DC's turn toward the dark

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

This raises an interesting question. This thread refers to DC darkening like it's a relatively new phenomenon, and like it switches on and off. It doesn't - it's a continuum (darker; lighter - it shifts).

 

Is Wonder Woman killing Max Lord a watershed moment in the shift? There's lots of "darkenings" which could be considered. What about:

 

- when Superman killed three Kryptonian villains? Up until that point, Superman had never had to take a life to win, but suddenly, it's the only alternative he can think of.

 

- when Crisis killed Supergirl and the Flash? These major, iconic characters were suddenly no longer immune to mortal harm.

 

- When Flash Barry Allen killed the Reverse Flash?

 

- When SpiderMan failed to save Gwen Stacy (Captain Stacy? Uncle Ben?) - sometimes, the hero fails and people close to him die. [OK, not a DC comic, but surely a watershed moment - I'll avoid other Marvels]

 

- When the [original] Doom Patrol died? [The whole team died?]

 

- When Ferro Lad sacrificed himself to destroy the Sun Eater? [Earliest example I can think of where a DC hero, not a one shot character, died in the line of duty]

 

These go further and further back, and each represents a dark event which realy hadn't occured before.

 

Of course, we could also turn comics to more light, where every problem is solved by handing the villain some tasty Hostess snack and all's right with the world.

Well, I can only comment on things from my own personal experiences and memories...and of course it's liberally filtered through my own tastes and viewpoints. First, my "bonafides" in relation / reaction to the events you mentioned:

 

Superman kills: I had already stopped reading DC by this point, so I didn't see it myself. I heard about it, and it was one of those things that made me say to myself "Yup...I'm glad I got out when I did."

 

Mainly that's because of my view that as superheroes, as role models, they shouldn't kill, though I have acknowledged (internally) there may come a point where there really is no other meaningful option to preserve the innocent. I can't say if the Superman story meets this criteria or not; my feelings about WW/Max Lord is that particular story doesn't, given how the events have been recounted and the loopholes pointed out.

 

Deaths of Supergirl and the Flash: I liked both characters, and liked them a lot, though oddly enough I never followed their individual comics. At that point, before I knew what all the fallout from Crisis was going to be, I liked the fact the writers had the guts to do what they were doing. Though I was going to miss Supergirl and the Flash, I liked the fact the writers had the guts to kill them off. Though I was a lot less sanguine about Kara's death than Barry's, I thought Barry died a truly heroic death and I still salute him (and the writers) for it. Even though I don't like the overall direction DC is going these days, I do have to admire and respect the fact they've left Barry dead. For me, if a hero dies a heroic death, it seems to somehow cheapen their sacrifice if they're brought back a little while later, even if I miss the character terribly. But that's me.

 

Flash kills: I didn't see this one, either, so I don't know. I don't like the heroes killing (as noted above) but I'm not sufficiently informed about this particular incident to be able to render a judgment on whether I would have termed it "unavoidable" or not.

 

Spider-Man: I was always more of a DC boy than a Marvel fan -- my sister is the Marvel fan in the family. I did read some Marvel titles, so I'm more than familiar with most of the characters (Marvel Team-Up is among the cherished issues in my comics collection) but I never followed all the soap-operaesque turnings of Spider-Man's live in his own title(s). So I'm afraid I didn't see this one, either.

 

Doom Patrol: I don't know how the original team died...I didn't ever read any Doom Patrol stories until the 2nd incarnation of the team...so I can't comment on this one, either. But I thought Cliff (Robotman) was a carry-over from the first team to the second?

 

Ferro Lad: I'm a big Legion fan, and have been from way back. Though I didn't like the fact that one of the heroes died, I did admire his courage in doing what he did. Everything else had already been tried to stop the Sun-Eater (including the gathering of villains who would many times prove to be a major problem for the Legion, the Fatal Five). And once more, DC has seen fit to leave the hero where he belongs...in his grave. (As a somewhat cynical side-note, I knew the writers weren't going to allow Superboy to carry the bomb, since there was no way they'd kill off their flagship character. In fact, all the various 'dangers' to Superboy in the Legion stories rang rather hollow, since it was already guaranteed that he'd be alive as Superman many years later. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate Ferro Lad's sacrifice.)

 

Oh, and Ferro Lad wasn't the first non-one-shot DC character, let alone the first non-one-shot Legionnaire, to die. But he was the first Legionnaire who died that stayed dead.

 

Now my reactions re: these darker elements you brought up.

 

Thinking about it, I think the main difference I see between the "darker" stories in which a hero died in earlier books and the current WW/Max Lord thing is one of overall feeling.

 

When one of the heroes I discussed died, it felt heroic. There was a sense of terrible loss, and urge to scream "Nooooooooo!" -- but to appreciate what the hero had done, what they'd died for, and to appreciate their nobility, courage, and sacrifice.

 

That's in stark contrast to the feeling I'm getting about the WW/Max Lord situation. It doesn't feel "heroic"; in fact, it feels like anything but. And given the various loopholes that have been pointed out, it doesn't even feel like a "last, only option"; it feels more like somewhat lazy pragmatism, either on the part of the character or on the part of the writers.

 

To me, that's not heroic, and it's not what I want in a comic about superheroes.

 

The emphasis in superhero comics should be on the hero, not on the super. After all, supervillains are "super", too...it's what a person does with those powers that sets them apart. All to often, it seems as if "modern" comics are bound and determined to blur the line between superhero and supervillain. After all, if both use the same methods, even if the stated goals are different...

 

Well. Not to my taste.

 

I don't have a problem with "dark" stories or "dark" elements in stories, as long as a few things are observed:

 

1) I want an ultimately positive outcome. Yes, there may be sorrow because a hero died in the line of duty, but it should mean something, it should be for a noble purpose...and it should leave a feeling along the lines of "He will be missed, today and tomorrow and the day after...but, because of him, there will be a tomorrow..."

 

2) If a hero kills...and that should be as scarce an occurance as hen's teeth...there darn well better be an airtight, ironclad, well-thought-out, believable reason in story...and even then, it had better be the absolute last resort. Nothing I've read about any of the incidents of heroes killing that have been discussed in this thread has made me feel like this principle was embraced, though since I haven't read them myself, this could be a mis-perception on my part.

 

3) I want to come away from my comics reading with a more generally upbeat outlook on life. I'm not saying they should be Mary Poppins fluff (or tasty Hostess snacks ) but I get depressed enough in spirit and disillusioned enough about man's relationship with his fellow man just by living in this world day by day; if I really want to get further sunk in despair, I'll turn on the evening news, thank you very much. My entertainment and escapism (which comics are -- or were -- for me) should make me feel better about myself and life in general, not try to outdo the evening news for depression, bitterness, and shock/schlock value.

 

 

Well, I've rambled on for long enough. I think I'm going to go read a few pre-Crisis Legion comics.

[psm]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I don't have a problem with "dark" stories or "dark" elements in stories, as long as a few things are observed:

 

1) I want an ultimately positive outcome. Yes, there may be sorrow because a hero died in the line of duty, but it should mean something, it should be for a noble purpose...and it should leave a feeling along the lines of "He will be missed, today and tomorrow and the day after...but, because of him, there will be a tomorrow..."

 

2) If a hero kills...and that should be as scarce an occurance as hen's teeth...there darn well better be an airtight, ironclad, well-thought-out, believable reason in story...and even then, it had better be the absolute last resort. Nothing I've read about any of the incidents of heroes killing that have been discussed in this thread has made me feel like this principle was embraced, though since I haven't read them myself, this could be a mis-perception on my part.

 

3) I want to come away from my comics reading with a more generally upbeat outlook on life. I'm not saying they should be Mary Poppins fluff (or tasty Hostess snacks ) but I get depressed enough in spirit and disillusioned enough about man's relationship with his fellow man just by living in this world day by day; if I really want to get further sunk in despair, I'll turn on the evening news, thank you very much. My entertainment and escapism (which comics are -- or were -- for me) should make me feel better about myself and life in general, not try to outdo the evening news for depression, bitterness, and shock/schlock value.

 

Interesting, criteria. One, I've noticed that is shared by many people on these boards. What I'm wondering (and this goes out to everybody) do you put the same criteria on all hero's regardless of genre or just superheroes. Did you feel that Luke Skywalker, King Arthur, or Indiana Jones were less entertaing because they were killers. Obviously, you can rationalize that they needed to kill because the stories took place during wartime settings. But I doubt you (or me for that matter) would enjoy a story where Batman or Superman murders a bunch of Nazi's (remember they were both around back then).

 

I'm wondering if our criteria for comics especially in terms of morality is slightly colored. Do we feel this way because thats how comics were when we grew up? Or is it the changing of established characters which we don't agree with? I personally think its a combination of both but maybe thats me.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Interesting, criteria. One, I've noticed that is shared by many people on these boards. What I'm wondering (and this goes out to everybody) do you put the same criteria on all hero's regardless of genre or just superheroes. Did you feel that Luke Skywalker, King Arthur, or Indiana Jones were less entertaing because they were killers. Obviously, you can rationalize that they needed to kill because the stories took place during wartime settings. But I doubt you (or me for that matter) would enjoy a story where Batman or Superman murders a bunch of Nazi's (remember they were both around back then).

 

I'm wondering if our criteria for comics especially in terms of morality is slightly colored. Do we feel this way because thats how comics were when we grew up? Or is it the changing of established characters which we don't agree with? I personally think its a combination of both but maybe thats me.

I wouldn't feel that way about characters like Luke, Arthur, or Indiana Jones. They may be larger than life, but they aren't superheroes. Add to that the fact that the "ground rules" of the universe in which they reside makes it "okay", possibly even necessary, for the heroes to kill...so long as it's the right people, for the right reasons, under the right circumstances.

 

It may be something of both that you said in regards to the coloring of our perceptions of comics..."that's how it was" and "changing of established characters". But even though I imagine both of those do play a role in how I feel, I would still want my superheroes to not kill. They represent a higher ideal, and a certain level of escape from reality. Luke, Arthur, et. al. are heroic figures and some of them (Arthur in particular) certainly embody a number of ideals. Theoretically at least, though, any of us might be able to rise to the occassion the way Luke, etc. did. Superheroes have "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men", and as such, I hold them to a higher standard of conduct than I do heroic figures. The other thing is that their powers should give them non-lethal options that simply aren't open to those people without those powers.

 

And before someone jumps in with "But Batman doesn't have any powers, so it's okay for him to kill, right?"...wrong. Batman may not have any powers, but he's taken up the mantle of the superhero, and thus gets held to the same higher standard as the super-powered superheroes.

 

At least by me.

[Kristopher]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

It's the Grell version that I care about. Obsessing about age continuity while accepting flying men from Krypton seems silly. Character and story is more important to me than continuity.

 

Writing Fallacy #319: "If you accept even one fantastic element, even one improbable conceit, all things are now acceptable and nothing can be questioned."

 

Continuity and consistency are key components to character and story.

[Kristopher]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I wouldn't feel that way about characters like Luke' date=' Arthur, or Indiana Jones. They may be larger than life, but they aren't [i']superheroes[/i]. Add to that the fact that the "ground rules" of the universe in which they reside makes it "okay", possibly even necessary, for the heroes to kill...so long as it's the right people, for the right reasons, under the right circumstances.

 

It may be something of both that you said in regards to the coloring of our perceptions of comics..."that's how it was" and "changing of established characters". But even though I imagine both of those do play a role in how I feel, I would still want my superheroes to not kill. They represent a higher ideal, and a certain level of escape from reality. Luke, Arthur, et. al. are heroic figures and some of them (Arthur in particular) certainly embody a number of ideals. Theoretically at least, though, any of us might be able to rise to the occassion the way Luke, etc. did. Superheroes have "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men", and as such, I hold them to a higher standard of conduct than I do heroic figures. The other thing is that their powers should give them non-lethal options that simply aren't open to those people without those powers.

 

And before someone jumps in with "But Batman doesn't have any powers, so it's okay for him to kill, right?"...wrong. Batman may not have any powers, but he's taken up the mantle of the superhero, and thus gets held to the same higher standard as the super-powered superheroes.

 

At least by me.

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that having superhuman powers doesn't make a person any less human or more human than anyone else.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that having superhuman powers doesn't make a person any less human or more human than anyone else.

And I happen to agree; if it seems like I was implying otherwise, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

I know it's an old saw, but "with great power goes great responsibility." If someone is going to use superhuman abilities to take on the role of a superhero, I'm going to hold them to a higher standard. I don't think just having powers has anything to do with their humanity...it's how they use them that counts. (And that applies if they're human, robot, alien, sentient animal, or whatever.)

[FenrisUlf]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Whereas I am of the opinion that having superhuman powers doesn't make a person any less human or more human than anyone else.

 

(Note: OT response) True, but when you consider the level of arrogance and disdain for the 'mundanes' that increasingly crops up in Marvel and DC comics and superheroes, it's not hard to understand the fear and loathing most of said mundanes feel for the metahumans.

[Rikathos]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Perhaps much of the debate over DC's dark turn is that the child in us all identifies with the characters and their incarnation when we first encounter them.

But with the changing of times,writers, and artists the perspective changes the heroes we love change. And that is the problem many of us have.

The Change.

I kind of remember pre-crisis DC so bear with me. If memory serves me right There were multiple Earths and versions of each Hero. There was a lack of continuity in the titles. DC sales where not that good and they needed to recharge their titles and reinvent themselves. Then we have Crisis. Since Crisis there has been a big shift toward continuity and in so doing some of the characters changed and became different.

That is an example of the Change. And my point being is that pre-Crisis DC seemed a bit too sanitized. Too static.

And I know you all are sophisticated enough to realized that as a story unfolds the main pro-tagonists change. In a novel or short story this can happen very quickly.

With comics I think working within the comic's normal cycle it takes longer.

Unless you end the series and restart it abruptly.

 

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself well enough....

How about Pre-Crisis Superman. Was there anything besides Kryptonite that this guy couldn't handle? Was there any suspense in what the character did?

No, you know Superman was going to save the day and everything was going to reset back to the way things where each time. Like a cartoon you can blast'em beat'em chop'em and everything will be all better next time.

That to me seems boring. Why read a Superman comic when you know he's always going to win?

Now don't get me wrong, I like my goodguys to win. But its how they win that makes it interesting to me. How the problem or threat effects the people and enviroment around the hero and in turn how the change in the people around them affects the Hero.

I like the journey not the destination in the comics.

 

And due to that there has to be change.

I believe that the dark storylines are only the set-up to a big payoff.

Darkest before the Light kind of thing.

And I like Geoff John's writing as well as Grant Morrison's writing.

What I read about their plans for a Post-Crisis DC Universe(Comicshop News Article not sure # 942?943?) The two writers wanted to bring some of the secondary and little used characters of the DC universe to the fore-front. Hence Morrisons take on the Seven Soldiers of Victory and the New Blue Beetle whom ever that is.

Not bust down the walls and rip everything up and remake the Universe.

 

So I think we need to hang on and keep our hands inside the ride and see what happens to the DC Universe.

[csyphrett]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

The conitinity before Crisis was tighter, with stories being used being referenced.

 

Since then, its pick and choose, especially recently.

 

Jason Todd is a prime example of this. Before Crisis, he was an orphan taken in after both of his parents died. A blond Dick Grayson clone.

 

After the writers were told to make him a street kid whose Dad ran around with Two Face, and whose mother had left long ago. Even his hair color had changed.

 

Or Judd Winick's new Shazam/Superman limited he has talked about. Captain Marvel has been established as a fairly recent hero after Crisis. Winnick has decided to write a team up that takes place in Superman's first year, before Batman, the JLA, and so forth had started.

 

It's a basic contradiction to what has gone before.

 

CES

[psm]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Rikathos I had rep you after such a well thought out reply. Plus you have Starman as your avator:)

 

Although, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say I definitely think the reason we're upset is because of the change in thre genre.

 

I realized talking to Dr. Anomaly that the superhero genre is a very specific type of adventure story containing its own internal logic. Its not just hero vs superhero in terms of powers. Its hero vs superhero in terms of key elements. Like all murder mysteries need a murder (duh) a superhero story needs certain points. I'm going to try to list some of them.

 

1. Superpowers (and before you mention Batman, how many people do you know that can dodge automatic gunfire and disappear in 2 seconds when you don't look at them. He has powers they're just not called that.)

2. A costume (and before you mention the Xmen or FF, their uniforms are costumes just not called that)

3. They don't kill

4. Secret Identies (not always necessary)

5. Help without being compensated (they don't get paid)

6. Use violence to achieve their goals

7. Violence has no long term or negative consequences

8. Their villians are equal in strength

9. They are moralistically pure (slowly changing)

10. More plot driven stories as compared to character based

11. The good guys win about 98% of the time.

12. Most characters don't deviate from their origin story. Hell most characters don't even evolve much beyond their original conception.

 

I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any.

 

Lately, DC has been breaking out of that structure. It needs to if it wishes to cater to a more mature market. Unfortunately, that means the characters/genre will have to change too.

 

Lastly, cyphrett Superman couldn't originally fly and Batman would kill criminals (and I'm not even going into Wonder Woman's history). I would say that those things definitely contradict the characters. It happens all the time and probably always will.

[csyphrett]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Rikathos I had rep you after such a well thought out reply. Plus you have Starman as your avator:)

 

Although, I don't necessarily agree with everything you say I definitely think the reason we're upset is because of the change in thre genre.

 

I realized talking to Dr. Anomaly that the superhero genre is a very specific type of adventure story containing its own internal logic. Its not just hero vs superhero in terms of powers. Its hero vs superhero in terms of key elements. Like all murder mysteries need a murder (duh) a superhero story needs certain points. I'm going to try to list some of them.

 

1. Superpowers (and before you mention Batman, how many people do you know that can dodge automatic gunfire and disappear in 2 seconds when you don't look at them. He has powers they're just not called that.)

2. A costume (and before you mention the Xmen or FF, their uniforms are costumes just not called that)

3. They don't kill

4. Secret Identies (not always necessary)

5. Help without being compensated (they don't get paid)

6. Use violence to achieve their goals

7. Violence has no long term or negative consequences

8. Their villians are equal in strength

9. They are moralistically pure (slowly changing)

10. More plot driven stories as compared to character based

11. The good guys win about 98% of the time.

12. Most characters don't deviate from their origin story. Hell most characters don't even evolve much beyond their original conception.

 

I'm sure there are more but I can't think of any.

 

Lately, DC has been breaking out of that structure. It needs to if it wishes to cater to a more mature market. Unfortunately, that means the characters/genre will have to change too.

 

 

Turning the heroes into the villains for emotional resonance is a crappy way to change in my book.

 

 

Lastly, cyphrett Superman couldn't originally fly and Batman would kill criminals (and I'm not even going into Wonder Woman's history). I would say that those things definitely contradict the characters. It happens all the time and probably always will.

 

I am aware that Superman could not fly until about 1940, and etc. I am also aware that for 60 years they have grown into sterling icons. Now they are hypocrites, failures, philanderers, and nitwits who are ready to place blame on anyone but themselves for their failures.

 

Dude, that's what I want my heroes to be. I want them to be residents of a Jerry Springer show, and not the lastest generation of heroic tales and myths. I want the editorial and writing staff to act like Colin Macherie's (sp?)director in a Who's Line is It Anyway? sketch. I want my kid to prefer the Shonen Jump b/w phone book and video games to the heroes I grew up with.

 

After all it saves me money.

CES

[Kristopher]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

There's a difference between the Change most often seen in mainstream comics -- sudden, gimick-laden, intended to shock and grab new readers -- and the kind of changes that are believable well-written and well-thought-out.

[Chuckg]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

And as an archetypical example of that, consider the most recent GOTHAM KNIGHTS #67, out this month.

 

Hang on to your hat.

 

The basic plot of this is that there's a low-rent scumbag, a former film student who now does wedding videotapes as a day job and bargain-basement pornos at night, who /just happens/ to recreate the same type of genius that led Tim Drake to discover Batman's secret identity.

 

Yes, that's right, he saw a tape of Batman unleashing kung fu on some thugs, and matched it in his head with a tape of Bruce Wayne unleashing kung fu on Hush. Move-for-move. He even confirmed his guess by running facial recognition software -- cheap stuff he got off the Internet, ,even -- on Batman's chin and Bruce Wayne's profile.

 

So, the author of GK #67 (A.J. Lieberman, WTF that is) has just established that Batman's secret identity is about as well-guarded as a box of donuts in the GCPD break room. The sad thing is, that's about the least of the atrocities committed here against the /formerly/ impressive legend that was the House of Wayne and its various adherents.

 

Said low-rent scumbag, in the process of getting the hi-res tapes he needed to confirm his guess, got in an altercation with a security guard at the TV network's morgue. To cut a long story short, the guard ended up dead and the scumbag's partner was offed by the scumbag as well, to cover up his tracks. So we have firmly established that this guy is a loser, yes?

 

Except that Wayne doesn't. Even after he approaches Bruce with his first blackmail demand, /Bruce Wayne does not check this guy's background out/. He acts at all times like he's reasoning with some innocent civilian who just stumbled onto the secret, and never responds like he's talking to a punk who just offed two people. Apparently, the idea of running a check on your blackmailer utterly escaped the World's FORMERLY Greatest Detective.

 

But, it gets worse.

 

How much worse?

 

OK, Bruce tries to reason with the guy -- give me the tape, and I'll watch your back for life and look out for you. Instead of just handing him a pile of cash money that he hasn't figured out how to safely move or store. The guy refuses, and demands that Wayne send him the money, and use his chaffeur, not him, for the bagman.

 

So Bruce asks Alfred, and... well, here's what follows.

 

I can't scan the page before these last three, so I'll excerpt the conversation, as it's very relevant:

 

Alfred -- "So, what did the gentleman want?"

 

Bruce -- "You can ask him yourself. He wants you to take him the money."

 

Alfred -- "Really? Is that... wise?"

 

Bruce -- "We're not dealing with a criminal genius. He's a kid who stumbled onto something he thinks he can profit from. But he's scared. And I only make him more so. He might respond better to a less... intimidating approach."

 

Alfred -- "Less intimidating I shall be then, sir."

 

And then here comes the finale.

 

I attach scans rather than simply describe the action because the camera cut away from the actual deed in progress, and simply focused in on the corpse afterwards. So it's /possible/ that the guy pulled a piece and died in a fair fight, the gunshots being "offstage", as it were.

 

But given the entire presentation and everything, it sure /looks like/ Alfred Pennyworth just committed cold-blooded murder, and not even at Bruce Wayne's behest, in order to cover up The Secret.

 

Now there's a change the comics world didn't need, IMO.

[Kirby]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

But given the entire presentation and everything' date=' it sure /looks like/ Alfred Pennyworth just committed cold-blooded murder, and not even at Bruce Wayne's behest, in order to cover up The Secret.[/quote']

Well, is it a surprse? I mean, the last panel of the first image clearly shows that an angry Alfred is a clone of Adolph Hitler, but one that lived longer and lost his hair.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Well' date=' is it a surprse? I mean, the last panel of the first image clearly shows that an angry Alfred is a clone of Adolph Hitler, but one that lived longer and lost his hair. [/quote']

 

Modern ocntinuity provides Alfred with a background as an undercover agent/commando which implies he's willing to, and trained to, kill. I don't particularly like the change, nor the issue in question, however.

[Chuckg]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Especially given how unwilling or unable they were to explore other options first -- like simply sneaking into his apartment and stealing the damned tape.

 

Or, you know, finding a way to discredit a cokehead porn-shooting multiple murderer. Goodness knows that's /totally/ beyond Batman's capacities...

[Kirby]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Especially given how unwilling or unable they were to explore other options first -- like simply sneaking into his apartment and stealing the damned tape.

Now, now, don't be hasty. It's not like we've ever seen Batman sneak in to someplace he wasn't wanted. And where would he get ko gas and a rebreather anyway? That belt's for holding up his external undies.

[Rikathos]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I don't know what is going on in the heads of writers for DC, but I am catching a theme. Perhaps the writers are taking a good hard look at what it means to be a hero.

Certainly not killing people as a regular way to resolve the plot.

But the Heroes Identity is what is core to the character.

What makes the Character tick. What keeps him putting on the tights and stopping the law breakers.

People. The very people they protect and love.

Superman for instance. He for all purposes is Physically indestructible. Except of course for Kryptonite and Magic.

But Emotionally and Mentally? The Man is vulnerable.

If Lex Luther killed Lois Lane, Superman's love. Before Luther could say

"Its a bird its a..urk."

He'd have a hole in his chest from Superman's heat vision.

That's Supermans weakness, the people he cares for and loves.

That's where the drama of the character is. That is what the current writers are exploring in their themes. What pushes the characters buttons.

The threat of their secret identities being revealed to the world and all of their loved ones and associates lives put at risk.

Now do I think good ol'Pennyworth would kill for Batman?

Yes.

For his love of Bruce and his realization that even though his crusade is destructive it is needed.

To what lengths are Heroes and those they love willing to go to in order to protect the greater good.

Now do I think Alfred should be depicted doing that?

No.

If you do look at the Paneled artwork they give you the idea that Alfred killed the man. But they do not show it. They let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks.

Any number of possibilities could have occured.

Perhaps Alfred views killing them as a means to an end. A move need for the greater good of Batman.

Me personally, I think there are far more sophisticated ways of taking care of the situation besides breaking in and taking the evidence, you could easily discredit the reporter and ruin his credibility. However, you run the risk of creating a future enemy.

But then, that's what comic's do.

Maybe this sudden change in writing direction comes from creators realizing that at $2.99 a pop lil'Johnny can't afford a comic these days.

Where as an adult could.

This division can be seen in Marvel's attempt at making comics more accessable to younger kids with "Marvel Age" comics.

 

I guess it boils down to whether you like it or not.

I'm sure that sales figures will certain attest to whether it was a successful idea that interested consumers or not.

[Balabanto]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Uh...guys...this is the evidence I've been waiting for.

 

All the evidence points to a DC reboot. And it will be a cool reboot. With a classic villain who has faced the entire Justice League before and defeated them.

 

A villain who has telepathy, telekinesis, and the ability to erase minds, encourage mindwipes, and ruthlessly kill people. But he still can't bring harm to Batman, because deep in his twisted mind, a little piece of him still cares.

 

Alfred Pennyworth is The Outsider.

 

Go back and do your research. If this plays out the way I think it will, we'll have a much shinier DCU when we're done.

[csyphrett]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Uh...guys...this is the evidence I've been waiting for.

 

All the evidence points to a DC reboot. And it will be a cool reboot. With a classic villain who has faced the entire Justice League before and defeated them.

 

A villain who has telepathy, telekinesis, and the ability to erase minds, encourage mindwipes, and ruthlessly kill people. But he still can't bring harm to Batman, because deep in his twisted mind, a little piece of him still cares.

 

Alfred Pennyworth is The Outsider.

 

Go back and do your research. If this plays out the way I think it will, we'll have a much shinier DCU when we're done.

 

I hope you're right, but the creative staff in charge strikes me as a bunch of bumbling Keystone cops.

 

CES

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

If this plays out the way I think it will' date=' we'll have a much shinier DCU when we're done.[/quote']

Much as I loathe the idea of reboots...especially the way they keep doing them...in this case, I hope you're right. I really do.

[Dominique]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I'd really like to be a fly on the wall during the editorial meetings they have. "Hey, I know, we can have Alfred shot him." "Yeah that would be cool."

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I'm beginning to wonder if congenital retardation and a total contempt for the genre are requirements of employment as a comic editor by either of the 'big two' lately.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I'm beginning to wonder if congenital retardation and a total contempt for the genre are requirements of employment as a comic editor by either of the 'big two' lately.

That's gonna get you repped, as soon as I can! (Two or three days, most likely, since I've got a bit of a backlog of bookmarked reps to get through yet, and can only do 5 a day...)

[Greywind]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

But Emotionally and Mentally? The Man is vulnerable.

If Lex Luther killed Lois Lane, Superman's love. Before Luther could say

"Its a bird its a..urk."

He'd have a hole in his chest from Superman's heat vision.

That's Supermans weakness, the people he cares for and loves.

Sorry, no. It's been done. 8 issues story arc across all four Superman titles, if I recall, "Ending the Fight."

 

Manchester Black made Superman think he'd killed Lois. He was trying to get Superman to kill him, in an attempt to prove Superman isn't as pure as everyone thought. Superman refused to kill Black, wanted to but refused to, because Lois wouldn't have wanted him to, and he wanted to preserve his memory of Lois, and be what she wanted him to be.

 

Black did commit suicide. Blew his brains out using his TK. Which led to the Justice League Elite story with Black trying to take over his sister.