A message buried deep in the Bush thread asked me to comment on Dan Didio’s various assertions about “Young Justice” in a Heroes Con interview quoted on Newsarama. First he complained about the quality of the book’s sales, stating that a book which features such iconic characters should have far higher numbers. And second he asserted that “Slobo” ruined the character of Lobo.
The aspect that Dan perpetually leaves out of his two-part evisceration of “Young Justice” is that YJ was specifically designed to appeal to a younger readership. That was the mandate from editorial. That’s what I was asked to write. YJ was intended to skew young–in its stories, in its subject matter, in its readership–with the notion that it would draw in younger readers who would eventually “graduate” to the older-skewing titles. I was told at the outset that DC neither expected nor needed the book to sell huge numbers; it was aiming at the long-term goal of bringing in new, younger readers. So his complaining about the quality of the sales is irrelevant…not to mention that YJ outsold “Impulse” and “Superboy,” both of which were also cancelled, and even he admits the book was turning a profit. So pointing to these iconic characters–characters so “iconic” that DC did away with them–and complaining that sales didn’t reflect their presence is really beside the point.
As for Slobo, I wanted to introduce a Wolverine-esque character to stir things up. Since the book featured junior versions of Superman, Batman, and the Flash, a junior version of Lobo seemed perfectly appropriate. A character who was, in his execution and handling, far more serious than Dan remotely gives him credit for (because, y’know, having Slobo go slowly blind was such a knee-slapper of a storyline). And, frankly, I think that a company that raped and murdered Sue Dibny, murdered Blue Beetle, tortured and crippled Batgirl, and had both Superman and Wonder Woman at various times cold-bloodedly murder opponents, doesn’t get to say that *I* ruined one of their characters.
PAD
• 
Kevin Smith has an immature brain? Really? He still holds a grudge against Reese Witherspoon since Chasing Amy because he percieved a slight from her for his now ex-girlfriend! But he still has a good way with dialogue, so I can still enjoy his writing, the same as I enjoy PAD’s even though we don’t agree on everything.>>>
I agree. I am a fan of both PAD and Kevin Smith (saw Clerks 2, not as good as first but still entertaining) and enjoyed both YJ and Titans. The only thing that ‘ruins’ characters for me is bad storytelling, and Johns as well as PAD are among my favorite writers. Automatically having to dislike one because they’ve slighted PAD sounds Byrne-esque. 🙂
Sasha: She wasn’t raped by said crime boss, but it was retconned that she was acquaintace raped in college which indirectly led her to a life of crime.
Luigi Novi: How was that a retcon? Did it contradict a different, previously established origin?
Well, the definition of a retcon is to add new information to previous material, not necessarily contradict something pre-existing.
By “coinkeydoink”, this has come up as I was in the middle of rereading my entire YJ run. This included issues of Impulse and Supergirl, series I wouldn’t have given the time of day to without YJ.
The series stands the test of time (well, a few years at least) as a great, and more importantly, consistant series.
PAD, you have my thanks for giving us such a fun series. You, along with my other fav’rit, Chuck Dixon, should have a sticker on all of your back issues saying “No characters were spoiled in the making of this comic.” Even if some readers were!
Sasha: She wasn’t raped by said crime boss, but it was retconned that she was acquaintace raped in college which indirectly led her to a life of crime.
Luigi Novi: How was that a retcon? Did it contradict a different, previously established origin?
Originally, it was established that Felicia became a burglar specifically because she wanted to follow her father’s footsteps.
In Kevin Smith’s mini, her impetus to burgle was a displaced reaction to her violation. (She had intended to kill the person responsible, but he died in a car wreck before she could. She subsequently took out her frustration by impulsively stealing a diamond, leading directly to her life of crime.)
Well, the definition of a retcon is to add new information to previous material, not necessarily contradict something pre-existing.
I think that adding new information to previous material is a subcatagory of retcon called a “patch”.
Whether Black Cat’s college rape is technically a retcon or not, it is definitely a major addition to the character, one which changes the way we think about her history. I’d say it is just as significant as the changes and additions Peter David has made to characters that Kevin Smith has complained about.
I enjoy Kevin Smith movies, and I think he’s funny and likable in interviews. However, he also has a fair number of opinions that aren’t really don’t do him credit.
Well, since “retcon” isn’t really a word, I guess you can make it mean anything you want, but to me it means something that actually contradicts something that’s already been established and becomes the new continuity. Otherwise, there’s no reason to even have the word (since everything else, like Black Cat being raped, can just be considered a plot revelation).
I skippred to the end of the comments… why tempt myself to steal?
Raping and murdering Sue Dibny ruined Elongated Man… he was a character with plenty of potential, but as a character who was modeled after the Thin Man lead character (who was not, I’ll inform the ignorant, the “thin man”), he had a supporting cast of precisely one. Brad Meltzer, someone who was not a permanent DC writer at the time walked in and demolished a DC property’s entire supporting cast. Every few years now the Marvel idiots stop using Spider-Man’s supporting cast in the titles. Every few years the titles suffer as a result. Every few years someone complains. Eventually the cast is restored (more or less). Elongated Man was more or less a unique character in comics (superpowers aside). Guess what? They demolished his supporting cast! And what the heck happens to a light and frothy character when his love interest is murdered? He is either mentally ill or bloody grim!!
I’ve read somewhere that one of the five or six main characters in 52 will die before the series is over. So Elongated Man has a chance… to die. Or the Question. Or Steel. Or Montoya. Or Booster Gold. Or I cannot remember.
I cannot judge whether or not Superman and Wonder Woman killing ruined the characters, but I would argue that the use of the word “murder” may not be the most accurate one. Eve if you are an unsanctioned vigilante it’s not murder if it is not excessive force and it is in self-defense or in defense or another. Bad writing…. was probably present at the time.
Blue Beetle and Booster Gold were not ruined exactly in Justice League, and as the series started it was less goofy and more played straight with humor on top. Then the JL/I/A/E writers took it too far and fanboys built an expectation of sorts. What was terrible was that the successor titles between DeMatteis/Giffen’s run and Grant Morrison/Mark Waid’s reboot played it straight and were primarily crappy or mediocre works… not generally stuff that measured up to anything in the first seven issues of Justice League.
What was the bird thing in Gerard Jones’ Justice League America? He’ll testify.
Killing Beetle is not an answer. Closing off creative avenues is not answer. Insulting old creators is not an answer. Saying Maxwell Lord was always a certain bloodthirsty evil since his first appearance…. is not an answer!
“Furthermore, Lobo was never a serious character of any kind. He was a mockery of ultraviolent tough guy characters like Wolverine. He was a parody that ironically came represent everything he was created to poke fun at. So ‘degenerating’ him into L’il Lobo was hardly an issue of not respecting the character; he had no respect to begin with. Lobo, a mass-murdering thug, is not a character who is workable in the DCU anyway; eventually, the JLA would have to put him down. Making him L’il Lobo let him exist alongside other DC characters in a context that actually made sense.”
As others have stated… this statement is not absolutely, literally correct for all of the character’s history. Any change to Lobo is as valid as any other… but there have been a lot of changes and the Lobo most know is not the Lobo that first appeared.
“Wonder Woman is not a warrior. She is an ambassador of peace.”
Ambassadors of Peace don’t punch people’s heads in or fight War Gods. Yet Wonder Woman does.
In fact I have read a lot of things with Wonder Woman hitting people. and Martians. and gods. Tell me how this makes her an Ambassador of Peace?
I tell you the truth… out of the decades of Wonder Woman comics that I have read the character made the most sense when she was sent to the USA to fight NAZIs!!!
Here is another long-running thing…. I acknowledge that a genocidal super-villain like Lobo doesn’t quite fit in the DCU as the protagonist that he often appears as…. where he is fighting alongside Superman, Wonder Woman, Hawkman, Warrior, or whomever and not being beat on by those people.
Why would the League pursue that murderer but not fascistically and proactively take over the world and disarm the slightly-less-genocidal dictators on earth? This is off-topic… but what is the League’s jurisdiction?
Here’s another thought on WW. Can someone point to a comic in her history, before she killed Maxwell Lord, in which she did kill a villain she had tied up? Or that wasn’t a mythological creature who will come back over and over again? I’m just wondering, since people like to point out that Wonder Woman was acting in character, when she’s killed a human being before? If there has been such an instance, I’d like to know.
Michael
Victor: Well, the definition of a retcon is to add new information to previous material, not necessarily contradict something pre-existing.
Luigi Novi: Wikipedia defines it as adding new information to historical material. That indicates a change in my mind. I could be wrong, but every use of the word I’ve seen up until now has indicated that the new material is qualitatively different than prior to the retcon.
Sasha: Originally, it was established that Felicia became a burglar specifically because she wanted to follow her father’s footsteps.
Luigi Novi: But that’s not mutually exclusive from what Smith established. He affirmed the “Daddy’s girl” origin, but merely added another bit of info to it. As I read the story, in fact, I never got the sense that there was a sense of inevitability to her burglar career that would not have come to pass had she not been raped. Sure, the rape was the impetus, but I don’t know if it was the sole, isolated cause. Seems odd to me to reason that a being raped by a guy who escaped justice would be followed by stealing riches from others. It seems like a non-sequitur, and that the rape may only have been the final instigating factor—in lieu of another one that would have presented itself eventually anyway. Again, maybe that’s just me.
Blue Spider: Raping and murdering Sue Dibny ruined Elongated Man… he was a character with plenty of potential, but as a character who was modeled after the Thin Man lead character (who was not, I’ll inform the ignorant, the “thin man”), he had a supporting cast of precisely one. Brad Meltzer, someone who was not a permanent DC writer at the time walked in and demolished a DC property’s entire supporting cast. Every few years now the Marvel idiots stop using Spider-Man’s supporting cast in the titles. Every few years the titles suffer as a result. Every few years someone complains. Eventually the cast is restored (more or less). Elongated Man was more or less a unique character in comics (superpowers aside). Guess what? They demolished his supporting cast! And what the heck happens to a light and frothy character when his love interest is murdered? He is either mentally ill or bloody grim!!
Luigi Novi: I won’t quibble with your perception of EM, but couldn’t he be given a new supporting cast? Isn’t that what writers do? Create new characters? Then again, when was the last time he had his own series that even required a supporting cast?
michael j Norton: Here’s another thought on WW. Can someone point to a comic in her history, before she killed Maxwell Lord, in which she did kill a villain she had tied up? Or that wasn’t a mythological creature who will come back over and over again? I’m just wondering, since people like to point out that Wonder Woman was acting in character, when she’s killed a human being before? If there has been such an instance, I’d like to know.
Luigi Novi: One can do something they’ve never done for the first time and still be in character. It can be the extenuating circumstances of the situation that were different that produced the unexpected reaction, without the person being out of character.
Raping and murdering Sue Dibny ruined Elongated Man…
Actually, it made Elongated Man relevant for the first time in God knows how many years. And before somebody decides to go off on some “purist” rant, let’s take a step back from the fairly insulated world of comics hyper-fandom, and acknowledge that even amongst people who have been reading comics for years (like myself), there are many who knew nothing about Elongated Man, and quite frankly didn’t give two figs.
In short, the author of Identity Crisis brought a throwaway character to the forefront and made readers actually care about him. Hardly what I would call ruinous.
-Rex Hondo-
Actually Luigi, doing something for the first time like getting on a roller coaster, might not be out of character. Killing someone? Quite a different thing I think.
And Rex, you might think that only a broken,depressed widower can be relevant but I’d say you’re dead wrong on that. What, you have to be a downer to be relevant? Should we no longer watch comedies because they aren’t relevant? Now, obviously I’m being hyperbolic but the point remains. Ralph was the Nick Charles of the DCU and you can’t have a good Nick Charles without Nora and what Brad Meltzer did was kill Nora. He couldn’t even make a good story (and frankly still hasn’t, except for Archer’s Quest) that didn’t destroy a character.
I just think it’s more challenging and a sign of a better writer if he can leave a character in tact and make a superb story. If he absolutely can’t, he has another option (Elseworlds type stories) but not using that option, in my opinion, makes hima disrespectful writer as well as weak one.
Michael
Feel a need to point out that those using the weekend Clerks II sales as a “Ha-Ha” moment, you would be incorrect. The movie cost $5 million to make, made $9million over the weekend. That’s 4 million in “profit” (not including marketing etc). Which is $4 million more then Superman Returns has made so far.
As for PAD, I have to give him credit, considering how horribly thin-skinned DC is, he might have just posted himself out of any future DC job, which would be a shame.
Personally I have the entire run of Young Justice, don’t really see what Dido was complaining about.
“Feel a need to point out that those using the weekend Clerks II sales as a “Ha-Ha” moment, you would be incorrect. The movie cost $5 million to make, made $9million over the weekend. That’s 4 million in “profit” (not including marketing etc). Which is $4 million more then Superman Returns has made so far.”
Well, yes and no. Superman Returns will most likely make more profit in the long run than Clerks 2. It’s already made $289 million worldwide. In all honesty, Superman Returns has it’s own set of problems, so it’s really an apples to oranges comparison.
Basically, the amount of money that Clerks 2 made illustrates that Kevin Smith is still only appealing to a small audience. I happen to be part of that audience, but I have to say it is still small and is looking like it probably always will be. So while that might not be something that you consider to be disappointing, Kingdon2000, it’s perfectly reasonable for other people to consider Clerk 2 to be under-performing.
Thats just it, that isn’t considered under performing for that kind of movie. Like you said, apples to oranges. By the time you include the next few weeks of release, oversea sales, DVDs and so forth, any businessman worth his salt will consider the movie a solid return on their investment. At the end of the day thats all that matters, and thats why Kevin Smith gets to keep making movies. He has his niche and he plays well within it. No harm in that. I am just pointing out to use its so-called underperformance as a dig is incorrect.
Nice strawman you’ve set up there Michael.
Elongated Man was not irrelevant because he was happy or married. Plenty of characters are, in and out of the DCU, and have plenty to contribute to a story. He was less than relevant because they didn’t really have a role for him, and was underutilized as a result. Seriously, before Identity Crisis, when was the last time he had his own book? Or a major role in a story? Hmm? Anyone? The fact remains that before IC,
And, please, spare me the rainbows and lollipops, champion of the status quo, “every story must have a happy ending” bullcrap. That’s the Silver Age attitude that has saddled comics with a reputation as “kiddie books” that still lingers to this day. Bad things happen to good people in real life, and effective drama, REAL drama reflects that. Remove that element and you get endless repeats of the Superfriends.
-Rex Hondo-
It also occurs to me, that in the midst of all this sturm and drang over Sue Dibny, who is going to speak out about another great injustice that has been done? I of course speak of the unconsciable crime of ruining Spider-Man by killing off poor Gwen Stacy.
True, it was a turning point for the character, and has had long lasting influences over the last couple of decades for a character who has had relatively consistent sales, and currently has a book being written by one of our favorite authors, not to mention a couple of TV shows and two excellent movies and counting. But none of that matters. They killed off his girlfriend, so he’s ruined.
-Rex Hondo-
I have to agree with Rex. I never cared for Ralph Dibny at all until after Identity Crisis. I always thought of him as a big dork who got lucky. Seriously, “Elongated Man” sucks as a code name and his 4-5 different customes were all ugly. Plus, he’s an amateur detective in a comics world where just about every other character is an amateur detective. It was a role that really didn’t make him all that special.
The tragic loss of Sue makes him much more sympathetic in my eyes. He now knows how good he had it and appreciates that he’ll probably never have it that good again. It’s an added layer of complexity that makes him more interesting to read about.
“The fact remains that before IC, “
I demand to know the end of this thought, sir. You shan’t be getting away with leaving everyone hanging on MY watch, no sirree.
michael j Norton: Actually Luigi, doing something for the first time like getting on a roller coaster, might not be out of character. Killing someone? Quite a different thing I think.
Luigi Novi: And indeed I was talking about killing someone. My point remains the same. Just because you’ve never killed someone doesn’t mean you’re acting out of character. How many cops, soldiers, or even private citizens have killed out of self-defense, or defense of others? Up until the point at which they did so for the first (and for many of them, the only) time, they had never done so before. Were they acting “out of character”?
Character is defined (in part) by one’s actions. It is not defined by the fact that certain actions were not necessary prior to when a certain extenuating set of circumstances presented themselves.
michael j Norton: And Rex, you might think that only a broken,depressed widower can be relevant but I’d say you’re dead wrong on that. What, you have to be a downer to be relevant? Should we no longer watch comedies because they aren’t relevant?
Luigi Novi: Rex didn’t say that one has to be a widower or not funny to relevant. To argue that saying that Ralph was made relevant for him for the first time means that we “should not watch comedies” is a non-sequitur.
michael j Norton: Now, obviously I’m being hyperbolic but the point remains. Ralph was the Nick Charles of the DCU and you can’t have a good Nick Charles without Nora and what Brad Meltzer did was kill Nora. He couldn’t even make a good story (and frankly still hasn’t, except for Archer’s Quest) that didn’t destroy a character.
Luigi Novi: Aside from some of the plot holes and inconsistencies, I thought it was a very good story.
“As for PAD, I have to give him credit, considering how horribly thin-skinned DC is, he might have just posted himself out of any future DC job, which would be a shame.”
If they keep taking Byrne back I don’t see PAD’s statement as much of a problem. They’d take Allan Moore back in half a heartbeat and he’s said way worse about them.
Very true, Bill. DC is a business and if they’re smart, they’ll put aside any personal animosities and hire the people that will help them sell comics.
Although, given Byrne’s recent track record in sales, one has to wonder if they are also willing to cut people loose who aren’t selling books.
Seems they do a story that makes you care about a character more than you have in awhile, or proves the characters worth (Sue and Ray Palmer in IDC, Blue Beetle in Countdown) only to kill them off/replace them. Oh well.
Was the reason she brought the flamethrower really “just in case.” that was the dumbest part of the story to me and I keep feeling there must be something I missed.
Wonder Woman: She’s a warrior. In war, people kill. In the situation with Max Lord, she gave him the opportunity to surrender, and he chose not too. She killed him because she had to, and it was perfectly justified. I see nothing wrecked about her.
****
The dumb thing I see with this is-there are dozens, probably hundreds of times in the past-and in the future-where this situation arises-and yet somehow she (and they) don’t kill. They always find a way. It is just that this time, they didn’t want her too. They want her to be a killer. and then it brings up-well why didn’t you do it X, Y, and Z time-those times were just as terrible, with that many people at risk. Heck, in the following storyline, Superboy Prime was a heckuva terrible threat, unstoppable. and yet, they stopped him without killing him, and came up with the usual “Green Lantern et al comes up with an “unbreakable” bond to keep him in.” and you think, “Something like that wouldn’t have worked for Max?” and is Max the only mind controller there is in DC, yet they never have to do it with anyone else? I can suspend disbelief when they keep the rules consistent. When they point out how the rules don’t work “Of course it makes sense to kill-it saves that many more lives” and then want to live by comic book rules again, it falls apart.
They also set up an impossible situation, devaluing in my mind their franchise characters. Either WW is wrong, and there are options, and thus WW is a killer who could have done something else (and heck, the two biggest icons are telling her she is wrong, Superman and Batman). Or Superman is an idiot, wanting her to make a choice that is impossible to make, because there are no other options, and which will result in the death of thousands/millions whatever. (and a choice he himself once made-if Superboy Prime didn’t it that wall too) That didn’t work for me, for those reasons.
I don’t think it was “just in case”. I believe she went there to commit murder and was just trying to justify her actions through her psychosis later on.
I agree about replacing Ray Palmer, though. I don’t think that was necessary and I hope they bring him back eventually so that we can see how he works through his guilt over Jean’s actions.
Ironically, I never cared much for Blue Beetle until the Infinite Crisis Countdown. Too many of those goofy “another fine mess” stories from the gawdawful Giffen/DeMatteis run ruinned the character for me. But I loved his portrayal in Countdown. Here was a character who knew he wasn’t living up to his full potential and had come to realize that his past antics had cost him the respect of a lot of key players in the DCU. But just as he pulls his act together and starts showing what he really can do, he gets killed. It’s a very powerful moment in comics. Ted earned my respect through his death, something the character didn’t have when he was alive.
Although, given Byrne’s recent track record in sales, one has to wonder if they are also willing to cut people loose who aren’t selling books.
****
His Action Comics sold well though. And Atom appeared to be liked. It may be time for him to be the artist only on some books, or else if he is writer/artist, not on books like DP and BOTD which have a track record for failure, and which in today’s market, are not going to sell.
He is associated more with Marvel anyway. If him and Q hadn’t made the situtation so messy (from what I heard) that would be where he would make his real splash anyway. I would imagine John Byrne’s (or STan Lee and John Byrne’s) “FF: THe End” would have been a big seller. Again though he would have to avoid the minor characters, who rarely sell well long term these days. Not that it is necessarily his choice.
I of course speak of the unconsciable crime of ruining Spider-Man by killing off poor Gwen Stacy.
****
Some in fact, do mark that as the beginning of the end.
Sometimes, depending on their mood, you get Stan Lee, John Romita, and Gerry Conway all running away from the decision. Stan wants to make it clear he was never in the loop-and thinks it was a mistake. and Gerry has implied here and there in interviews it was something he regreats.
Inb my mind, when it occurred, it was a rare thing. and Spider-man, of course, has an awful lot of adventures and supporting characters to draw from, and wasn’t defined just be his relationshiop with Gwen. Also, he was a character born in, and steeped in angst and tragedy-it wasn’t really out of the nature of he strip to do so. In fact, it was almost routine. Uncle Ben, Betty’s brother and breakup, Frederick Foswell, Aunt may’s heart attacks, Harry’s drugs, Death of Captain Stacy. A long line of tough times for Spider-man.
Unfortunately, it has been copied so many times-and because most superheroes are male, most of these killed characters are female, and some decent female characters are lost.
I personally had never heard of Sue Dibny before Identity Crisis, and had only vaguely heard of Ralph. The brilliance of the first issue was that it made me care about this couple I knew nothing about, in just a few short pages. So for that reason alone, I don’t feel that any characters were being ruined.
But there are two other factors to consider: 1. The series was a murder mystery. Murder mysteries need a victim. If it wasn’t Sue, it would have been somebody else, and no matter who it was, it would have had fans decrying that one or more characters had been ruined because of it; and 2. 52 is pointing towards Sue’s return from the dead anyway.
Incidentally, I loved the series… except for the aforementioned “just in case” flamethrower, which is the only part that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Well, that and the fact that Rags Morales didn’t seem to know the circumstances of Sue’s death when he drew the first issue, because he drew her slamming into a table in a way that could only come about from her being thrown by someone (and in fact there was no such panel in the flashback in the last issue).
I feel like i’ve just happened upon a minefield! I googled for “young justice” and this is where it took me first.
I haven’t read Mr. Didio’s comments (yet, i’ll look them up later), but I do lament DC’s decision to end young justice in favor of the teen titans (I have a hard time believing that that particular piece of fluff brought in more money than YJ. If so, then advertisers must be deaf, dumb, and stupid)
However-anyways…. DC has routinely tampered with and/or ‘fixed’ every comic series I have tried to collect from them. Nightwing (McDaniel), Superman-Batman/Superman (McGuiness), and YJ (Nauck & David).
It is as disappointing as it is confusing as to what could have prompted a DC executive to bring it up, (YJ being dead and gone and all).
Maybe Didio saw Rocky on TV, but decided to beat up on some dead horses instead of dead cows
“The fact remains that before IC, “
I demand to know the end of this thought, sir. You shan’t be getting away with leaving everyone hanging on MY watch, no sirree.
Whoopsie. That was going to be a reiteration of just how few people cared about EM before IC, but I figured the point had already been made, and having had a loooong night at work, I didn’t quite get the whole thing deleted. (Also a big part of the reason I may have seemed a wee tad bit cranky in my post.)
In fact, one of the biggest “arguments” people have been making against Sue Dibny’s death is, to my mind, one of the biggest signs of how weak a character he was until recently. They were the Nick and Nora Charles of the DC universe. When one’s best, if not only, description of the character is a reference to another character after which they were modeled, then it’s a weak character, or one doesn’t care nearly as much about the character as one is pretending.
-Rex Hondo-
Rex Hondo :Nice strawman you’ve set up there Michael.
Michael : God man, why not just use the term “jump the shark”? I nominate “straw man” to join the comparison to Hitler in the signs that someone has run out of argument.
Rex Hondo: Elongated Man was not irrelevant because he was happy or married. Plenty of characters are, in and out of the DCU, and have plenty to contribute to a story. He was less than relevant because they didn’t really have a role for him, and was underutilized as a result. Seriously, before Identity Crisis, when was the last time he had his own book? Or a major role in a story? Hmm? Anyone? The fact remains that before IC,
First off, let’s complete that sentence shall we? Especially if we’re throwing the “straw man” term around. Secondly, not being written about doesn’t make you irrelevant. It makes you not being written about. Hal Jordan wasn’t writeen about as GL for how long and yet still was considered relevant? Oh and Ralph and Sue did have a 4 part series back in the 90’s so it’s not like he was in the dust bin longer than most of DC’s characters. I still say your criteria is that there has to be a dark,dank, depressed character for it to be worthy because you haven’t shown me any different.
Rex Hondo: And, please, spare me the rainbows and lollipops, champion of the status quo, “every story must have a happy ending” bullcrap. That’s the Silver Age attitude that has saddled comics with a reputation as “kiddie books” that still lingers to this day. Bad things happen to good people in real life, and effective drama, REAL drama reflects that. Remove that element and you get endless repeats of the Superfriends.
Again, that’s apparently your criteria. Let us also remember that these are supposed to be heroes. You’d rather your heroes or your kids’ heroes be murderers or thieves? That’s what I’m hearing.
Posted by Rex Hondo at July 26, 2006 06:36 AM
It also occurs to me, that in the midst of all this sturm and drang over Sue Dibny, who is going to speak out about another great injustice that has been done? I of course speak of the unconsciable crime of ruining Spider-Man by killing off poor Gwen Stacy.
True, it was a turning point for the character, and has had long lasting influences over the last couple of decades for a character who has had relatively consistent sales, and currently has a book being written by one of our favorite authors, not to mention a couple of TV shows and two excellent movies and counting. But none of that matters. They killed off his girlfriend, so he’s ruined.
-Rex Hondo-
But Rex, Gwen is not central to Peter the same way Sue was central to Ralph. With all due respect, and I hope you take this in the spirit in which it’s given, go do some studying on story and character. Also do some studying on real heroes and you’ll see that heroes aren’t what we are in our worst moments but what we aspire to be.
Den: I have to agree with Rex. I never cared for Ralph Dibny at all until after Identity Crisis. I always thought of him as a big dork who got lucky. Seriously, “Elongated Man” sucks as a code name and his 4-5 different customes were all ugly. Plus, he’s an amateur detective in a comics world where just about every other character is an amateur detective. It was a role that really didn’t make him all that special.
No he was THE amateur detective, recognized by everyone in the DCU as second only to Batman. And Sue was a big reason for that.
Den: The tragic loss of Sue makes him much more sympathetic in my eyes. He now knows how good he had it and appreciates that he’ll probably never have it that good again. It’s an added layer of complexity that makes him more interesting to read about.
Frankly that makes me feel sorry for you. That you have to watch tragedy in order to be entertained says something about you.
Luigi Novi: And indeed I was talking about killing someone. My point remains the same. Just because you’ve never killed someone doesn’t mean you’re acting out of character. How many cops, soldiers, or even private citizens have killed out of self-defense, or defense of others? Up until the point at which they did so for the first (and for many of them, the only) time, they had never done so before. Were they acting “out of character”?
Character is defined (in part) by one’s actions. It is not defined by the fact that certain actions were not necessary prior to when a certain extenuating set of circumstances presented themselves.
But as Spiderrob8 says, the writers and DC had always had her and the rest “find a way”. So what does that tell us? That they changed her character (since it’s also defined by one’s actions, right?) to make a sensationalistic, gutter-level story. And the majority of comic fans just bought it hook,line and sinker. Now she’ll have the same angst Superman has had for 20 years and you’ll all complain about that in 5.
Robert Fuller: But there are two other factors to consider: 1. The series was a murder mystery. Murder mysteries need a victim. If it wasn’t Sue, it would have been somebody else, and no matter who it was, it would have had fans decrying that one or more characters had been ruined because of it; and 2. 52 is pointing towards Sue’s return from the dead anyway.
But then you have to ask why they didn’t pick some other character. And if she’s coming back then it was all for naught, except to take a formerly fun, happy character, (and btw, this is in a comic universe where there are fewer and fewer of those for those of us who like that type to enjoy) and make him a wreck. Business wise, it seems it would’ve been smarter to kill a character that wouldn’t effect one of the few fun characters left so that your audience could be as wide as possible. But instead, DC has decided to cater only to one type of reader.
Rex Hondo: In fact, one of the biggest “arguments” people have been making against Sue Dibny’s death is, to my mind, one of the biggest signs of how weak a character he was until recently. They were the Nick and Nora Charles of the DC universe. When one’s best, if not only, description of the character is a reference to another character after which they were modeled, then it’s a weak character, or one doesn’t care nearly as much about the character as one is pretending.
Because DC has so many totally, 100% original characters. Hal Jordan for instance. And Barry Allen. And Batman is in no way at all inspired by any other character in literature. Superman was not created based on anything else either. Wow, you’re so right! That makes Ralph totally weak.
Michael
Michael, Straw Man may well be anoverued term but when you take Den saying that he found a tragic story to be interesting and turn it into “you have to watch tragedy in order to be entertained” you kind of have to expect to get called on it.
I can see where you’re coming from on the characters but you’re letting it get too personal.
spiderrob8: The dumb thing I see with this is-there are dozens, probably hundreds of times in the past-and in the future-where this situation arises-and yet somehow she (and they) don’t kill.
Luigi Novi: Because the writers of those instances wrote them in such a way that it was not absolutely necessary. In this instance, the writer wrote it so that it was in order to explore that exact permutation, and its aftereffects. That’s what writers are supposed to do. For her part, Diana started off with, “Let’s talk.” She outright asked what she had to do to get Max to start. For his part, Max outright stated that he intended to kill “them” (meaning metahumans), and intended to kill Diana. Diana tried to use kryptonite to weaken Superman, and it didn’t work. Superman broke her wrist. Thus, she had to act, as her quite legitimate attempts to use non-lethal means—which she employed in good faith—were not fruitful.
Of course they didn’t “want her to” find another way. That was the point. To place a character in a highly disturbing, even impossible situation where whatever decision she made would not be a nice, sunshine-filled, happy ending. Those other times, they did not wish to, so they wrote those other situations with different parameters that allowed different outcomes. This time, they did wish to do so. That is in part, at least, what writers do. To complain about this comes across as the implied argument that writers should not do that, which strikes me as narrative cowardice at best, and arrogant censorship at the most. Don’t ask the tough questions. Don’t pose the difficult situations. Don’t write frightening scenarios where the outcome isn’t a Disney-ish denouement. Sorry, but to me, there is plenty of room for different types of stories, and the one in question is a perfectly valid one for a character who happens to be, among other things, a warrior.
spiderrob8: Heck, in the following storyline, Superboy Prime was a heckuva terrible threat, unstoppable. and yet, they stopped him without killing him, and came up with the usual “Green Lantern et al comes up with an “unbreakable” bond to keep him in.”
Luigi Novi: They stopped him without killing him probably because they couldn’t kill him. Not because none of them would have if given the opportunity.
spiderrob8: …and you think, “Something like that wouldn’t have worked for Max?”
Luigi Novi: The GL corps scene took place off earth, in another star system. The WW story took place on Earth, where the GLC weren’t present.
spiderrob8: … and is Max the only mind controller there is in DC, yet they never have to do it with anyone else? I can suspend disbelief when they keep the rules consistent. When they point out how the rules don’t work “Of course it makes sense to kill-it saves that many more lives” and then want to live by comic book rules again, it falls apart.
Luigi Novi: Show me another mind controller who once not only took control of Supes, but tried to kill Wonder Woman, seriously injured her in his attempt to do so, stated his intent was to kill all metahumans, refused to release Superman, and whose actions followed the same parameters of the Max Lord story. If you can’t, then there’s no inconsistency.
spiderrob8: Either WW is wrong, and there are options, and thus WW is a killer who could have done something else (and heck, the two biggest icons are telling her she is wrong, Superman and Batman). Or Superman is an idiot, wanting her to make a choice that is impossible to make, because there are no other options, and which will result in the death of thousands/millions whatever.
Luigi Novi: He’s an idiot. It happens sometimes. Even Superman, like any human, can be a jerk.
michael j Norton: Let us also remember that these are supposed to be heroes. You’d rather your heroes or your kids’ heroes be murderers or thieves? That’s what I’m hearing.
Luigi Novi: So heroes never kill? And all killing is murder? I take it you don’t consider soldiers or police officers heroes? And if any of those cops killed on 9/11 took a life, does that apply to them?
michael j Norton: Frankly that makes me feel sorry for you. That you have to watch tragedy in order to be entertained says something about you.
Luigi Novi: Tragedy is a valid genre in fiction, one of many. Your condescending non-sequitur that it is somehow the only one we are capable of enjoying is irrelevant.
michael j Norton: But as Spiderrob8 says, the writers and DC had always had her and the rest “find a way”.
Luigi Novi: And killing someone in self-defense sometimes is a “way.” See above.
michael j Norton: So what does that tell us? That they changed her character (since it’s also defined by one’s actions, right?)
Luigi Novi: Wrong. I already pointed out to you that an act that you’ve undertaken for the first time is not necessarily a “change,” and I pointed out other real world examples to illustrate this. You simply ignored the point.
michael j Norton: …to make a sensationalistic, gutter-level story. And the majority of comic fans just bought it hook,line and sinker.
Luigi Novi: The fact that you did not like the story does not mean the writer only wrote it to emphasize shock value, and did not write it in good faith because he thought it was a good story. Just because you didn’t like it means you know his intent.
michael j Norton: Now she’ll have the same angst Superman has had for 20 years and you’ll all complain about that in 5.
Luigi Novi: Reductio ad absurdum.
michael j Norton: But then you have to ask why they didn’t pick some other character.
Luigi Novi: Such as?
But then you have to ask why they didn’t pick some other character.
Because it was a JLA murder mystery, and in order to get the JLA involved, the person murdered had to be someone the JLA would have a reason to give a crap about. Would people have preferred Lois? One of the the Bat-Kids? (Although it would be difficult to explain how relatively easy the Titans had always gone on Dr. Light if Ðìçk Grayson had been the one he’d raped. Eww)
Jane Doe from Pig’s Nut, Arkansas just doesn’t cut the mustard from a narrative point of view.
-Rex Hondo-
Because DC has so many totally, 100% original characters. Hal Jordan for instance. And Barry Allen. And Batman is in no way at all inspired by any other character in literature. Superman was not created based on anything else either.
You seem bound and determined to grab onto gross misinterpretations of things I say and run with them at right angles to logic and reason.
Maybe I’m a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to try one more time…
Ask any person on the street who Batman is, and most of the time you’ll get a resonably accurate answer. He’s iconic in his own right. Even in comics circles, the first answer out of somebody’s mouth will rarely, if ever be, “A blend of Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, with a dash of The Shadow.”
The same with Superman and Wonder Woman. They are icons. Their names are used to describe other characters.
Ask a bunch of people, even in comic fan circles, to name the stretchy guy on the JLA, and nine times out of ten, I guarantee the answer will be Plastic Man.
If “A stretchy Nick Charles” is the entire breadth and depth of character description that can be mustered, then, yes, it’s a weak character.
-Rex Hondo-
>>Luigi Novi: They stopped him without killing him probably because they couldn’t kill him. Not because none of them would have if given the opportunity.
Well, I have the silly theory that Lobo could kill Superboy-Prime
Frankly, I am always astounded about the bickering in the comics industry. In his position Didio should know better than slagging writers.
Lobo sure started as an “earnest” character back then in the pages of Omega Men, but he worked for me as the joke he became. As with many jokes the joke started to get stretched. I enjoyed the Grant issues, but his time is gone. Even if they relaunched the character as a series I wouldn´t buy him. Been there, done that.
On the words that Blue Beetle was “destroyed”: this is silly. Comic book death has become the most meaningless dramatic tool ever. Who cares if a character dies any longer? He will get better. Have Superboy punch something.
I am also still astonished about the WW “killing” discussion. Any justification why they do or don´t kill is so far removed from the real world that it doesn´t makes sense any longer. You just have to accept that like the fact that they could fly. Because it is impossible to make superheros relevant in this regard. If Batman had any sense, he would have thrown the Joker from a roof a long time ago. And saved a lot of innocent lives.
In superhero-comics you can´t have it both ways. Either they are realistic in a meaningful way – the you have to go the Punisher routine. Or you go the comic-book routine, where a “deadly” character like Deathstroke at worst does rough up someone. Nobody believes that any longer, but for that you just need suspension of disbelief. Having a character like WW kill someone is really like having the cake and eating it. It just doesn´t work.
But then you have to ask why they didn’t pick some other character.
Because it was a JLA murder mystery, and in order to get the JLA involved, the person murdered had to be someone the JLA would have a reason to give a crap about. Would people have preferred Lois? One of the the Bat-Kids? (Although it would be difficult to explain how relatively easy the Titans had always gone on Dr. Light if Ðìçk Grayson had been the one he’d raped. Eww)
Jane Doe from Pig’s Nut, Arkansas just doesn’t cut the mustard from a narrative point of view.
———————————————
Exactly. Of all the major “civilian” characters, Sue was the one who’s loss would have affected such a range of heroes. Lois is not thought by most as “Superman’s Wife,” they know her as a reporter. Since Ralph never kept a secret ID, she was known as a superheros wife who particpated in their world. Wasn’t she head of the JLE for a while? If this was Marvel Comics, the only civilian character that I could think of who would equal her (in the eyes of the heroes there) would be Jarvis.
David
1Luigi Novi: They stopped him without killing him probably because they couldn’t kill him.
*****
That’s just ridiculous. We can kill Superman even, but not Superboy Prime.
Every one ofm your arguments to me just doesn’t make any more sense of the story than that. WW had a million options, and will face these scenarios again, and will of course find a way out of them now. But this time, it was impossible. Come on.
It was just weak execution, and a weak forced way to have an artificial Marvel like tension between the “big three” all of which relatively quickly went out the window when they needed it too. It felt forced, out of character, and the “imminent threat” did not seem to be there to me at all. Nom more than 1000 other times.
Reminds me a bit of Civil War-interesting concept, but to do it, you have to get some main characters acting and speaking so out of character, they might as well be different characters.
(I won’t even complain again that a major part of this “mini” series was shoved off into other books rather than being contained-something so “central” to the story). OMAC was such a lousy mini, only the Rann/Thanagar War was worse-hard to imagine something could be so bad (and seemingly pointless) as that one!
Now I hear another mini is coming to fix/lay out the continuity of the new DC after Infinite Crisis. Count me out on that one. They went to the well too many times. The Flash goes from a good comic (with a fizzled out ending) to pure junk. I can’t believe this was all part of the master plan-real hit and miss.
In superhero-comics you can´t have it both ways. Either they are realistic in a meaningful way – the you have to go the Punisher routine. Or you go the comic-book routine, where a “deadly” character like Deathstroke at worst does rough up someone. Nobody believes that any longer, but for that you just need suspension of disbelief. Having a character like WW kill someone is really like having the cake and eating it. It just doesn´t work.
******
I agree, I really do. Once you introduce these things into the book, it ruins the whole suspension of disbelief thing, and begs the question why it doesn’t happen all the time. The next time she’s in a similar situation, rather than use fighting spirit or ingenuity, it’s just “snap his neck”, after all there will be people in danger all the time. Costumes, secret identities, these powers, these origins, the code against killing, none of this works in the “real world” and that is fine as long as you don’t introduce the real world into the comics. They are too separate worlds. It can be familiar, but it shouldn’t be governed by real world standards or the whole thing crumbles to dust.
A soldier in Iraq can’t kill and be a hero? Um, last time I checked, they don’t live in a fantasy world where girls come to life from clay, and alien being come to earth looking exactly like an earthman, and people can swing from building to building on grappling hook, while dodging bullets. Different world, different rules. The soldier in iraq wouldn’t hesistate to kill the first, 10th, or 50th time his or his buddies lives are in danger. Yet, WW will kill this one time because she “had” to and not the next 10,000 times.
If this was Marvel Comics, the only civilian character that I could think of who would equal her (in the eyes of the heroes there) would be Jarvis.
Actually, Rick and/or Marlo Jones would probably be a better example.
Rick Jones get around, for sure. I don’t think Marlo though. But Rick has a history with the Avengers, cap, the Marvels, Hulk.
I think Marvel is a little different because the FF and X-men don’t really come into the Avengers world much.
I for one do not like the year later books. It is only a marketing ploy. Stories that have no business existing(Bart as Flash) are being pushed onto us. I hated IC and IC because the stories killed or have missing: Hawkman, Superboy, Blue Beetle, the Atom, Red Tornado, etc… Hawkman was just starting to get interesting and now he’s gone. Superboy was beginning to grow up and he’s dead. Where is the Atom? He’s gone so they can intorduce a new Asian Atom. The new Blue Beetle gets a free pass. He’s Texan. Why is Bart the Flash? Wally didn’t need to go away. Re-vamps equal sales. How can you bring back Hal Jordan and have Kilowog basically say, no big deal that you killed me and destroyed the GLC? Why was Connor Hawke or Arsenal not good enough to be GA? Ollie blew up! He was atomized! How do you come back from that?!? Uhhhhhh, we are going to clone him from a piece that Parallax found on Supes’s undies.(I have a lot of love for KS.) That scene was pointless seeing as Parallax COULD TIME TRAVEL!
Gene Tullis:
I’m a bit confused by your position. Why is Bart the Flash as opposed to Wally? It’s just a revamp for sales thing you say? That may be the case, but then that has ALWAYS been the case. Why was Wally ever the Flash? Or even Barry Allen? If revamps and character evolution should be avoided, then the Flash should always be Jay Garrick. Every character you cite has been revamped. The versions you are holding as an unfortunate loss due to marketing are not original to begin with.
Clearly, revamp itself does not equal bad. Marketing ploy? Sure. These companies are in the business of making money. Marketing is an integral part.
The stories are being “pushed” on you? If you don’t like them, don’t buy them.
Kevin Smith will be filling in for the ailing Roger Ebert for a while. I don’t know…Smith, for all his good qualities, which are considerable, is pretty thin skinned about negative reviews (Even, in PAD’s case, insufficiantly positive reviews). If he’s just going to say nice things about every film he’s wasting our time. If he’s going to dar say anything negative…it’s going to look a bit hypocritical, to say the least.
Every time I hear that Superman murdered those three Phantom Zone criminals, I get a bit edgy.
Robert Ingersoll (demon comic-book barrister)has stated that the last representative of the law of that world (Lex Luthor)charged Superman not to let the escaped Kryptonians get away with their crimes. Superman captured and permanently de-powered each of them with that universe’s Gold Kryptonite.
Luthor in effect deputized Superman as the supreme commander-in-chief, emperor, what-have-you of that planet. Given that Superman wasn’t going to stay there for the rest of his days guarding the Unholy Three, given that the planet’s ecosystem was completely wrecked (no food, water or air that was fit to consume by non-powered humans), Superman’s decision to execute (not murder) the Kryptonians was just, if not particularly merciful. He killed them by exposing them to Kryptonite, and their pain, while great, was nothing to the collective pain of the four billion sentient beings they killed.
This wasn’t cold-blooded murder. It was just retribution for genocide. The fact that Superman had guilt about it is because he is a good man. It doesn’t mean that the execution shouldn’t have happened.
Was it in character for Superman? Probably not. Was it in character for John Byrne’s Superman? Yes, it was. Goodness knows, I’m not a huge fan of his post-Superman comics, but I liked his Superman when I first read it, and I like it now.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
I think the big problem with Byrne’s story is that it was *about* Superman killing. The deaths are not incidental to the story, they are the point of it.
I just sat down and read Warren Ellis’ “Extremis”, which featured Tony Stark killing a couple of dozen people (mostly in flashback), but at no time was the main thrust of the story *about* Iron Man killing. Each killing was 100% justifiable and presented as such. If this were a movie, I doubt many in the audience would have the slightest bit of a problem with his actions… save for the violence being a bit too graphic for the younger set.
To me, the problem with the Wonder Woman and Superman stories are that they *invite* you to analyize their actions, because the whole dámņ thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that’s out of character.