DC's turn toward the dark

[tm80401]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

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.

 

Actually Black wasn't trying to take over Vera. She was just nuts.

[Greywind]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

The whole Elite storyline was nuts.

[Rikathos]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I'm not going to duel with some one far more intimate with the details of Superman.

 

However...The character involved was not Lex Luthor.

 

Hell even in Kingdom Come Superman couldn't kill the Joker.

 

I think Lex get's under Supes cape. And the debate over this detail is moot when considering the current topic.

 

(Insert Diagram of Tangent here)

[Greywind]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Martian Manhunter in JLA offered to turn Lex's brain off for Superman. His reply was "We are NOT having this conversation!"

 

In Superman/Batman 5 or 6, Superman had Lex by the throat. Batman told Superman "We could just make him disappear. No one would ever know." He didn't take him up on it.

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Martian Manhunter in JLA offered to turn Lex's brain off for Superman. His reply was "We are NOT having this conversation!"

 

In Superman/Batman 5 or 6, Superman had Lex by the throat. Batman told Superman "We could just make him disappear. No one would ever know." He didn't take him up on it.

 

I really enjoyed both of those conversations...

 

But then, I like the Lex-Superman hate-hate dynamic.

[Enforcer84]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Sure, you have the right to complain. As a concumer, you also have a responsibility to purchase wisely, becuase your purchasing decisions really do drive the marketplace.

 

Are you calling him a pickle descendant?

[Enforcer84]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Alfred Shot a guy? Bat's was willing to pay a guy to keep his secret? Captain Control was fine with throwing money at a guy who might or might not try to rip him off?

Thhbbbt!

[Rikathos]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I do not know why I am feeding the fire of this discussion that has devolved into whether or not Superman would kill or not?

You have given distinct and direct examples of Superman NOT killing or mucking about with peoples minds.

 

No where in your examples does it provide definative proof

That if Lex Luthor (Not anyone else) killed (As in Gone down and joined the Choir Invisible, Dead, This Reporter is most certainly Dead. Not Resting. No Voom. Dead. This is the farthest example of life out there. Dead. Bereft of Life. Worm food. No chance for resesatation. Kacked. Kicked. She's a freakin' Corpse.) Lois Lane.

I submit to you that if Lois Lane was killed by Lex Luthor himself. And Superman saw it or found out about it. Lex Luthor would be so much paste.

Now remember...Lex Luthor...Killing not massaging or caressing Lois Lane with his Evil.

Killing her. Him not a flunky or a malevolent force controlling Lex Luthor to do it.

Not a parallel dimension version of Lex or Lois the REAL deal. Lex + Lois = Superman willing to kill out of anguish and pain. Blind Kryptonian Fury on his Ultimate foe Lex Luthor.

 

And do we count Justice League Unlimited in this debate or do we keep strictly to the Comic?

[OddHat]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Superman was first written by teen kids, and not all that well. Since then, he has gone through good writers and crap writers, and recently the good writers appear to have been few and far between.

 

If you, as a story teller, feel that there is a point where Superman would "break" and kill an ordinary Human, that may be valid. It is within the scope of a character that is psychologically (mostly) human. OTOH, part of the character's post golden-age concept has been an absolute moral code; killing a man he could capture and turn over to the courts would violate that code. It would be hard to do well.

 

Of course, Wonder Woman is now killing prisoners, so with the current DC editors who knows.

 

One of the problems with iconic characters is that after a certain point we don't want any further character development; Superman goes from the innocent child to the pure and (almost) invincible Paladin / Savoir, and that's it; if he develops much further, he's no longer that iconic Superman. It's much easier to tell this kind of story with a Superman tribute character, where you have the freedom to keep going past the birth of the Hero.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I don't feel the need to weigh in on any one of these particular changes (breakup of the League, Alfred, Infinite Crisis, OMAC, etc). I don't even really feel particularly strongly about any perceived direction that DC is taking their books in.

 

My problem is that, for the long-term comic book reader, NOTHING MATTERS any more. This isn't a problem unique to recent DC, or even just to DC. This is a problem that comic books have been having for decades. It's just gotten worse since now, every year or so, every single comic title needs to have a "big, significant, life-changing" storyline.

 

No matter what the event is, at some point, some other writer will get tired of it and change it back. No matter how fundamental or important the event is, some guy will decide to muck with it. We've all (unfortunately) gotten used to the "he's lost his powers" storyline, and even the "he's dead" storyline, thanks to Superman and Green Arrow.

 

However, it just seems to have gotten worse and worse. Superheroes (Green Lantern) can become irredeemably evil (Parallax), die, and then be reborn (Spectre), and then be rehabilitated (Presto, Green Lantern again!). The death of a sidekick (Robin) can be a major force in a hero's life for years, then (poof!) he's back, with an agenda!

 

The writers keep trying to tell us, over and over and over, that TODAY's events are really earth-shattering and important (Sue Dibny's death, JL mindwiping) and there will be repercussions throughout the entire universe with them (the big three lose faith in each other, the League breaks up). However, we ALL know that the instant that something becomes stale or boring, someone will (instead of keeping it changing), decide to go back to the same old formula.

 

I have the same problem with Marvel (say, the Scarlet Witch/House of M stuff).

 

I've become pre-emptively disappointed in comics. No matter how cool, interesting, or well-thought out the story line, I know that some future writer will dislike the direction of the book, and steer it back to some point that he DID like. I would have been impressed with the whole Scarlet Witch storyline (as it did tie together a lot of the Scarlet Witch's crazy behavior), if I didn't KNOW that the Vision will be back, Hawkeye will return from the dead, and the Avengers formula roster will be restored.

 

Comic Book writers are not writing for the long-time reader, almost ever. They are writing for the person who is reading it right now. It isn't a concern that they are upsetting a year, or a decade, or a half-century of continuity. The audience they are trying to reach is constantly renewing. They pick up comics for a few years, and then stop reading them. Criticising them for continuity violations is almost like criticizing romance authors for writing formulaic love novels. The target audience doesn't care--they aren't aware of continuity, so it isn't violated to them.

[OddHat]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Comic Book writers are not writing for the long-time reader, almost ever. They are writing for the person who is reading it right now. It isn't a concern that they are upsetting a year, or a decade, or a half-century of continuity. The audience they are trying to reach is constantly renewing. They pick up comics for a few years, and then stop reading them. Criticising them for continuity violations is almost like criticizing romance authors for writing formulaic love novels. The target audience doesn't care--they aren't aware of continuity, so it isn't violated to them.

 

Repped.

 

And this is part of the reason that these days I stick to titles by a single author that are intended to have a limited run; Planetary, Astro City, Top Ten, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc can tell real stories, because they reflect the ideas of a small team of creators, and they will have an end.

 

I think you can do formula stories well, even in an open ended series (the Destroyer novels usually manage it), but it requires a level of respect for and commitment to the material that seems scarce in mainstream comics.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Comic Book writers are not writing for the long-time reader' date=' almost ever. They are writing for the person who is reading it right now. It isn't a concern that they are upsetting a year, or a decade, or a half-century of continuity. The audience they are trying to reach is constantly renewing. They pick up comics for a few years, and then stop reading them. Criticising them for continuity violations is almost like criticizing romance authors for writing formulaic love novels. The target audience doesn't care--they aren't aware of continuity, so it isn't violated to them.[/quote']

I wish, I wish, I wish that didn't make so much sense I think I have to agree with you...but I'm likely to still criticize them for ignoring continuity -- after all, if it's not important, why have any common history thread from one issue of a comic to the next one?

 

I'd rep you for this, but I just got through using my 5 reps for this 24-hour period; it will be at least 24 hours before I can rep you.

 

Rest assured, though, you're on the list to get it once the 24 hours is up. (And I mean that literally. I keep a list. )

[csyphrett]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I have to agree with that assessment also. It just bugs me that I remember a time that 90% of the stories weren't retcons. What happened to that idea? As a gm, story teller, and a player, I would rather build on things that might have a lasting influence than go back and retell something to get an advantage.

 

CES

[KawangaKid]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I've stopped collecting a lot of DC comics individual issues, but I will be picking up the TPBs of the following:

 

1. OMAC Project

2. Villains United

3. The Wonder Woman storyline tie-in with the issue titled "Sacrifice"

4. The Teen Titans / Outsiders storyline

5. Rann / Thanagar War

6. Day of Vengeance

 

I am enjoying the bits and pieces that I've read from borrowed comics, and while I'm sure a large part of it is the fact that they've foreshadowed and plot-twisted a great deal, I do feel that some of these developments can be considered "in-character" or logical extensions of the things that have been taken for granted over the years.

 

The WW vs. Supes showdown and the fate of Max had me nervously turning the pages (even if I really hadda ignore the past incarnations of tongue-in-cheek Max) because the stakes were high. Very high - the exact issues being tackled here - issues of heroism and superheroism and moral decisions.

 

For me, comics are exciting again and yes, the illusion of permanency (Hello Hal... what, you're alive?) in the changes does ramp up that feeling... but I also feel that the writing is very good (even if it may not be everyone's cup of tea given the genre).

 

Strategically, the mini-series and the main titles seem to be establishing in broad strokes the areas of the DC Universe:

 

1. Superheroes - the Big Three won't be united anymore due to differences in opinion and methods;

2. Supervillains - they're more dangerous and crafty than before;

3. Outer Space - politics and space opera tension;

4. Magic - I dunno where they're headed here and I think that's reflected in my listing of TPB choices.

 

I'm probably in the minority on the boards but, hey, that's my view of things.

[Chuckg]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Remember how I detailed recently how Alfred Pennyworth had just become a cold-blooded murderer?

 

According to spoilers for BATMAN #644, out earlier today, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has just joined him on murderer's row.

 

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=76127

 

And this one made Alfred look as innocent as, well, Starguard.

[Enforcer84]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Remember how I detailed recently how Alfred Pennyworth had just become a cold-blooded murderer?

 

According to spoilers for BATMAN #644, out earlier today, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has just joined him on murderer's row.

 

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=76127

 

And this one made Alfred look as innocent as, well, Starguard.

"DC has balls the size of coconuts to do that."

 

yup, and they're where their brains should be...

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Remember how I detailed recently how Alfred Pennyworth had just become a cold-blooded murderer?

 

According to spoilers for BATMAN #644, out earlier today, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has just joined him on murderer's row.

 

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=76127

 

And this one made Alfred look as innocent as, well, Starguard.

 

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

If the Anti-Monitor ends up being the villain for "Infinite Crisis", and he tries to destroy the whole DCU, then he can have it, and I'm gonna be cheering him on.

A-frikkin'-men.

[psm]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

I'm so glad I stopped collecting Batman about 10-15 yrs ago. These stories don't seem all that appealing.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Remember how I detailed recently how Alfred Pennyworth had just become a cold-blooded murderer?

 

According to spoilers for BATMAN #644, out earlier today, Dr. Leslie Tompkins has just joined him on murderer's row.

 

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=76127

 

And this one made Alfred look as innocent as, well, Starguard.

 

Did Leslie let Spoiler die on the table or did she out and out kill her? (I.e., stab her, shoot her, whatever?)

 

In any event, this does sound very dumb. Does anyone else get the feeling that many superhero comic writers despise both their own genre and the people who read it?

 

Or maybe DC is trying to remove any and every human connection Bruce has, the better to turn him into Bat-psycho? ("Everyone has abandoned me... Now the world must pay!")

[Chuckg]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Did Leslie let Spoiler die on the table or did she out and out kill her? (I.e.' date=' stab her, shoot her, whatever?)[/quote']

 

Dr. Tompkins deliberately withheld treatment (and for that matter, medication) from Steph as she lay bleeding out from internal injuries and the other expected after-effects of hours of especially brutal torture at the hands of Black Mask.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Damn. Now that's cold.

 

Also completely unlike the character, from what I can remember of her, but it's not like consistency means much currently in comics.

[Chuckg]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Well, as the spoiler thread I linked to detailed, she let Steph die so that Bruce would finally realize the cost of his mission, and stop using kids in it, so no more kids would die.

 

Even leaving out the fact that this reasoning is flat-out psychotic ('I must kill an innocent child so that no innocent child must ever die!'), didn't the writer or Dr. Tompkins stop to think that if the (apparent) death of Jason Todd didn't stop Bruce for all those years, how could Steph's be expected to? Batman didn't even particularly /like/ her, from the way he was acting.

 

Oh, and notice that he let her killer just plain walk. You want cold? That's cold. Apparently, DC editorial not only thinks that Steph's life wasn't worth saving, but her death wasn't worth avenging.

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Now that's some quality BAD writing right there!

[Kristopher]

Re: DC's turn toward the dark

 

Someone should bring her back, and when asked why, they should simply say "Because when idiots write a comic book, what they inflict on it shouldn't be considered permanent."