not sure if the switch to Lois Smith, which even in the storyline is a pseudonym for Lois Lane, would cut it. But you own Wonder Woman lock, stock, and barrel.
    Wonder Woman isn't superman girlfriend, she isn't Lois substitute. It's time to people see WW was a feminist icon, not superman girlfriend. "oh he needs a girlfriend, we can't use lois, so let's use wonder woman" that is one of the worse offense someone could do with WW

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Know View Post
    Funny how DC You (Truth) was supposed to reinvigorate Superman's line, but it ends up being his death knell.

    Nuperman could've been saved with better editors, writes and an actual direction for the character.
    These are the simple things that they failed;
    Last edited by Tayswift; 06-30-2016 at 03:45 PM.

  4. #49
    Incredible Member SuperCrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    862

    Default

    By the way, as a side note to discussion on the last page, if legal issues are really forcing DC Comics to do things to the Superman line that may not be in it's editorial best interests, why not just announce them in detail to the public? Say "We can't use [x, y, and z elements based on our legal advice until the outcome of the suit from the [whomever] estate". Takes the heat off you from fans who hate the changes, because they know your hand was forced, and then the fans start pressuring the estate and the heirs to settle. You don't tell the fans to pressure anybody, you just say straight on that in light of the on-going lawsuit, your lawyers think you should voluntarily stay away from elements x, y, and z; just in case you lose; and that if you win, you'll bring them back. You say nothing negative about the heirs or the estates, you just state the facts. You don't even have to say which law suit. I'll bet the heirs would get some letters.

    It also at some point, if things are really that bad, be in Warner Brothers' and DC Comics' best interests to simply buy the rights they may or may not have outright from the estate without any admission of guilt, in a settlement that grants them retroactive immunity from any claims that they violated the rights in the past. Just pay what you have to pay and go. If you can't make a deal, maybe sell whatever rights you have to someone else and let them deal with the headache, in a contract that careful stipulates what rights you own clear out, and which rights are in the dispute, with the notation that the disputed rights are also part of the deal, but that if the court rules for the other side, you don't owe the person you sold to any refund.

    I don't know what DC Comics really gets out of intentionally putting out movies and comics that are less than they could be for legal reasons, of the course of like a decade now, if that's what they are really doing, especially without publicizing what's going on. It's one of those situations where it slowly kills the value of the property, so even if you win, you don't really win.

    Like, as an example, the Baltimore Colts NFL (American) football team had a fight song. In 1984 or so, the team's owner moved to Indianapolis (Really a tragic story for the fans of Baltimore, you may want to do an Internet search if that interests you, it really destroyed the heart of the city in a lot of ways). Now, the Baltimore version of the team had a fight song that it's marching band played. As part of a legal settlement between the city of Baltimore and the franchise, the band stayed behind and got to keep it's fight.

    So, flashforward about 14 years. A team relocates to Baltimore and becomes the Baltimore Ravens. Of course, the Baltimore Colts Marching Band, still around (Performing at various parades and sporting events around the country by invitation in the intervening years), plays the fight song and various music at the games. The team buys them new uniforms and instruments and such. People still remembered the fight song, and a lot of people would sing along or chant "Fight, Fight, Fight" on cue when the song came around to that, but you could tell it was the older folks who remembered it and the younger folks were being taught it.

    Two years after the Ravens got here, instead of doing the obvious thing and changing the lyrics of the fight song to refer to the Ravens instead of the Colts, the team writes a new fight song. They stick with that for like 10 years. The old songs don't like the change, the young fans kind of wonder why we even have a band and a song, because that's really a college thing more than a pro thing in American football, and the older fans don't correct them, because they don't like the new song. By the time they went back to the old song, a lot of the fans that really remembered it from 1984 and prior are dead, have health issues that render them unable to attend games, are living on a fixed retirement income that means they can't afford to attend games, or have retired to Florida or something.

    In 1996 when the Ravens arrived, there was equity in the old Colts fight song still. It'd been 12 years, so there were some younger fans who didn't "get it", but they could be taught. Then by taking it away again in 1998, and sticking with a newer fight song for at least 10 years, it basically killed it. By the time they reverted to the old fight song again in 2010, it had been 26 years since the Colts had been here, and even longer since the glory years from the late 50s to mid-70s. Plus, some of the demographic had changed due to price increases on tickets and changes in the gameday atmosphere and what the NFL wanted in it's fans (Used to be more like a rowdy barroom scene, now the NFL tends to eject people who act like old fans used to, because they are trying to appeal to upscale economic demographics, women, and children (Although, really, I've rarely seen a child react negatively to curse words directed at the other team or whatever- children eat that stuff up. It's their parents who might object ). So, anyway, very few people really knew the fight song, understood it's heritage or it's history, etc..

    By not using the fight song, they killed it.

    I would say now like 5-6 years later, so people are finally getting a little back into it, so maybe it'll come back the way it used to be, but they definitely lost momentum- first unavoidably because there was no team here for a while, but then for 12 years very avoidably because the owner wanted a new song written by his song and displaced the old song.

    Same with Superman, you warp things too much for legal reasons, and it lasts too long, and you can bring back the old version, and the old crowd is going to be mostly gone and the new people won't get why they're supposed to like it.

    They need to figure out a way to do the best Superman they can and just do it. If they want a plan B, have an alt-universe or same universe book about a guy who's basically similar without the legal issues, and stick him around kind of in the background, and if you lose the rights to the guy who's using the disputed material, promote the guy who isn't to the Justice League and the main universe/books and make him your Superman.

    Now, I would draw a distinction here between changes made for creative reasons and changes made for legal reasons. These characters are commonly modified and updated to attract a modern audience or expand the audience, and that makes sense. You still do that. It's just that if a change is only being done to cover your butt legally and it hurts you with consumers, you ought to just not do it until such a point as a judge orders you not to do it, so your property continues to be worth something in the event that you win. And you can have a Plan B ready to go for if you lose, maybe gaining it's own audience in it's own book. And I'd be fairly open about that to fans instead of taking fire from them for doing things they presume you're doing by choice but you're actually doing because your hands are tied.

  5. #50
    Incredible Member SuperCrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Having said all that, I still love new52 Superman and hate SuperDad and especially hate SuperJon. Even if the changes made to new52 Superman were due to legal reasons, they worked well for me (With the exception of the overly long truth arc, perhaps).

    But if you're going to bring back pre-Flashpoint Superman, I see updating the costume and stuff, but it makes more sense to put him back at the Daily Planet and somehow reset the status quo to at least where he doesn't have a superhero son taking up massive numbers of pages. What they are doing now is stupid. Granted, the sales numbers may be arguing otherwise, so whatever.

    I'm just not going to buy the Superman title while it focuses on Jon as the main character or the 50/50 co-star with Superman. I am barely hanging on to Action Comics issue by issue because it's more of a Superman book *so far*, although I have no subscription, because I think that's likely to change and I'm just giving it a chance, not committing to it. I don't even know if I want to deal with Action Comics long-term with the level of Jon I currently have to deal with. They go much more heavy on Jon, I drop it. They keep it about the same, we'll see. But I am definitely staying out on the Superman title and voting with my dollars there, unless they change it's creative direction.

    And I am still willing to subscribe instantly to a Jon-less new52 Superman book. As soon as it's on Comixology to subscribe to, I'd subscribe before even reading a panel. I'd even accept a certain level of change like if they have to move him to another universe to be Superman, they make him incorporate green into his suit and use another name (As long as it doesn't make him sound like a kid and isn't completely stupid) in another city, or even have him join the Lanterns or something. I'd even accept a permanent Truth type scenario as the status quo for him as long as he stopped whining about it. He needs to be the same guy with the same memories as the new52 Superman, though. So, I'm willing to vote with my dollars for new52 Superman, too.

    I am majorly losing hope of of them ever bringing back my Superman because SuperDad is selling well, though. I mean, even in the event that SuperDad sells well and they keep him forever, they could give us a side monthly with new52 Superman to be among the 50ish comic book issues a month they publish, to serve a different audience, but they don't seem to like the guy, so they probably won't...
    Last edited by SuperCrab; 06-30-2016 at 03:50 PM.

  6. #51
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,990

    Default

    The answer will be the same but for two different possible reasons, depending on whether or not the plan is to keep him dead or return him to life. That answer is nothing. The plans to remove him were put in place well before his titles began to do poorly, so this was a decision made for creative reasons outside of sales/popularity. It would have happened regardless. With that in mind, nothing could have saved him. If part of this decision is to bring him back though, then the answer is nothing because he needs no saving in the first place, as it will turn out he was never truly gone for good to begin with.

    Either way, nothing could have stopped this idea outside of the very minds who conjured the idea not being with the company.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  7. #52
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    726

    Default

    I think more of the history being intact would have saved things. It might have worked to reboot elements like when the Kents died and the status of the relationship with Lois but they ditched too much.

    The supporting players needed to be more familiar. A more concrete sense of history ala Snyder's Batman. They should have spelled out the history fairly early and not been afraid of burning off the chance to retell stories. Most of Superman's villains don't have stories that demand to be retold or reworked. I think having Lois out of the loop was offputting from a modern standpoint, even if they aren't married.

    I think Pak did the best with what he had and tried to build a sense of history. Honestly, the stuff that makes me smile is stuff like the electric suit getting a cameo, the newspaper headlines at the Planet, the mention of the island shaped like him where he hid Kryptonite.

    But I'd say a big problem of the last 12-ish years has been a lack of faith in the Clark Kent of it all. Whether you buy into Byrne's idea of Clark being his real identity or Maggin's idea that being "Clark Kent" is a kind of addiction, DC keeps shying away from Clark being a reporter at the Daily Planet.

    In Grounded? Clark Kent gets no play. In Lee/Azzarello's For Tomorrow? Almost no Clark Kent. Ditto New Krypton. It happened again during the last gasps of the pre-Berganza era. And that problem reoccurred here with him quitting the Planet, rejoining only to spend little time as Clark outside of his apartment, and then getting his identity outed.

    It's a shame Jurgens has to jump through convoluted hoops to get us back to a Superman who is Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet. I'm pretty confident that's part of Jurgens' endgame, however this goes. You might argue that the marriage de-emphasized the double identity but even with Lois in on it, stories that emphasized the marriage maintained the double identity both as a concept and as something that centered around being a reporter for the Daily Planet. Superman flounders every time you lose the focus on him having a boss and a job and changing in a broom closet to slip away as Superman.

    Some characters like Tony Stark don't need it. Wally West didn't need it. TV Barry Allen works okay keeping it from few people.

    But Superman doesn't work well without that element.

    It would have made the Wonder Woman relationship much more interesting if he'd kept that from her as an inversion of what we're used to. There's a problem with Superman concealing this from Lois in any longterm stretch because it diminishes her. There wouldn't be as much of a problem concealing it from Diana as a boundaries thing. I recognize a lot of people's view of the character is that he'd have no problem opening up and sharing with someone he loved but I don't know that's Superman to me. If he doesn't have difficulty with emotional stuff, you make physical stuff the focus of the stories and if you do that long enough, you end up having to de-power him.

  8. #53
    Incredible Member suemorphplus209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Someplace where there's many, many, trees...
    Posts
    850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Gerard View Post
    I think more of the history being intact would have saved things. It might have worked to reboot elements like when the Kents died and the status of the relationship with Lois but they ditched too much.

    The supporting players needed to be more familiar. A more concrete sense of history ala Snyder's Batman. They should have spelled out the history fairly early and not been afraid of burning off the chance to retell stories. Most of Superman's villains don't have stories that demand to be retold or reworked. I think having Lois out of the loop was offputting from a modern standpoint, even if they aren't married.

    I think Pak did the best with what he had and tried to build a sense of history. Honestly, the stuff that makes me smile is stuff like the electric suit getting a cameo, the newspaper headlines at the Planet, the mention of the island shaped like him where he hid Kryptonite.

    But I'd say a big problem of the last 12-ish years has been a lack of faith in the Clark Kent of it all. Whether you buy into Byrne's idea of Clark being his real identity or Maggin's idea that being "Clark Kent" is a kind of addiction, DC keeps shying away from Clark being a reporter at the Daily Planet.

    In Grounded? Clark Kent gets no play. In Lee/Azzarello's For Tomorrow? Almost no Clark Kent. Ditto New Krypton. It happened again during the last gasps of the pre-Berganza era. And that problem reoccurred here with him quitting the Planet, rejoining only to spend little time as Clark outside of his apartment, and then getting his identity outed.

    It's a shame Jurgens has to jump through convoluted hoops to get us back to a Superman who is Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet. I'm pretty confident that's part of Jurgens' endgame, however this goes. You might argue that the marriage de-emphasized the double identity but even with Lois in on it, stories that emphasized the marriage maintained the double identity both as a concept and as something that centered around being a reporter for the Daily Planet. Superman flounders every time you lose the focus on him having a boss and a job and changing in a broom closet to slip away as Superman.

    Some characters like Tony Stark don't need it. Wally West didn't need it. TV Barry Allen works okay keeping it from few people.

    But Superman doesn't work well without that element.

    It would have made the Wonder Woman relationship much more interesting if he'd kept that from her as an inversion of what we're used to. There's a problem with Superman concealing this from Lois in any longterm stretch because it diminishes her. There wouldn't be as much of a problem concealing it from Diana as a boundaries thing. I recognize a lot of people's view of the character is that he'd have no problem opening up and sharing with someone he loved but I don't know that's Superman to me. If he doesn't have difficulty with emotional stuff, you make physical stuff the focus of the stories and if you do that long enough, you end up having to de-power him.
    In a sense, I missed the Daily Planet aspect a lot, because it is there that he can mess around with people about his secret identity, that is not serious, but it certainly does not diminish the secondary characters either. Superman screwing around with Jimmy and Lois in the Bruce Timm animated series made his secondary characters all the more memorable, I mean, I think Dana Delany voice when I hear Lois Lane. It is not a bad thing mind you, the jokes that she and Clark cracked at each other during the animated series were funny and memorable. The other funny twist that Timm/Dini pulled was that Lois secretly liked Kent, but trusted Superman with the secret. Kind of showed that she had her own side she wasn't immediately interested in showing Clark too.

  9. #54
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Know View Post
    Funny how DC You (Truth) was supposed to reinvigorate Superman's line, but it ends up being his death knell.

    Nuperman could've been saved with better editors, writes and an actual direction for the character.
    I think they misread what worked about Batgirl.

    Okay, to invested fans, Stewart/Tarr Batgirl was probably some kind of controversial, edgy revamp, a strongly stylized take. I don't think that's true to casual fans. I think if you only knew Batgirl from TV and cartoons, Stewart/Tarr Batgirl was just what you probably always thought a Batgirl comic was like. She's in college. She has a supporting cast. She has Bat adventures. She has girly adventures. She has Batgirly adventures. Her dad's a cop. She's good with computers. If you're under 35 and frequent Deviantart or Kickstarter, Tarr's style is a kind of style you're used to, probably.

    They chose to interpret Stewart/Tarr's relative initial success as a rallying cry for bold, different takes. That turned out to be somewhat unwarranted. I think, more than anything, it just looked more like what a (probably casual) segment of the fanbase assumed Batgirl comics already looked like for the most part and the prior issues looked more like some kind of alternative metalhead Arkham take on Batgirl. That and I think Stewart was having fun and Simone, admittedly, wasn't.

    DC You, ideally, should have been about two things:

    Creators having fun.

    Comics that look like people who have never read the comics expect the comics to already look like.

    A fan art/style influence.

    The equivalent for Superman might have been something like, say, Superman dealing with his landlord as Clark Kent with art by Mike Allred. Maybe a little quirky/indy/adorkable human interest with Jack Kirby like action sequences. Mostly just giving people what they would have thought was already the norm. Maybe you do a concept arc but, like I say, Batgirling Superman at its most extreme should have been something like "Clark Kent takes a summer job to pay a delinquent student loan by working at a summer camp and the camp is haunted."

    I think they overestimated how edgy Batgirl of Burnside was to its fans and couldn't replicate it for that reason. Edgy to 40+ year olds, maybe. To a younger set, I think it just looked more like a normal Batgirl comic than most actual normal Batgirl comics.

  10. #55
    Incredible Member Jadeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suemorphplus209 View Post
    In a sense, I missed the Daily Planet aspect a lot, because it is there that he can mess around with people about his secret identity, that is not serious, but it certainly does not diminish the secondary characters either. Superman screwing around with Jimmy and Lois in the Bruce Timm animated series made his secondary characters all the more memorable, I mean, I think Dana Delany voice when I hear Lois Lane. It is not a bad thing mind you, the jokes that she and Clark cracked at each other during the animated series were funny and memorable. The other funny twist that Timm/Dini pulled was that Lois secretly liked Kent, but trusted Superman with the secret. Kind of showed that she had her own side she wasn't immediately interested in showing Clark too.
    If you sever his connection to the Daily Planet, you sever almost his entire supporting cast. Focusing on the Planet crowd when Clark doesn't work there makes no more sense than focusing on a Metropolis news radio station that Clark doesn't work at. Those relationships just aren't viable in the long run.

    What they came up with was a terrible half-measure -- either reinvent his entire status quo and abandon the reporter thing or keep him employed at a news outlet with a physical location where he has friends and colleagues.

  11. #56
    Astonishing Member DieHard200904's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Backwoods of Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suemorphplus209 View Post
    In a sense, I missed the Daily Planet aspect a lot, because it is there that he can mess around with people about his secret identity, that is not serious, but it certainly does not diminish the secondary characters either. Superman screwing around with Jimmy and Lois in the Bruce Timm animated series made his secondary characters all the more memorable, I mean, I think Dana Delany voice when I hear Lois Lane. It is not a bad thing mind you, the jokes that she and Clark cracked at each other during the animated series were funny and memorable. The other funny twist that Timm/Dini pulled was that Lois secretly liked Kent, but trusted Superman with the secret. Kind of showed that she had her own side she wasn't immediately interested in showing Clark too.
    If I had any say, I would make plots from the Timm/Dini series into Superman comics, I do have my disagreements with them in some of how they portrayed Superman, but they did maintain a consistency in how his status quo was for that, not tO mention kept the animated story arcs short, which they should be. I didn't care for recent long drawn out stories on the Superman line, including New Krypton and Truth. Put the guy in his status quo as someone in the news business, keep him at the workplace for a while so that the general characters stick, etc. If some animators who are biased toward Batman can do this decent of a job with keeping Superman fairly stable and with simple stories, that is one really sad day.

  12. #57
    Astonishing Member Doctor Know's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Gerard View Post
    I think they misread what worked about Batgirl.

    Okay, to invested fans, Stewart/Tarr Batgirl was probably some kind of controversial, edgy revamp, a strongly stylized take. I don't think that's true to casual fans. I think if you only knew Batgirl from TV and cartoons, Stewart/Tarr Batgirl was just what you probably always thought a Batgirl comic was like. She's in college. She has a supporting cast. She has Bat adventures. She has girly adventures. She has Batgirly adventures. Her dad's a cop. She's good with computers. If you're under 35 and frequent Deviantart or Kickstarter, Tarr's style is a kind of style you're used to, probably.

    They chose to interpret Stewart/Tarr's relative initial success as a rallying cry for bold, different takes. That turned out to be somewhat unwarranted. I think, more than anything, it just looked more like what a (probably casual) segment of the fanbase assumed Batgirl comics already looked like for the most part and the prior issues looked more like some kind of alternative metalhead Arkham take on Batgirl. That and I think Stewart was having fun and Simone, admittedly, wasn't.

    DC You, ideally, should have been about two things:

    Creators having fun.

    Comics that look like people who have never read the comics expect the comics to already look like.

    A fan art/style influence.

    The equivalent for Superman might have been something like, say, Superman dealing with his landlord as Clark Kent with art by Mike Allred. Maybe a little quirky/indy/adorkable human interest with Jack Kirby like action sequences. Mostly just giving people what they would have thought was already the norm. Maybe you do a concept arc but, like I say, Batgirling Superman at its most extreme should have been something like "Clark Kent takes a summer job to pay a delinquent student loan by working at a summer camp and the camp is haunted."

    I think they overestimated how edgy Batgirl of Burnside was to its fans and couldn't replicate it for that reason. Edgy to 40+ year olds, maybe. To a younger set, I think it just looked more like a normal Batgirl comic than most actual normal Batgirl comics.
    That's interesting, mate. I didn't think about it like that. My feeling is they were wrong to take inspiration from Kon-El's old look.





    Also, in an serendipitous fashion, Thor Odinson has also been depowered and also spends his time moping about not being as Super as he used to be. He doesn't wear shirts, has a ratty looking beard, and just all around looks pathetic.

  13. #58
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    4,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Know View Post
    That's interesting, mate. I didn't think about it like that. My feeling is they were wrong to take inspiration from Kon-El's old look.





    Also, in an serendipitous fashion, Thor Odinson has also been depowered and also spends his time moping about not being as Super as he used to be. He doesn't wear shirts, has a ratty looking beard, and just all around looks pathetic.
    Thor wasn't depowered, he just lost the mjolnir, and he wasn't moping around. On avengers he was pretty badass, specially when he died

  14. #59
    Incredible Member SuperCrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tayswift View Post
    Wonder Woman isn't superman girlfriend
    Wonder Woman was Superman's girlfriend was for several years there. Then that Superman died. So now she isn't his girlfriend, and she obviously isn't SuperDad's girlfriend. But she obviously was Superman's girlfriend in the storylines for several years. You can like that or not like that, but it happened within the fictional DC Comics universe and there were several years of published comics about it to one degree or another.

    It's time to people see WW was a feminist icon, not superman girlfriend.
    Why can't she be both? Aren't some feminist icons heterosexual women who have boyfriends and husbands? Being a feminist icon doesn't come with some requirement that you either be a lesbian, be celibate, or date only Steve Trevor. You can be a feminist icon and have strong healthy romantic or sexual relationships with men. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

  15. #60
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    15,990

    Default

    I wouldn't bother, Crab. You're not going to get any meanginful discourse, trust me.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •