No Happy Marriages for DC Heroes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

teebeeohh:
i remember this one, apparently it was impossible to make a man who shoots spiderwebs out of his wrists interesting because he was married. this is so stupid.

And they spent like 30 years trying to make him interesting and relatable by shoving him back into his mom aunt's house as a single nerd.

I'm just taking this as another example of DC being run by idiots.

Superman and Lois not being together? Ok, Moviebob made a compelling argument there and I could understand it. Him shacking up with Wonder Woman? Bullsh*t. They have nothing in common aside from their superhero work.

Based on the track record for pretty much every recent superhero wedding, it'd be a surprise if they got married and something didn't stop the ceremony during the most convenient time of "Let them speak now". Happened with Dick Grayson and Starfire if I remember when Raven crashed the party.

when can relationships ever be interessting or enhance a character or even give a superhuman human qualities?
what nonsense!

Zachary Amaranth:

teebeeohh:
i remember this one, apparently it was impossible to make a man who shoots spiderwebs out of his wrists interesting because he was married. this is so stupid.

And they spent like 30 years trying to make him interesting and relatable by shoving him back into his mom aunt's house as a single nerd.

it's like people don't want to see characters who overcome obstacles and have changes in their lives because that shit is boring as fuck. nothing relatable about that, it's not like the only constant in life is that everything always changes and you need to learn to adapt to that.

sry, thinking about editorial bullshit in comics makes me angry.

teebeeohh:
it's like people don't want to see characters who overcome obstacles and have changes in their lives because that shit is boring as fuck. nothing relatable about that, it's not like the only constant in life is that everything always changes and you need to learn to adapt to that.

sry, thinking about editorial bullshit in comics makes me angry.

But how can we relate to a guy who has marriage and responsibili...Oh crap, this is the guy who says with great power comes great responsibilities...HAND WAVE!

I'll play devil's advocate to an extent and agree that the Bat family and Superman should not be in happy stable relationships. (Largely because the Bat Family are not happy stable people and Superman being married or even in a stable relationship undermines a lot of the "Superman belongs to humanity" angle that they frequently like to play up.)

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the DC universe is fair game.

Diddy_Mao:
I'll play devil's advocate to an extent and agree that the Bat family and Superman should not be in happy stable relationships. (Largely because the Bat Family are not happy stable people and Superman being married or even in a stable relationship undermines a lot of the "Superman belongs to humanity" angle that they frequently like to play up.)

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the DC universe is fair game.

You see this is where I disagree most strongly. Superman Needs to be married. Strength of family is one of the driving forces of the character. And since DC saw fit to kill off his parents in new 52 he needs it from another source.

To me Superman is best when he's the hero to the world but just Clark to his friends and parents this is what grounds him and keeps him from losing perspective. New 52 strips him of that.

Dear character development,

Fuck you.

Signed, DC.

Mcoffey:
"We want surprises! That's why we're sticking with the cliches of angst and failed relationships."

Yep, for sure. Let's keep things surprising.. by completely writing out an entire branching storyline possibility for everyone in the entire universe!

RT:
"The new 52, we want surprises. We want things to happen that may be unexpected with romances, relationships"
Never mind that when you do that all the fucking time, it stops being unexpected.

It doesn't help when they outright tell everybody that there's no point in the reader getting invested in the heroes' relationships because the writers are going to f**k them up regardless.

It seems that these days both DC and Marvel are going out of their way to piss off as many of their fans as possible in the most retarded ways possible.

Mcoffey:

Oh I believe it. I shouldn't say I've never read "any" of the old books. I prefer the one shots, like The Killing Joke, or some of Frank Millers' stuff. The ones that only really rely on the reader knowing the jist of who the characters are. I know who Batman is, I know who the Joker is, and I know who Barbara Gordon is. That's all I needed to enjoy that one, and I enjoyed it a great deal. When I read the first issue of Batman in the New 52, I felt pretty much lost because a lot of what was going on was dependant on having prior knowledge of more recent material. That and there being like, three batman comics at once kinda threw me too (Do they take place at the same time? If not which do I read first? stuff like that).

I think that the reason why I never really get into comics especially DC all that much is because unless you happened to be born in the 60's or something or are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to get everything you're going to be missing out on a lot, since unless you're willing to pirate you probably can't get the hundreds of comics just following a SINGLE superhero for a reasonable price anywhere, which should never be the case. It doesn't help that the comics tend to call back to or directly reference comics that came before it or of other superheroes.

Most of the comics I tend to read are Marvel because of this, since they've been selling CD collections of their comics.

Zachary Amaranth:

teebeeohh:
it's like people don't want to see characters who overcome obstacles and have changes in their lives because that shit is boring as fuck. nothing relatable about that, it's not like the only constant in life is that everything always changes and you need to learn to adapt to that.

sry, thinking about editorial bullshit in comics makes me angry.

But how can we relate to a guy who has marriage and responsibili...Oh crap, this is the guy who says with great power comes great responsibilities...HAND WAVE!

The thing is, as much as people CLAIM they want their characters to change and grow and so forth, they really don't. Every time the writers try to do exactly that everybody screams bloody murder until they put it back the way it was. As a result it's pretty hard to get these kinda things to stick for any real length of time. Sometimes with the outright stupid stuff this attitude is justified (I'm looking at you "Superior" Spider-Man) but most of the time it's just whining.

'...rushing into stable relationships.'

I can't recall this ever being said before. Are we looking at a first?

Copper Zen:

And the Harley Quinn naked/suicidal thing is low brow. Tacky, DC, reaaaaallly tacky. -_-

Honestly, half of the issue with that was the way a lot of people went and overblown the entire thing, Escapist Article Titles included. Any halfway serious artist wouldn't of batted an eye at the "naked" comment for the fourth panel, she's in a tub, why would you be wearing clothing? It also never said she needed anything exposed or hinted at.
example: http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/art/Quinnicide-399525619

Was the whole suicide angle weak? Could they have tried to come up with something a bit more varied without any possibility of implied sexuality? Yes and yes. It also doesn't help that they've taken a character that was created by "Batman: The Animated Series" whose design could be seen as "sexy" already but also tasteful, and decided they'd go the lazy route with it and remove any tact or interesting design in favor of generic slutty.

But that is the issue with the New 52 in general though. Everything is lazy crap, and most any and all female superheroes (or villains) have been turned into nothing more than man-bait (I.E Harley Quinn again, Star Fire, and god knows how many others) if they weren't to begin with, with harder-hitting slaps or occasional eye beams.

Which is why this bit of news doesn't surprise me. All I'm wondering now is when will the "New 25" initiative kick up so they can reboot their reboot, and maybe get back to something interesting again.

immortalfrieza:

The thing is, as much as people CLAIM they want their characters to change and grow and so forth, they really don't. Every time the writers try to do exactly that everybody screams bloody murder until they put it back the way it was. As a result it's pretty hard to get these kinda things to stick for any real length of time. Sometimes with the outright stupid stuff this attitude is justified (I'm looking at you "Superior" Spider-Man) but most of the time it's just whining.

The thing is, I'm talking about something fairly different. Joe Quesada thinks the only way we as an audience can relate to Spidey is if he's a man-child (-spider) in his aunt's attic. Something he fought the fans on for over 20 years, which seems to validate the notion that not only did they identify with him still, they accepted change.

I reject the notion that you can't effect change, though quite often they shouldn't. I'm struggling to think of an example that wasn't really dumb, but maybe you can think of one.

But Spider-Man did change quite a bit, and they ended up doing to him exactly what it seems nobody wanted, and moved him back decades.

I think the major point here is it can be done, not necessarily that it should be done. DC's already gone for stupid with the new 52, and while I hear there are some good comics the system-wide reboot seemed poorly thought out etc. And their reasoning here seems similarly poorly thought out.

Zachary Amaranth:

The thing is, I'm talking about something fairly different. Joe Quesada thinks the only way we as an audience can relate to Spidey is if he's a man-child (-spider) in his aunt's attic. Something he fought the fans on for over 20 years, which seems to validate the notion that not only did they identify with him still, they accepted change.

I reject the notion that you can't effect change, though quite often they shouldn't. I'm struggling to think of an example that wasn't really dumb, but maybe you can think of one.

But Spider-Man did change quite a bit, and they ended up doing to him exactly what it seems nobody wanted, and moved him back decades.

I think the major point here is it can be done, not necessarily that it should be done. DC's already gone for stupid with the new 52, and while I hear there are some good comics the system-wide reboot seemed poorly thought out etc. And their reasoning here seems similarly poorly thought out.

I can definitely agree that the higher ups don't seem to know what they're doing. I can't think of an example of something they changed that they shouldn't have that wasn't mindnumbingly stupid either. Change has been good before, hell, the only DC comics I'll bother to try and pick up are the post Crisis ones, before then DC comics were terribly corny and poorly written. However, it's got to be an almost unanimously good change before people will really accept a change for it to stay.

1- Vocal internet commentators always want their favourite characters to exist unchanging in some sort of perpetually unchanging pop-culture safety zone, so that they can continue to talk about them with other like-minded people without going to the actual effort of purchasing and reading the comics.

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Yeah, these are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

Paradoxrifts:

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Like Marvel in the 90s and look what happened back then, complete success...

Red X:

Paradoxrifts:

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Like Marvel in the 90s and look what happened back then, complete success...

They still lose absolutely nothing by not managing to sell their comic books to people who weren't buying their comic books in the first place.

As much as I don't like romantic relationships in my media (because then I end up denying myself from enjoying them when I'm in a bad/lonely mood, as when I'm in such a mood, the mere mention of such things is likely to send me into a rabid rage) this is a crappy decision. When you have that many characters, it sticks out like a sore thumb that none of them ever decided to get married to anyone.

Paradoxrifts:
1- Vocal internet commentators always want their favourite characters to exist unchanging in some sort of perpetually unchanging pop-culture safety zone, so that they can continue to talk about them with other like-minded people without going to the actual effort of purchasing and reading the comics.

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Yeah, these are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

I just don't see that. The vocal internet commentors are the people crying most for the characters to change and grow. It's DC Editorial who wants them to stay in some unchanging bubble.

We want marriage we want growth. We want change.

Is Iron Man in the new 52?

jackdeesface:
Is Iron Man in the new 52?

The new 52 is all the DC stuff. Iron Man is Marvel.

It has been 1 days since DC has done something stupid.

http://hasdcdonesomethingstupidtoday.com/

I'm glad I'm not invested in the DC universe outside the DCAU.

Charli:
...Ugh I just... no actually I'm aborting my reaction to this. These guys have no idea what they're doing. I dislike every little thing they say. DC gets no more monay from me since 6 months ago now. Yes not even for movies.

Stupid! You are made of stupid nowadays,DC! Ever see the amazing Justice League cartoons? The ones made by Bruce Timm? Those were great, weren't they? And they wonder how Marvel is doing SO well right now. I swear, this has NOT been a good year for DC, has it? They've just made one dumb idea after another. Frankenstein: Agent of S.H.A.D.E. and Dial H were the only titles I cared about with the "New 52". Frankenstein was cancelled, (Thank you oh, so very much,DC. RRGH.) and I fear Dial H is next. What, is DC allergic to good ideas all of a sudden?

Winnosh:

Paradoxrifts:
1- Vocal internet commentators always want their favourite characters to exist unchanging in some sort of perpetually unchanging pop-culture safety zone, so that they can continue to talk about them with other like-minded people without going to the actual effort of purchasing and reading the comics.

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Yeah, these are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

I just don't see that. The vocal internet commentors are the people crying most for the characters to change and grow. It's DC Editorial who wants them to stay in some unchanging bubble.

We want marriage we want growth. We want change.

Agreed,why do you think I stick to manga?

Mcoffey:
"We want surprises! That's why we're sticking with the cliches of angst and failed relationships."

I never read the old comic books, but I didn't hate what little I read of New 52 (Mostly just Catwoman and Batgirl, tbh, a little Batman). I was kind of hoping that the N52 would be closer to the "Ultimates" line Marvel had, where it was basically a continuity reboot. What's the point of relaunching the brand if you're still clinging to the 70 years of baggage from before? I don't know who Damien Wayne is (I do now, thanks to wikipedia, but you get my point), and I don't want to have to read a bajillion comics just to know.

That's what I like about the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They take the best parts of the heroes hugnormous history, and strip out the need to read material from decades ago.

The continuity reboot is such a mess. For most of the characters the continuity is said to have been wiped. However, Batman and the Green Lantern Corps continuity haven't been touched.

Everything that happened in them since Infinite Crisis has still happened to them but within the space of 10 years. However, that comes with a ton of problems. If those things still happened to Bats,(ESPECIALLY Infinite/Final Crisis and Blackest Night/Brightest Day having still happened to Bats and GL) then other stuff that happened in there must've happened to the other characters involved in those stories, by extension of that, (For example Supes MUST have saved the universe in Final Crisis because Bats has still travelled in time in the new continuity) it means there has been no reboot. Only in the comic title numbers and a few details.

And by fuck that's difficult for me to read clearly, let alone if you've only just started getting into them ><

Overall I haven't been reading many of the titles. I'm waiting on a Question series, (though his new backstory is fucking naff), and waiting for my copies of the Trinity War to arrive, but otherwise Batman seems to be the only one with really good writing (Though I've heard Batgirl, Batwoman and Animal Man have been good).

Though I think it's unfair to complain about Damian being present, he's been quite important to Batman for a number of years now, so he's earned his place to stick around for the new continuity. Not to sound like a douche, but if you want to know who a character is, just look it up. You did for Damien and it took like what, five minutes? Dick Greyson hasn't been Robin since the late 70s, that's just how it is now, not in this unique case, them clinging to the continuity. Core fans would be pretty annoyed if Dick went back to being Robin I think.

elvor0:

Everything that happened -- within the space of 10 years.

Actually it's 5 :/

Winnosh:

Paradoxrifts:
1- Vocal internet commentators always want their favourite characters to exist unchanging in some sort of perpetually unchanging pop-culture safety zone, so that they can continue to talk about them with other like-minded people without going to the actual effort of purchasing and reading the comics.

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Yeah, these are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

I just don't see that. The vocal internet commentors are the people crying most for the characters to change and grow. It's DC Editorial who wants them to stay in some unchanging bubble.

We want marriage we want growth. We want change.

But here's the pinch. The fans will never again agree with one another that any of the changes introduced are any good or worth keeping. The more popular the series or characters, the more fans that have and the more true this is. Eventually it becomes a great big schizophrenic mess where the fanbase simultaneously wants change to occur but also hates it whenever it occurs.

Talk has never been cheaper than it is on the internet. And this is why I don't blame companies for listening to how people vote with their wallets, instead of whoever can project their voice loudest and most obnoxious over the general rabble.

Paradoxrifts:

Winnosh:

Paradoxrifts:
1- Vocal internet commentators always want their favourite characters to exist unchanging in some sort of perpetually unchanging pop-culture safety zone, so that they can continue to talk about them with other like-minded people without going to the actual effort of purchasing and reading the comics.

2- DC Editorial actually wants to sell some comics.

Yeah, these are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

I just don't see that. The vocal internet commentors are the people crying most for the characters to change and grow. It's DC Editorial who wants them to stay in some unchanging bubble.

We want marriage we want growth. We want change.

But here's the pinch. The fans will never again agree with one another that any of the changes introduced are any good or worth keeping. The more popular the series or characters, the more fans that have and the more true this is. Eventually it becomes a great big schizophrenic mess where the fanbase simultaneously wants change to occur but also hates it whenever it occurs.

Talk has never been cheaper than it is on the internet. And this is why I don't blame companies for listening to how people vote with their wallets, instead of whoever can project their voice loudest and most obnoxious over the general rabble.

You can't predict what the fans will want so just focus on telling good stories and not trying to cherry pick things. Move forward and things will develop organically. Captcha rocket science as in this isn't it.

There are no happy marriages anywhere. The belief that marriage is an automatic end to all of ones problems and a universal remedy for ones issues is a myth held by the unmarried amongst us. There is not a single relationship wherein one can put up ones feet and say' It's going to be clear sailing from here!' Life is simply not like that.

This says nothing about marriages amongst 'heroes', who likely have their own sets of unique problems that go well beyond the typical concerns of the less superior folk. Why should happy marriages be more likely for them than they are for us?

Winnosh:
You can't predict what the fans will want so just focus on telling good stories and not trying to cherry pick things. Move forward and things will develop organically. Captcha rocket science as in this isn't it.

And the internet doesn't agree anymore on what makes for a good story either.

Dammit Dammit Dammit. Ok apparently at a con someone from Bleeding Cool asked why Aquaman was allowed to stay married in the reboot but no one else can. Didio responded that Aquaman wasn't married in the new continuity... Despite Aquaman and his wife Mera still acting as a couple and everyone referring to her as his queen in every single damn issue and everyone treating them like they are married.

But Nooo apparently they're not.

elvor0:

Mcoffey:
"We want surprises! That's why we're sticking with the cliches of angst and failed relationships."

I never read the old comic books, but I didn't hate what little I read of New 52 (Mostly just Catwoman and Batgirl, tbh, a little Batman). I was kind of hoping that the N52 would be closer to the "Ultimates" line Marvel had, where it was basically a continuity reboot. What's the point of relaunching the brand if you're still clinging to the 70 years of baggage from before? I don't know who Damien Wayne is (I do now, thanks to wikipedia, but you get my point), and I don't want to have to read a bajillion comics just to know.

That's what I like about the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They take the best parts of the heroes hugnormous history, and strip out the need to read material from decades ago.

The continuity reboot is such a mess. For most of the characters the continuity is said to have been wiped. However, Batman and the Green Lantern Corps continuity haven't been touched.

Everything that happened in them since Infinite Crisis has still happened to them but within the space of 10 years. However, that comes with a ton of problems. If those things still happened to Bats,(ESPECIALLY Infinite/Final Crisis and Blackest Night/Brightest Day having still happened to Bats and GL) then other stuff that happened in there must've happened to the other characters involved in those stories, by extension of that, (For example Supes MUST have saved the universe in Final Crisis because Bats has still travelled in time in the new continuity) it means there has been no reboot. Only in the comic title numbers and a few details.

And by fuck that's difficult for me to read clearly, let alone if you've only just started getting into them ><

Overall I haven't been reading many of the titles. I'm waiting on a Question series, (though his new backstory is fucking naff), and waiting for my copies of the Trinity War to arrive, but otherwise Batman seems to be the only one with really good writing (Though I've heard Batgirl, Batwoman and Animal Man have been good).

Though I think it's unfair to complain about Damian being present, he's been quite important to Batman for a number of years now, so he's earned his place to stick around for the new continuity. Not to sound like a douche, but if you want to know who a character is, just look it up. You did for Damien and it took like what, five minutes? Dick Greyson hasn't been Robin since the late 70s, that's just how it is now, not in this unique case, them clinging to the continuity. Core fans would be pretty annoyed if Dick went back to being Robin I think.

Oh I don't mind Damien being there, but as this was a relaunch I was kind of hoping for a bit more introduction than him just being there. Not an origin story, but at least some time to explain and address the current status quo for the uninitiated. I know it's all on the Wiki, but I don't want to look up the last 30+ years to know who everyone is, and I shouldn't have to. That was the point of New 52, wasn't it? I'm not so hurting for comics or literature in general that I wont read something else if I'm not enjoying myself.

What, is this Game of Thrones, now? You gonna have everybody die? Gimme a break...

Surely these people are going to be fired, right? I mean... is the reboot really doing that well compared to before?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here