DC Comics General

We have a Stargirl tv series focusing on legacy characters, a miniseries thst focused on Sam Wilson tsking the Captain America mantle, two Ant-Man films about Scott Lang, a Miles Morales film and we're getting a Jaime Reyes film.

This idea that audiences outside of comics can't accept legacy characters is factually untrue. If anything it's the opposite; audiences outside of comics are far more accepting of legacy characters.

I didn't say it was true, but it does appear to be the conventional thinking among those who run things. Perhaps Marvel's success at introducing continuity into their films and TV shows will change that.

You'll note, though, that the upcoming My Adventures With Superman is essentially classic-version Superman, and the new Batman film and the upcoming Batman: Caped Crusader is the classic approach to Batman. I fully expect that a retcon will eventually come that returns these characters to some version of their classic status quo. That's not me wishing, it's just what experience seems to indicate.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 27th 2021 at 10:51:42 AM

If anything legacy characters have a greater chance of sticking on more obscure characters as its far easier to reinvent the wheel for modern audiences like say Blue Beetle considering the massive differences between Ted Kord and Jaime Reyes.

It's an issue with Jace Fox Batman I've seen as it's very hard to separate the Batman identity which is defined by Bruce's iconic obsessions and sense of righteousness to a character who has very little to no connection to Bruce.

Amusingly Supergirl is a case of failed legacy characters as since Kara's death in the original Crisis, there have been multiple Supergirls none of which have stuck. The last one Linda Danvers got a series by Pete David that ran at a decent 40+ issues and was apparently pretty well written but even then it got canceled and afterwards Linda hasn't been seen since.

Sure Linda prolly had her fans but they are a very small minority. The majority anyone has ever cared for was Kara and only Kara.

x2 Out of curiosity, what would you say are the "classic status quos" that Superman and Batman would revert to? Because for the former I think the marriage at this point is a "classic status quo" in its own right, and I doubt they'd totally abandon Jon Kent given the amount of work they've put into him and him showing up in adaptations.

Dc vs vampires #3 zatanna is a vamp and kills penguin saying how sometimes a girl just wants to eat junk food. Wonder woman gets hal to confess while they are alone but he uses super hypnotism magnified by his ring to get her and turn her. Then both of them tell the rest of the league that batman killed flash

I'd say classic status quo for Superman is that he's got an intact secret identity as Clark Kent, works as a reporter at the Daily Planet, has the Daily Planet staff (Lois, Perry, Jimmy) as his supporting cast, and is single without children. There's wiggle room in there as to details. I have no particular attachment to or antipathy for the "Superman as married family man" scenario, but the original scenario has endured the longest, and that is what most people think of when they think of Superman. Let me say, too, that I think the Superman concept loses something vital if he doesn't have the Clark Kent secret identity; I think Bendis was blinded by his own personal prejudices to do away with that, and editorial was out of their collective gourds to let him. I'd be all for having Jon exist in some vaguely defined future, and having him continue as a member of the Legion of Super-Heroes (written by someone other than Bendis, hopefully), or possibly in his own book set in the future with classic Superman set in "the present."

For Batman, it would be Bruce Wayne as Batman, with Alfred, possibly with Robin and Batgirl. If there's only one Robin, I'd say it should be Dick Grayson; even though by this time Dick Grayson has been Nightwing nearly as long as he was Robin (44 years for Robin, 37 for Nightwing) because he's still who most people think of when they think of Robin. Much as I like Nightwing, he made the most sense when he was in the New Teen Titans and they were DC's most popular book. Otherwise, from the perspective of the Bat-Family as a whole, he's problematic, not least of which because he forces a specific time-frame on the DC heroes as whole. The "he's become his own man" argument doesn't really hold water, because it was only true when he led the Titans, given that, post-Titans, even as Nightwing he's still indelibly attached to the Bat-Family, and the "his story as Robin has been told" is only true (to the extent that it's true at all, which is as a matter of personal opinion) for a fraction of the audience. As I said earlier, I think Batman is the DC character most overdue for a reboot, largely because I think the Bat-Family has gotten much too big and ungainly. It desperately needs to trim some fat. That's my opinion, anyway. I feel the same way about Green Lantern (why does Space Sector 2814 need multiple Green Lanterns, when it's supposed to be one Lantern per Sector? Why are all of the Lanterns for Space Sector 2814 human?).

I'd venture to say that the solution to a character being portrayed in a way that fans don't like is to re-write them and portray them differently, rather than replace them with another character. I agree with the idea that legacy characters are much more likely to catch on when the public isn't very familiar with earlier versions, as with Scott Lang as Ant-Man and Jaime Reyes as the Blue Beetle (while I don't particular care for any of the Blue Beetles, and I think the Jaime Reyes iteration just feels kind of generic, I think Young Justice did a great job of making the Blue Beetle lineage make some kind of coherent sense). The best bet, I think, would be to follow the same basic blueprint they did in the Silver Age; Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman stay essentially the same, but other characters are up for re-imagining. While some folks will kick whenever any character, regardless of how obscure, is reimagined, I expect the kicking will be less if the character is someone like Hawkman, or Dr.Fate.

Edited by Robbery on Dec 28th 2021 at 11:46:21 AM

It's even more remarkable because we already got a Batman who had no initial relationship with Bruce until he was on the road to being Batman: Terry McGinnis.

And Terry can literally fly circles around Jace in literally just about everything. (Yes, I wrote "literally" twice. Terry's kinda worth it, though.)

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Dec 28th 2021 at 7:26:52 AM

Well it helps Terry that he is actually being mentored by Bruce so there is a direct transition. Its why Dick being Batman is also commonly accepted because he was Bruce's protégé so him succeeding him makes sense.

And even then its not like you can't work even if there is no direct transition. To use Blue Beetle again, there is little to no similarity or unifying link between Ted Kord and Jaime Reyes but Jaime works his whole thing is fun as heck.

Jace just suffers from the fact he neither has a connection to Bruce like Terry, Dick, even Azrael and Gordon nor is he entertaining or well-written enough like Jaime to justify his existence.

It's not just that replacing Bruce as Batman is hard. Jace isn't considered that interesting as a character, and he will inevitably be compared to other people that have been Bruce's successors, like Terry or Dick Grayson in his Batman period.

Who knows where he stands when compared to Jean-Paul, anyway.

At least Jean-Paul had an interesting story and contrasted Bruce thematically via being a vigilante of similar morality who goes off the deep end because the pressures of being a superhero fractured his unstable mind in a way it never did with Bruce.

And costume wise at least his Azbats suit is distinctive. A common take I hear is that Jace's costume doesn't work because its near indistinguishable from Bruce's normal suits meaning Jace doesn't stand out. Contrast with Miles Morales whose spider-suit is very much distinct from Peter's and thus helps makes him further memorable.

Edited by slimcoder on Dec 28th 2021 at 2:59:11 AM

Jean originally was written rather sympathetically

but just like with Jason its the aftermath where the characters 'IE the Writers' throw him under the bus to validate themselves.

Nowadays Jean would be an interesting take on Batman due to the whole Hobo preacher angle.

Wait I just thought. I'm reminded of that famous line from Wonder Woman to Batman, about how she makes sure her enemies stay dead.

How much of that is actually true? Isn't most of her rogues gallery various kinds of magical or immortal beings who can't be killed?

That line is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wonder Woman. It misses that she often turns them Good though love and compassion.

Its also rather hypocritical since Diana engages in the same "I won't kill them because they can be helped" reasoning just like Bruce does.

She'll never killed Cheetah no matter how insane or violent she becomes.

Edited by slimcoder on Dec 31st 2021 at 11:43:23 AM

Has she done that much, since the Golden Age?

Maybe with the Post-Crisis Vanessa Kapatellis (I think? I'm spelling that right) Silver Swan and the New 52 Donna Troy but I havent actually read those comics.

Even Johns's Wonder Woman didn't kill Barbara Minerva, and I believe the arc that introduced the New 52 Minerva was when she first said that line.

This is what happens when writers don't understand how Diana uses lethal force or are trying to make her look bad to prop a non-lethal hero.

Edited by windleopard on Dec 31st 2021 at 8:27:49 AM

In fairness I think that line was intended to be a take that against Batman's no kill philosophy.

Which granted still isn't a good look for various reasons.

I thought I heard the final pre-New 52 arc killed Minerva, Giganta, and Psycho; some writers seem to have wanted a more concrete conclusion before the reboot than others.

I don't know where you heard that, but she never killed those guys. Not even Dr. psycho who is the biggest Complete Monster in her rogues gallery. It would have made even less sense for her to kill Giganta as she had become something of a Friendly Enemy to Diana towards the end of pre-Flashpoint.

You can find a list of people post crisis Wonder Woman killed here.

Edited by windleopard on Dec 31st 2021 at 8:36:15 AM

No, I mean they were killed off, she didn't kill them herself. Cheetah and Giganta died to some Greek villain and Psycho blew up.

Edited by HamburgerTime on Dec 31st 2021 at 10:35:34 AM

So her whole boast of making sure her rogues stay down is flat out untrue.

My mistake.

Maybe not the right word. It's more like she isn't against using lethal force if the situation calls for it. She isn't a sadist or a murderer (usually), but she is still a Villain Killer.

I mean its early 2000s Geoff johns trying to write Wonder woman...

even his most ardent defenders admit... Geoff didn't get Wonder Woman... inb4 we go down that rabbit hole of him destroying Cassie

Diana in the Golden age was ironically the one with no kill rule right off the bat...

The real jist is Diana either goes out of her way to reform her villains or has villains where Death isn't much of an issue 'IE they just come back, Get a new physical form etc'

Usually she only has a few villains that are... well Fundamentally Evil at their Core

Its amusing to think that her success in reforming her villains generally has to do with a less popular amount of rogues.

By contrast Cheetah is her most well known rogue and as a result she will never be successfully reformed akin to how Batman will never be able to reform the likes of Two-Face.