Poison Ivy Appreciation 2018

[MentalManipulator]

Selina, Pam and Harley as Gems in Steve's Universe.

Gemsona-Maker-Sirens.jpg

[PyroTwilight]

Oh Ivy. She's one of the more fun "Bat" characters to me.

But it's always amused me at just how ranged her good and evil sides could be depending on the writer (in fairness who isn't that true of).


I do like the idea that though she was a militant environmentalist she eases off of the more violent stuff the longer she's around. Only really being a villain overall. I especially love when she's treated as outright heroic but mis aimed at times.

So I like to think she's fine with occasionally hurting (but not killing) others to get what she wants. But that it's never something she'd outright go to do without being provoked.

[Confuzzled]

I think it's okay if she kills child rapists, abusers etc. because children like plants are vulnerable and that hits close to home to her considering her own (New 52) childhood. Her brief appearance in the Gotham Central book where she kills the two corrupt cops who murdered one of her Robinson Park orphans (but only after confirming through an eyewitness that they were indeed the culprits) still remains very powerful.

[PyroTwilight]

Oh yeah. I think as far as things go killing the worst scum on the Earth, at least if you're sure of them is fine for Ivy in this completely fictional setting.

Though knowing her she'd probably also be likely to do something far less permanent but MUCH more painful or tortuous to punish.

[Tupiaz]

I don't see Poison Ivy would have any problem killing people and thus turning them into compost to benefit the world/mother earth/nature especially if they where a part of a big company who was harmful to planet. Ivy is an extremist who would use extremist methods to save the planet. This including wiping out all people who makes a serve treat to the planet. Given the times she has a lot of unused potential.

[PyroTwilight]

I mean if she's a full on villain I think that works as a thing for her to do.

But it ultimately runs counter to how she is in the modern day, as she's usually portrayed in much more of a grey area now.

Plus from a writing point of view (and honestly real life) it makes her too flat of a character. Especially since "Kill the leader of a group who's poisoning the environment" etc or some other similar loathsome person isn't really final to any degree. there'll always be another logging company or group trying gto clear up space for themselves. Her being WILLING to kill is fine. Her using it as the go to (and Ivy does tend to in stories that want to go that way) is a bit pointless as it technically should just create backlash that HURTS her cause more than helps.

Plus I would be interested if there's ever a story that points out that technically the big reason we don't want to damage the environment ISN'T to protect the ENVIRONMENT. But that WITHOUT IT humans can't survive. The planet itself, the environment, is ultimately able to adapt over anything really. It's just that adaptation is likely to wipe out humans and current life (plant, human, etc).

So I've thought for a while the best way to handle something like Ivy to essentially up the "goddess" side of her. She's trying to help the environment (mostly plants) because she doesn't want the world to sink into destruction and views the everyday humans who do it as idiots she has to help rather than "enemies".

[Frontier]

[Tupiaz]

I mean if she's a full on villain I think that works as a thing for her to do.

But it ultimately runs counter to how she is in the modern day, as she's usually portrayed in much more of a grey area now.

Plus from a writing point of view (and honestly real life) it makes her too flat of a character. Especially since "Kill the leader of a group who's poisoning the environment" etc or some other similar loathsome person isn't really final to any degree. there'll always be another logging company or group trying gto clear up space for themselves. Her being WILLING to kill is fine. Her using it as the go to (and Ivy does tend to in stories that want to go that way) is a bit pointless as it technically should just create backlash that HURTS her cause more than helps.

Plus I would be interested if there's ever a story that points out that technically the big reason we don't want to damage the environment ISN'T to protect the ENVIRONMENT. But that WITHOUT IT humans can't survive. The planet itself, the environment, is ultimately able to adapt over anything really. It's just that adaptation is likely to wipe out humans and current life (plant, human, etc).

So I've thought for a while the best way to handle something like Ivy to essentially up the "goddess" side of her. She's trying to help the environment (mostly plants) because she doesn't want the world to sink into destruction and views the everyday humans who do it as idiots she has to help rather than "enemies".

Sure for human we want to protect the environment so we can live. Form Ivy's viewpoint the world could just fine without humans. I could see an Ivy story where she did target people who was a threat for the environment. What makes Ivy a villain is her action and careless for other humans putting plants/nature above humans. To have her questioned this philosophy is where you can make good stories. Here she would be able to be more nuanced and balanced as a character. I see Ivy wanting to save the world so nature can survive more so than humans can survives which in this day and age make her interesting.

Also you can have planets who previously had an environment but now doesn't. Mars seams to be such an example where life previous have or at least could have existed but now is just a dessert where no environment is happening.

[Rac7d*]

I don't see Poison Ivy would have any problem killing people and thus turning them into compost to benefit the world/mother earth/nature especially if they where a part of a big company who was harmful to planet. Ivy is an extremist who would use extremist methods to save the planet. This including wiping out all people who makes a serve treat to the planet. Given the times she has a lot of unused potential.

But she doesn care about people, as her mutation evolves she less associates herself with humanity, therefore a human life means nothing to her she is dangerous

[Confuzzled]

Sure for human we want to protect the environment so we can live. Form Ivy's viewpoint the world could just fine without humans.

But she doesn care about people, as her mutation evolves she less associates herself with humanity, therefore a human life means nothing to her she is dangerous

But Nature doesn't behave that way. Without humans (and animals), many current plant species that she is sworn to protect will go extinct too without the ecological balance. There will be new species but they will be something else. It's a bit like losing your "own people" in a bid to wipe out your "enemy". Even if she strictly sympathises with only plants (though I find that less interesting than her being torn between her human and "nature" sides), she would know that full out genocide is not going to result well for the plant kingdom as well.

[Rac7d*]

But Nature doesn't behave that way. Without humans (and animals), many current plant species that she is sworn to protect will go extinct too without the ecological balance. There will be new species but they will be something else. It's a bit like losing your "own people" in a bid to wipe out your "enemy". Even if she strictly sympathises with only plants (though I find that less interesting than her being torn between her human and "nature" sides), she would know that full out genocide is not going to result well for the plant kingdom as well.

yes that is why she is crazy her mad logic doesnt make any sense and why she has to be put down by the batman all the time

[Confuzzled]

yes that is why she is crazy her mad logic doesnt make any sense and why she has to be put down by the batman all the time

She should know the facts as she's supposed to be a scientist. At least in the case of someone like Crane, they are just sadistic so they employ their knowledge for terrible purposes. Ivy is supposed to protect the ecosystem so she cannot have faulty logic that directly goes against her cause.

[PyroTwilight]

Granted knowing Ivy and the weird science of comics she probably COULD make it so that only plants survive something that would wipe out all other life, and have them continue to do so (as logic defying as that is).

[Confuzzled]

Granted knowing Ivy and the weird science of comics she probably COULD make it so that only plants survive something that would wipe out all other life, and have them continue to do so (as logic defying as that is).

The movie had her create a new species of mutant plants to survive in Freeze's nuclear winter apocalypse, but that would mean the total wipeout of Earth's current ecology, which I don't think Comics Ivy would stand for.

Also, do we need to take cues from Batman and Robin of all places?

[Confuzzled]

An impressive ranking of Poison Ivy adaptations:



This was done last March so some of the latest ones are missing like Justice League Action, The Lego Batman Movie and Batman and Harley Quinn. They also missed out on three: Justice League animated show (well, if Static Shock and Gotham Girls count as separate), DC Super Friends, and DC Nation: Super BFF's!, but otherwise I think they got them all (though Young Justice has been mislabelled as "Batman: Dark Tomorrow")

Seeing the Assault on Arkham Ivy again reminded me that she's based on her Arkham games counterpart in the current DC Animated Movie Universe.