Reinvention Ideas For DC/Marvel Characters

So I liked the version of Mandarin that appeared in Iron Man Armored Adventures. He was complex, well written and voice acted. His story mirroring Tony's in some ways was great. I was wondering if anyone would like seeing a version like that appear in the comics.

One way I'd do it is have a Chinese teenager (haven't thought of a name yet), seek out the Mandarin's rings thinking they hold the key to helping revive his lost family. His morality is ambiguous though definitely closer to hero and he can serve as a sort of antiheroic version of Jaime Reyes of Blue Beetle (teenagers who use alien technology that was considered magic).

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me. I'd throw in Fin Fang Foom as an equivalent of the Scarab - something like a trickster mentor, he's more familiar with the technology, but less proactive about using it.

For a more villainous and/or live-action Mandarin, I do like the idea of him being Mongolian rather than Chinese. For one, even without Hollywood appeasing China and thus aggressively avoiding putting it in a negative light, the Mandarin is an obsolete archetype - offensive or not, he's just not relevant as-is. On the other hand, Mongolia is still relatively unexplored in Western fiction, but more importantly, I reckon having a supervillain based on Genghis Khan would be as offensive to them as Dracula is offensive to Romanians or Doctor Doom to Balkanites in general - that is, not really. They're basically wearing their proud warrior culture hat with gusto - the Mongolian president still meets and greets in a yurt (and probably asks every visiting head of state what is best in life). So, I'd say just giving the Mandarin a nice consistent set of villainous virtues apart from his desire to rule the world, will do quite nicely as a reliable revamp.

Reinvention idea for Funky Flashman!

For those unfamiliar with the character, Funky is a fast-talking, vulgar con artist created by Jack Kirby for his Fourth World continuity. Mr. Flashman was rather transparently based on the worst qualities of Stan Lee.

In our new continuity, Funky Flashman has managed to con his way into becoming the President of the United States, despite his openly being a con artist who makes a lot of crazy promises only some of which he might get around to keeping, such as building a wall to keep invading Kryptonians out and making Krypton pay for it.

. . . . . Really? Cause there's a line between 80s Frank Miller satire which correctly lampoons the problems in our society (Robocop, The Dark Knight Returns) and post 80s Frank Miller "satire" which takes said problem and turn it up eleven just to appear clever. This is the latter.

Honestly if you are going to do an obvious Donald Trump parody, be more subtle about. Like instead of him being president he is a charismatic senator who calls for (and successfully enacted) a 90 day ban on visiting aliens from the following selected planets: Raan, Oa, Thanagar (though reasonable given their warlike nature in my universe), and New Genesis. This ban will be enforced by the Justice League of America who in this universe has close ties with the government. The goal is to ensure that no hostile aliens will enter the country and do harm to the American people, and given DC's many experience with alien invasions this appears like a reasonable goal (especially with Thanagar on the list, yeah I am taking the Justice League route with those aliens). The problem, of course, is that 3 of the 4 listed worlds aren't necessarily hot spots for alien warlords. If that's the case planets like War World, Tamaran, and Bizarro World would of been listed as well. Perhaps Flashman doesn't want to list the worlds he is doing buisiness with, especially not blacklisting anyone from Apokalips . . . though he could turned that criticism around and state how heroes like Mister Miracle and Big Barda originated from that planet.

Meanwhile, public speaker and activist G. Gordon Godfrey speaks out against this "Alien Ban" stating how baring aliens from entering the planet is xenophobic and goes against the principles that founded this country. He calls out the Justice League for taking part in this act, and deeming its leader Martian Manhunter (this is during the Detroit Era btw) a hypocrite for (relunctantly) following orders of not allowing aliens to enter. He dubbed the Justice League as facist who use their powers to drive aliens off world and follow orders of a leader who is clearly unfit to lead.

Legions of people who don't like this act follow him spewing chants against Senator Flashman and his Justice League lapdogs, including "Not My Justice League" and "They Will Not Divide Us"; they view this. Meanwhile on Flashman side he has plenty of anti alien sympathizers who are angry at the many alien invasions the planet experience (Queen Bee and her drones, Desparo, General Zod and his minions, The Thanagarian Invasion, Mongol's War World, the first Apokalips Invasion, etc) and will support this ban out of fear in not wanting any more love ones killed. The Justice League are merely trapped between two hostile viewpoints, unable to do their job in protecting the people they care; only to realize all this shitstorm was a part of a far more sinister ploy . . .

Darkseid, of course, is seeking out the Anti Life Equation of which he discovered can be found on Earth through the humans. However uncovering said solution for such an equation takes time, so Darkseid decided to speed the process by inciting blind rage, fear, and strife upon the humans on the planet. He sends his top agents, Funky Flashman and Glorious Godfrey, to stir up a huge society clash among the human race that will generate such negative emotions, while at the same time doing away with Earth's protectors; for Flashman managing to keep the Green Lanterns and New Gods of Genesis away from Earth and for Godfrey getting the public to distrust the Justice League. Darkseid believes that if humanity are at odds with one another and blindly follow leaders who control their every thoughts, they will speed up the solution in unlocking the Anti Life Equation that Darkseid will use against New Genesis.

THAT'S how you do satire. It subtlely (okay not that subtle) points out the flaw in our society while at the same time blends in with the main story seamlessly instead of being a blatant Author Filibuster.

. . . Now that I think about, I might as well use this for my "Third Season" of my revised Justice League of America since my original attention with that is to focus on the Bronze Age of the team which includes encounters with the New Gods and Darkseid being the main antagonist.

edited 1st Feb '17 9:20:24 PM by BigK1337

The problem with trying to satirize anti-alien sentiment in comics is that there are throngs of hostile aliens just itching to tear the planet a new one, and even the heroic ones tend to turn evil in the most inopportune times. Same as with ultra-violent crime, this results in the rather schizophrenic notion that even when mass murdering maniacs destroy entire city blocks on a monthly basis, actually supporting any measures that may encroach on the spandex brigade's territory is badwrong, mmkay?

As for political satire, anything other than a Miller-style one-shot is invariably forced to continually explain why the writer's strawman of choice retains their status even among incredibly powerful heroes. So instead of the notion that villains exist, and it's great that heroes are there to fight them, you pretty much present the idea that even superheroes can't handle the pettiest of political problem peddlers, because... reasons. This is one of the major issues with Post-Crisis Luthor stories, because the real supervillains there have to be his lawyers. Meanwhile, all of Superman's power isn't even challenged, but simply made useless, and he can't fight in a civil fashion because...

Because why exactly? Has Superman ever run for office? There's tons of stories where he turns into a dictator, but has he ever entered a democratic election to gain political influence that way? I wouldn't go for it as a standard feature, but it would be nice to explore the idea of superheroes empowered rather than constricted by democracy.

edited 1st Feb '17 10:02:06 PM by indiana404

Hmm. President Batman . . . nah that will be a horrible idea. His first act as president will be to ban all forms of music that is related to rock & roll.

Also agree with your points on the problem with doing satire in comics. My issue with these anti xenophobia stories is that the Strawman Has a Point in being against aliens what with all the invasions that happen on a day to day basis from warlords to eldritch abominations. This kind of plot would only work in one of two ways: 1) the person spreading this xenophobia is working for Darkseid (see my take on Flashy Flashman above) or 2) it's a Legion of Super-Heroes story where it takes place in the future and most of the main characters are aliens (except for Bouncing Boy, Colossal Lad, Invisible Kid and Sun Boy who are native Earthlings).

To be blunt, a lot of my initial distaste for the Justice League came from its portrayal in JLU, specifically how they operate in a manner alarmingly similar to Trump. They act regardless of public approval, they hide their identities more jealously than the Annoying Orange hides his tax returns, they shun and openly supersede any civil institution they don't agree with, they work out of a tower well outside traditional government jurisdiction, which they built in response to alien invasion, yet for some reason its main gun is pointing down. All in all, there's a lot of moral myopia at work here, so I'd think twice before basing strawmen around things superheroes themselves are guilty of.

Instead, if I were going for a political statement, I'd grab Lex Luthor, but rather than the traditional corrupt executive, I'd have him commit no actual crime whatsoever, not even behind the scenes. He's the smartest man on Earth, he doesn't need to break the law, not when he can use it. I'd make him the ultimate rules lawyer, the guy who wouldn't steal a penny, but can easily cite some obscure regulation allowing him to dump a ton of trash in a kindergarten. Even in personal terms, he'd be more averse to actual lying than a Vulcan. He'd be someone people just can't fight legally... which is why they turn to vigilante outlaws in the first place. But I'd also make him honest about it, someone who actually believes in the system, in the mechanical order of society, even as the occasional person is crushed between the gears. He has every right to see Superman as a force of chaos, and in turn, Superman sees him as obsessively controlling.

The question asked is does the system really work? How do you differentiate the spirit of the law from the letter? And, as even superheroes are initially spurred by personal tragedies - including Superman's own realization of his destroyed homeworld - whether their actions themselves are done for the common good, or merely as a form of petty backlash against an otherwise content society.

edited 2nd Feb '17 12:04:17 AM by indiana404

JLU never portrayed any of the stuff the League that you disliked as a good thing. Hell, they got rid of the Watchtower in the final season.

As far as I know, the writers themselves said they had no way out of the Cadmus situation, so they just blamed everything on Luthor and called it a day. The same arc answered "who watches the watchmen" with "the watchmen" - not exactly a convincing argument... though still better than "muh Bucky".

Speaking of Luthor, one of the things he is best fit to explore is the idea of the victim become villain. Most supervillains have that in their resume, but specifically in the context of Superman and his perennial issue of not being able to help everyone, the idea that some of those he can't help will turn to villainy is even more troublesome. Not simply because he can't help, but because whenever he does intervene against such a newly minted villain, he effectively exercises a double standard. Why stop these villains, and not those? Why help these people, and not those? And how can he claim to stand for justice when his influence is so fundamentally arbitrary?

Consequently, the reason I don't like the idea of Luthor as an irredeemable strawman is because with that sort of background, the message all but Calvinistic - "You had an abusive childhood? Nobody helped you? Well fuck you, you're the villain now, that's what you were always meant to be." It's a similar story with more violent heroes like the Punisher, only with regard to the legal system - capes don't do squat about incarceration reliability, which by the way is an actual problem when it comes to organized crime bosses, so the least they could do is not intervene when a less squeamish hero decides to get the job done personally.

Even the traditional aversion to guns and more common melee weapons like baseball bats and the like, as well as the dismissive attitude toward the competition, subtly spells out the message that ordinary people aren't supposed to fight back. That they should be Holding Out for a Hero in perpetuity, expressing some generic "hope" that pretty much equates to passive-aggressive inaction.

And as much as this is a general purpose rant, I think it ties well with the idea of superheroes starting to look very much like the political strawmen they often fight, because in real life, vilifying ordinary people personally lashing out against abuse and taking matters into their own hands is straight out of government propaganda flyers. The same logic that writers use to maintain Batman's exclusivity over Gotham is the one that corrupt political parties use for entire nations - only their guy can do it, nobody else should try, and the public has no say in the matter whatsoever.

The question is how to change that. How to bring superheroes back among ordinary people, without turning them into completely different characters altogether. Where to even start.

More like they blamed it on Braniac actually. According to the YMMV page on JLU, the writers genuinely believed viewers would side with Cadmus regardless of their mistakes, which was the same reasoning Marvel used for the pro-reg side in Civil War

I'll admit it wasn't perfect, but I feel they handled the government vs superheroes conflict with more nuance and intelligence than most. Hell, Superman's "I'm guilty of the sin of hubris" speech trumps anything in the Civil War comic or movie.

Yeah, I can't argue against this one. It's why I hated what was done to Cass Cain and even Jason Todd once I read this

https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2821274.html

I get what you're saying. Sometimes a reinvention can help get rid of some really nasty unfortunate implications. Alas, all we can do is hope is ideas similar to what we want do appear in superhero comics.Or at least until I complete my death ray that I plan on using to blackmail DC and Marvel

Also, has Sue Storm ever been a doctor? Cause I'd like to make her one as we don't have a whole lot of superheroes in the medical profession. We could also explore the idea of someone like that being forced to commit violence to help others.

Enter Superman - someone who'd never had any reason to compromise his idealism, and has taken to enforcing the same principles of law-abiding justice on a larger scale. Now, Luthor personally can merely consider him yet another mongrel to deal with, another threat to eliminate... because the alternative is much darker, as Superman's arrival is about thirty years too late for the likes of him. His supposedly inspirational persona is still a symbol of false hope for those random people he couldn't, can't, and inevitably won't help in the long run. For Luthor, at least cynicism is honest. Even with all his power, he maintains his ways out of believing that's how the world works, because the alternative would mean that he simply drew the short stick, and now has to support an order that didn't support him - not exactly an enticing proposition. Given his efforts, it's like winning a world class poker competition the day they decide to outlaw gambling and confiscate your winnings.

What's interesting is that Superman himself can't argue this point - "life ain't fair, get a helmet" is as far from his ideal of justice as it gets. The only thing he can do is try and help even Luthor now, which is why idiocies like Birthright should be used for toilet paper, as it pretty much canonized for Luthor what the above article describes about Jason Todd - he was always a bad seed you know, Superman couldn't have done anything.

Then again, it could be worse - think about all those Sokovians who did obey the law, only to get a city dumped on their heads because Tony Stark wouldn't, never mind Steve taking that sort of carnage as a form of encouragement to mess up other countries as well.

edited 2nd Feb '17 4:36:28 AM by indiana404

I guess I see your point. hell, I've argued for Circe to be a sympathetic villain.

So I ranted about my dislike of the DC Shared Universe a little while ago... let's see if I can parse it into some actual worldbuilding...

I've been kicking around this idea of a three-Earth model, each Earth hosting one of the Big Three. Travel between these three Earths is possible, but very difficult and often very painful for the travelers.

Earth-A: Where the Last Son of Krypton lives. Absolute Fantasy Kitchen Sink - mermaids, vampires, and hundreds of alien species openly mingle with humans. Imagine a less cynical Futurama, or perhaps Alan Moore's Top 10. Not exactly a full-on Sugar Bowl (yet), but Superman's presence has brought out the best in humanity and inspired leaping advances in science; Superman himself has deemed his job largely done and gone into semi-retirement, with Supergirl and/or Power Girl taking care of day-to-day superheroing. Other notable inhabitants include Dr. Fate, Aquaman, and possibly the Green Lantern Corps.

Earth-D: Where the Dark-Knight Detective hangs his cowl. The most mundane, at least superficially speaking, but heavily influenced by BTAS' Anachronism Stew. Beneath the surface, both magic and mad-science exist; the Internet absolutely does not. As cynical as Earth-A is optimistic; sooner or later, everyone will screw someone else over, intentionally or not. Other notable inhabitants include Green Arrow, the Question, the Suicide Squad, and possibly Zatanna.

Earth-S: Where the Amazing Amazon spreads her gospel. This one takes the most pains to mimic Real Life, though some level of All Myths Are True obviously needs to be in play. The caves beneath Themyscira now hold monsters from every mythology - as well as a few modern-day nightmares. For thousands of years the Amazons kept a lid on the place, but eventually the demons found ways to enter the mortal world by "possessing" mortal injustices (see the "American Gothic" arc from Moore's Swamp Thing) - and now the Amazons need to openly cooperate with Man's World to shut those entrances down. Enter Princess Diana, etc., etc.

(Note: I wrote all the above in one go so there's probably a million things I forgot to justify/elaborate on, but that's the general feel behind each Earth.)

edited 2nd Feb '17 9:57:20 AM by Rubber_Lotus

Your Superman and Batman Earths are still shared universes.

And frankly Aquaman and Dr Fate would fit better with Wonder Woman's Earth

edited 2nd Feb '17 10:32:09 AM by windleopard

Ah, I should've clarified somewhere - my main hangup has always been with the Big Three breathing each other's air. I'm more flexible with the shared-universe concept beyond that - I stuck Dr. Fate on Earth-A because I figured Superman should have at least one adviser/ally on magic, one of his biggest weaknesses (that, and I believe Dr. Fate was created by Superman mainstays).

Also, Aquaman isn't a particularly magic-based character, and I think Atlantis would create lots of unnecessary headaches with Poseidon/the Nereids.

@ 111

It sounds, though, like you've constructed a Luthor with whom Superman wouldn't come into conflict. Given that Superman is usually portrayed as someone who only intervenes in case of disaster or when the law is obviously and spectacularly broken in some way, he's likely to be aggravated that he couldn't do anything to stop Luthor, the same way he might feel aggravated about the bankers who caused the economic crisis, or that he can't make Luthor see that what he's doing is wrong, but using his powers to stop such a Luthor isn't the kind of thing he'd generally do. It's an interesting approach to Luthor, but how do you bring Superman into conflict with him in such a way as to tell an interesting, exciting story, or a story that doesn't continually end in a way that's frustrating and unsatisfying?

edited 2nd Feb '17 11:08:13 AM by Robbery

The Atlantians mostly ignore the Greek stuff and wasn't you Wonder Woman Earth a case of all myths are true? Also, I'm trying to understand why putting the Trinity with any superhero except each other works better.

I'd bring Superman back to his proactive Golden Age ways. When Luthor arranges for some neighborhood to be torn apart using some obscure financial regulation about unpaid fees, it's Superman that stands between the people and the bulldozers, law or no law. When Luthor dumps tons of industrial waste in a country lake, it's Superman that blocks the trucks and tells the drivers to find a proper disposal facility. The guy basically goes Boston Tea Party on Luthor, as his view of justice includes refusing to follow laws that are themselves unjust. He doesn't always have to be right, but the idea is to put the spirit of the law against the letter. Superman has to be an outlaw, because otherwise, given his traditional in-universe popularity, he's got no excuse not to run for office and solve political matters that way (the least he can aim for is Governor of California). If anything, I find that arbitrary impasse a lot more frustrating and unsatisfying - the world's most powerful man struggling against a guy who couldn't defeat hair loss; thrilling.

Handled that way, then I'd say you've got a winner. You'd of course need to have Clark Kent, crusading journalist, toss his two cents into the mix as well.

@windleopard

See, that's the thing - I'm not so sure Atlantis can be called a myth the same way Valhalla or Olympus can. As I understand it, Atlantis isn't a part of some religion that (long-dead) people genuinely believed in, but a name that Plato made up for one of his philosophical exercises. The idea of it as an outright undersea kingdom seems to be a 20th century thing - too recent to have the gravitas of "real" myth.

... or maybe I'm just letting my prejudice against the Aquaman-Wonder Woman 'ship (ten bucks says it'll quadruple in size after the Justice League movie) affect me. If so, I apologize.

My distaste for the concept of "The Trinity" could fill an essay in and of itself, but for now, lemme just say this: any world where Batman can truly thrive is too far gone for Superman to help. And a world where either of them is effective makes the Amazons look like a bunch of out-of-touch assholes - which, fair enough if you think that's interesting or even inevitable, but I prefer to swim against that particular tide.

edited 2nd Feb '17 11:35:35 AM by Rubber_Lotus

I don't think it's that simple but to each their own I guess. Neither is totally successful at anything and I feel this could happen no matter where they're at. I really don't see how Supes or Bats being effective makes the Amazons look out of touch

Indianna um isn't this kinda what you were saying you don't want to see in superhero stories? I'm a bit confused here.

edited 2nd Feb '17 11:53:39 AM by windleopard

The impasse I dislike is Luthor's suspension-of-disbelief-stretching legal immunity, coupled with Superman never using his own good standing with the general public to actually consider a position in civil authority. Making him explicitly an outlaw avoids that, same as how having Luthor be a rules lawyer avoids making his smug honey-badger-don't-give-a-shit attitude seem like the kind of thoroughly unrealistic bluff that has scrapped the Joker.

What I dislike is the passive-aggressive "we must believe the system works" attitude of modern capes - because if they actually felt like that, they wouldn't be wearing capes. In the early Superman stories you can feel this honest outrage at things that didn't have to be illegal in order to be unjust. Nowadays, however, superheroes have essentially become rule abiding rebels whose philosophy seems custom-tailored to suppress competing initiatives rather than genuinely aim to make things better. I might go on a bender later on and explain just why this occurs - it's mostly a combination of all the pitfalls found when you act on the premise of some people being speshuler than others (the instinctive logic is outright beautiful, I'll tell you that), but for the time being, let's just say that style has overtaken substance in their stories. There's a reason films like The Incredibles and Sky High use superheroics as a metaphor for social identity issues and whatnot - the actual basic idea of working outside the law and against an unjust system has been all but tossed aside at this point.

What about the idea of acting within the law against enemies that are more than convention law-enforcement is equipped to handle? It seems that's what most of the Silver Age was about, for instance, the Gotham police using the Bat-Signal when they were up against someone particularly brilliant or well-armed, or the Flash intervening when the bank robbers had freeze rays or were super-intelligent apes. This falls apart a bit in the case of, say, Tony Stark and Spider-Man (why not provide the US military with Iron Man armor or police with web-shooters?) but in a lot of other instances it can work pretty well.

Indeed. This aspect is the Sherlock Holmes to the Robin Hood of the street-style crime-fighter... not to mention characters like the Punisher and early Batman who are more than happy to dispense justice when necessary.

Then again, this aspect is also found in more generic adventurers like Doc Savage and Flash Gordon, and while it's probably the main draw nowadays, I wouldn't consider it the essential basis of superheroism. Not that I wouldn't want to see more of those guys. Everyone and their grandma's got a cinematic universe these days, is it too much to ask for a live-action Defenders of the Earth reboot?

I'd certainly pay money to see it.