History Headscratchers / KingdomCome

**** Then ''both'' societies are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for them is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now they need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because they can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and gift-wrapped on the police station doorstep'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his breed wound up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? Wrong! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals is not their job. Everything they do as superheroes is supposed to be a bonus for society, not a replacement for law and order. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas, or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. You're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** Then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and gift-wrapped on the police station doorstep'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? Wrong! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals is not their job; everything they do as superheroes is supposed to be a bonus for society, not a replacement for law and order. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas, or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. You're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** Then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and gift-wrapped on the police station doorstep'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? Wrong! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals is not their job; everything they do as superheroes is supposed to be a bonus for society, not a replacement for law and order. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas, or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. Wow, you're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** Then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and gift-wrapped on the police station doorstep'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? WRONG! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals is not their job. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas, or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. Wow, you're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** Then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and gift-wrapped on the police station doorstep'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? WRONG! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals is not their job. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas, or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the nameless people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. Wow, you're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** Then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, that even with the villains ''captured and giftwrapped for the police'' the authorities still can't handle it, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault for not killing the criminals? WRONG! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals isn't their job. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names, and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the nameless people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. Wow, you're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

**** then ''both'' sides are selfish and childish. Needing Superman to catch all the criminals for you is lazy and pathetic enough as it is. Now you need Superman to ''kill'' all the criminals himself, because you can't even be trusted to deal with them once they're caught? If that's how worthless society is, then no wonder Magog and his gang ended up in charge. Batman's at fault, Superman's at fault, the JLA is at fault? WRONG! Killing criminals is ''not their job''. Even ''catching'' criminals isn't their job. So how about blaming the judges and juries who keep buying these insanity pleas or the security staff at Arkham and other cardboard prisons who keep letting them loose? Oh right, because they don't have names, and it's easier to blame the highly visible people on the cover rather than the people behind the scenes who are actually at fault. Wow, you're right... this ''is'' just like real life.

*** So basically soceity is fed up with the superheroes toy morality, and create the NinetiesAntiHero to replace them because who want naive idealism when they can have action...Actually that's a very good metaphor for what happened in comics. Meta.

* Why do people think that KingdomCome ended the DarkAge? KingdomCome came out in 1996, and featureed one group of superhumans who use lethal force and cause a lot of colateral damage, and another group of superhumans who go overboard in their methods, disregard civil liberties, and attack the human governments. TheAuthority came out in 1999 and features a group of superhumans who do both at the same time and laugh about it.
** Proably because it's {{Anvilicious}} attack of DarkAge tropes is often used by the SilverAge fan boys that are RunningTheAsylum as juctifiaction for the general BadAssDecay comics have been suffering for the past 10 year or so.

***** Where did I call him "one of the best"? Sorry if I was condescending, but putting words in my mouth kills whatever valid counterpoint you have. So before this gets any uglier let's call it a day.

* Why do people think that KingdomCome ended the DarkAge? KingdomCome came out in 1996, and featureed one group of superhumans who use lethal force and cause a lot of colateral damage, and another group of superhumans who go overboard in their methods and attack the human governments. TheAuthority came out in 1999 and features a group of superhumans who do both at the same time and laugh about it.

* While I like the book and wasn't expecting anything different, given that both writer and artist are big fans of the GoldenAge, the idea that Magog doing what he felt had to be done and killing the Joker - a morally ambiguous act, yes, but one that few would disagree with - prompts the new wave of heroes to believe that killing and indiscriminate violence is OK bugs me beyond belief.

* You know what Bugs me, how one sided and preachy Kingdom Come comes off as. I like the art, the whole "biblical imagery" theme, and the idea of DarkAge antiheroes in conflict against the GoldenAge heroes, but the way it's all "GoldenAge is the only legitimate option" and how it lead to over a decade worth of the whole sale removal of everything resembling the DarkAge from DC canon is just a massive WallBanger. 10 years later, InfiniteCrisis was just one big excuse force feed us the same garbage. It would have been much better if the message was "there's room in the DCU for both kinds of characters" not "the new characters suck, the old characters where better" Shoved down all our throats. A better ending would be Superman and Magog realizing that although their methods are different they share the same goals and should be working together.
** It's not one sided; both classic superheroes and 90's superheroes are regarded as "out of touch with mankind" since the old guard pretty much believes themselves to be above humans since they are the good guys, and the new breed of supers just don't care as long as there is a good fight. Even the Spectre, an angel, has trouble seing the difference between right and wrong. I don't know how many of you read it when it was being published, as separate books, but it was just at the peak of 90's superheroes popularity, so it was a contemporaneous critique, not one made in hindsight. The story proved itself right in that very few, if any, of the 90's dark heroes made it to the turn of the millenium.

** Leaving no middle ground? Kind of like how KingdomCome left no middle ground? "You can have a NinetiesAntiHero, or a SilverAge hero but not both" What kind of garbage is that? I understand the whole "I don't like how DarkerAndEdgier is becoming the be all and end all" but that doesn't mean you should do away with it all together! That just ends up pissing off people who hate all the crappy SilverAge nostalgia garbage that's been force fed to us since KingdomCome. Why can't we have both? Camp for fans of Camp, and Dark for fans of Dark?

**** Not to get off topic here, but I though I should bring this up. While it's true that a major {{Reconstruction}} of the NinetiesAntiHero is impossible to find in comics, a very good {{Reconstruction}} can be found in the video game of TheDarkness. I highly recommend it to any fan of the DarkAge, as well as anyone who wonders why people like the DarkAge.

** The original point was what I was aiming for with the JBM above this one. Again, while I like the story, it's more or less character assassination of the NinetiesAntiHero - every step of the way, the SilverAge heroes are presented as the unquestionable good guys and the new generation of heroes as little more than impetuous nuisances. Where's the balance? Where's the NAH who is savvy enough to grasp that, hey, since the Joker breaks out of Arkham all the fucking time and goes a-murdering because he knows he'll never be killed, how about we waste him and save lives? Oh wait, I remember. He's involved in the Kansas tragedy and ends up as less than one of Superman's followers. For such a supposed good writer, Mark Waid doesn't seem too concerned about presenting a balanced view.

** Part of the problem was that at the time of the writing, the DarkAge was still happening, and a lot of people were sick of the DarkerAndEdgier elements taking everything over. This book was a way to strike back, beginning the attempt to make the DC Universe LighterAndSofter again. The other viewpoint was represented by the rest of the medium, and the book itself worked as a balance to that.
* Let's disregard the larger context here. Let's put aside the concept of the NinetiesAntiHero, the entire DarkAge, and everything comics became. Let's just look at Magog's choice. He took a life. The life of someone who'd just taken many, many lives. Who'd taken many lives many times before. And who would take many lives in the future, over and over and over. What do the idealists have to offer in comparison? Flowers on the graves of his victims? Inaction is itself a choice, and ''not'' killing the Joker means a choice to let him kill again [[CardboardPrison as soon as he breaks out of Arkham again]]. It's a choice [[JokerImmunity the writers can benefit from]], but it's still moral cowardice. The dead don't care if your conscience is clean.

** You are reading too much into it; but then again, save for Chun Li... the original Ninja turtles were pretty violent, and the Duke is a chauvinist, jingoist, redneck who rescues women so he can pay them to show their breasts to him, SoYeah.