PeterDavid.net

You know, I always read your board but never post, often because what I have to say has been said by other posters better than I could ever say it. But I feel I have to comment here.

How dare Didio start in on Young Justice? YJ was one of the best books I ever read, written by Peter David or not. I have just as much affection for that series as I do any of the "iconic comic landmarks", including such series as Sandman and Watchmen. Reading this post and the assertion that the series was targeted toward younger readers makes Young Justice even more impressive in my eyes; I am anything but a younger reader, and the series still won my mind and my heart.

The only downside to Young Justice was that it has "spoiled" some of these characters to me. I simply can't read the current Teen Titans (I made it through the first issue, and knew I'd never be able to accept the radical personality alterations that I felt the characters had just been given by Geoff Johns), and I can't say I was horribly upset about Superboy's death in Infinite Crisis, since it seems the character had been mishandled since YJ had been cancelled. (I can still remember how giddy with excitement I was when Superboy and Impulse had their books cancelled, knowing that their fate would now be set in the pages of Young Justice. So much for that fleeting hope.)

So, if Didio wants to bash Young Justice, I suppose that's his right. But it shows the mindset of DC Editorial and perhaps explains why I'm not currently interested in anything from their main universe at the moment; if they can't see the quality of a book like Young Justice, it's unlikely I'm going to like what they feel is good work.

Ok, but why having "raped and murdered Sue Dibny, murdered Blue Beetle, tortured and crippled Batgirl, and had both Superman and Wonder Woman" is ruining a character?

The sad part is, that talk by Didio was the most reasonable description I've read from him about these types of things.

For example, I generally agree with him saying that certain types of humor can harm a character long term. Booster Gold and Blue Beetle did get turned into comic relief in JLI. It wasn't even subtle, there were issues where they were reasonably competent in the actual issue, but the cover showed them beaten up and doing the "This is another fine mess you've gotten us into" routine. So I think some of Didio's statements have validity.

However, that doesn't mean that was happening in Young Justice. I don't think Young Justice hurt the characters at all. If it was that simple, then nobody would be reading the current Teen Titans comic because of the Teen Titans cartoon. People are capable of seperating different products when they're presented differently.

Didio says that people shouldn't consider the first 20 issues of JLI to be "funny" comics. All right, I can see how he can make that distinction. That doesn't change the fact that nothing DC is currently doing is even as light and funny as those first 20 issues of JLI.

It's hard to argue with sales, though. He put a priority on sales, and he got them.

Go PAD!

He pretty much slagged off Giffen and DeMatteis as well. Didio seems to not get it, IMO. That this bothers him to that extent is comparable to Byrne getting in a tizzy over people "disrespecting" Superman by calling him "Supes". It's pure comic shop fanboy attitude, something that ought to have no place in the publishing world, let alone with the VP of a company.

Oh well, I guess one of the benefits of an exclusive contract is not having to worry about pissing off the other guys ;)

Since when Impulse and Superboy (that 90-esque, shades wearing, death-of-superman-offspring) are iconic? I can understand, to a certain extent, people getting their undies in a knot at how Batman, WonderWoman or Superman get portrayed, but not Impulse.

Whats next, calling witchblade an icon too?

OK, PAD, I have a question.

Let's say that at some point in the future several things have changed. Didio is gone, his replacement was a fan of Young Justice, your exclusive contract with Marvel has run out, etc.

Is Young Justice mutually exclusive with Teen Titans? I've been thinking lately that Teen Titans is probably here to stay for awhile. Is it even possible to make Young Justice work when you can't have access to the characters who are currently in the Titans?

And they made Batgirl (Cassandra Cain) evil with no real explanation. So Dan Didio claiming PAD ruined Lobo is just a bizarre burst of hypocracy. 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. Plus, PAD took the trouble to reinstate an adult Lobo, so DC could do whatever it liked with that version, anyway. PAD took nothing away from Lobo, and added an amusing side-chapter.

I want a L'il Lobo plushie.

"I understand you have added a pint-sized homicidal maniac to the team roster."

"...not to mention that YJ outsold 'Impulse' and 'Superboy'..." Hey, who wrote that Superboy comic anyway?

Peter, you are WRONG on this one.

This happens in TV and movie land all the time - Young Justice launched, with it's "skew towards a younger audience" mandate, under a different editorial regime.

Then Dan Didio came and, as "hook them early, low sales are okay because the book itself is an advertising expense" wasn't his idea, then he's almost expected to can the book.

Just imagine if the executives at Nickelodeon had changed just before Space Cases took to the air, and the new folks thought SF was too teenagerish for their network.

As I recall, these issues are why you were the Writer AND Executive Producer of Oblivion and Oblivion 2.

---matt

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.

It's not true that he was never a serious character. He was much different in his early appearances in "Omega Men"--not that those had much impact in shaping how people think of the character.

"Peter, you are WRONG on this one."

No. I'm not.

"This happens in TV and movie land all the time - Young Justice launched, with it's "skew towards a younger audience" mandate, under a different editorial regime."

It launched under the regime of Paul Levitz, Mike Carlin and Eddie Berganza. All three are still with the company.

"Then Dan Didio came and, as "hook them early, low sales are okay because the book itself is an advertising expense" wasn't his idea, then he's almost expected to can the book."

Except all the people whose idea it was were still there. You've created a faulty analogy: This wasn't a movie company where the previous company head and all his executives were gone, and in such instances the new regime typically tosses aside everything the previous regime had in development. In those instances, it's because it's perceived as a lose/lose situation: If projects succeed, the previous regime gets the credit; if they fail, the new regime gets the blame.

Here, it was simply the addition of a new voice. So he was "expected" to do nothing. And what is deceptive is that he didn't say, "Peter was writing exactly what he'd been told to write, but I decided to go in a different direction." Instead he simply said, "The book wasn't selling as well as it should have been." They canceled it for one reason and one reason only: To relaunch "Teen Titans" so that they could tie in with the new animated series. A series which was, ironically, in tone and style, influenced by "Young Justice."

PAD

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.

I don't think any of those decisions "ruined" characters, but they certainly came a lot closer to it than anything you've done. And you can count me as among those who have been unable to enjoy Johns' Teen Titans because of the personality overhauls. I feel like the characters died a little bit when Young Justice ended. (And died a lot during and after Infinite Crisis.)

While I always enjoy essays in which Peter responds to his ill-informed critics, I agree that those things did not "ruin" those characters. Characters sometimes get killed. And kill themselves. And suffer pain and loss. And sometimes these things make way for new characters. Critique the execution of those stories, fine, but I wouldn't say that having a character, kill, be killed, or suffer rape or cripppling necessarily is ruinous to them, any more than having them lose one of their hands to piranha.

And while I do not wish to hijack the thread, I can't help but notice that this blog entry comes on the heels of an email I sent to Peter just yesterday that is also related to the issue of the quality of his writing and the hells that characters get put through by their writers:

Is it just me, or am I the only one struck by the irony of Kevin Smith, having once accused Peter, in an introduction to one of the Preacher collections, of "sensationalistic crap writing" (just because he wrote a story in which Aquaman's hand was severed), making a movie that, like so many other comedies nowadays, revels in jokes about bodily functions and even a woman having sex with a donkey, that Joel Siegel feels compelled to walk out of?

I do think deaths do serious damage to characters, mainly because when they come back, you roll your eyes the next time they're in any sort of peril. And of course, if they don't come back, you've done the ultimate damage because you've eliminated them. So, my feeling is, death should be used sparingly in superhero comics. And nobody can say that's been the policy of the Didio regime.

BTW, why'd Smith even mention PAD in a Preacher collection? What's the connection?

"ruin: The act of destroying, laying waste, or wrecking." M-W.com."

Raping and killing Sue Dibny: Destroyed.

Blue Beetle murdered: Destroyed.

Batgirl crippled: Laying waste

Wonder Woman and Superman, two iconic characters with deep moral centers, solving problems by murdering opponents--blemishes on their characters that can never be expunged: Wrecking.

Lobo, who had no direct connection to Slobo at all and was not remotely affected by anything that happened in Young Justice: Fits no reasonable definition of "ruined."

PAD

BTW, why'd Smith even mention PAD in a Preacher collection? What's the connection?

Smith didn't mention PAD specifically, and I don't have the exact quote, but it was essentially saying that the quality of writing on Preacher was much better than lopping off a longstanding character's hand and sending him in a "new direction." (Quotes would be his.) I think he even took a shot at PAD in the relaunched Green Arrow when Aquaman appeared and described things as going "downhill" after losing his hand. I think he also took a thinly veiled shot at PAD on the very first page of his Clerks comic book. The whole thing just seems unfortunate, because I've never heard PAD say anything mean about him, within or without the context of his storytelling. They're both talented guys.

Wonder Woman and Superman, two iconic characters with deep moral centers, solving problems by murdering opponents--blemishes on their characters that can never be expunged: Wrecking.

Is ruining a character a bad thing? I know it sounds like a silly question, but part of destroying, wrecking, or laying waste to a character is the additional process of rebuilding, revitalizing, or redeeming them. (Which is fine if it can be pulled off.) Ted Kord was killed to revitalize Blue Beetle as a concept. Wonder Woman killed so that she could be redeemed later. Barbara Gordon was tortured and crippled, but she's been rebuilt as the very strong character, Oracle. Don't have any comments on Sue Dibny, other than we'll have to wait and see what happens to Elongated Man during 52. I guess it all depends by how much the audience is revolted. I mean, yeah, Sue Dibny was maimed and killed... but it was written. So. Well.

Is it just me, or am I the only one struck by the irony of Kevin Smith, having once accused Peter, in an introduction to one of the Preacher collections, of "sensationalistic crap writing" (just because he wrote a story in which Aquaman's hand was severed), making a movie that, like so many other comedies nowadays, revels in jokes about bodily functions and even a woman having sex with a donkey, that Joel Siegel feels compelled to walk out of?

I saw CLERKS2 last night. It was funny, had a few real laugh out loud moments. The part that Siegal walked out on was way before the actual donkey show and was the set up for a later punchline I won't spoil.

It's odd that Smith seems to have this animus against PAD. I would think he would be receptive to PAD's humor, more than most. Maybe one too many people mentioned to him that they thought his writing sounded like PAD?

Anyway, Diddio must be on the crack again. If anything ruined Lobo it was the various Lobo projects. The character always was a parody (Outside of Omega Men), eventually it became a self parody.

Matt Adler: BTW, why'd Smith even mention PAD in a Preacher collection? What's the connection?
Luigi Novi: In the Introduction to the second Preacher trade paperback, Until the End of the World (collecting issues 8-17), Smith writes:

Usually such a work [that involves religious themes] is cited as “too controversial.” “Controversial,” as we all know, is often a euphemism for “interesting and intelligent.” Although the pages of PREACHER are filled with avant garde takes on the nature of God and the questionable manner in which religion is followed by the masses without thought (not to mention renderings of brutal bloodletting and graphic, often disturbingly funny violence), this is not a book full of sensationalistic crap writing or drawing. To me, sensationalistic crap writing is lopping off the hand of a time-honored character to give him a “new direction,” and sensationalistic crap drawing is page after page of uber-nimrods penned with little regard for proper proportions, set against background-deficient splash pages.

That passage never made sense to me, given that he was grouping Peter together with what was probably Rob Liefeld. It’s not that I mind Smith or anyone else not liking Peter’s work, or articulating why they don’t like it, but “sensationalism” implies what Peter’s intent was, and while I’ve often observed Peter adhering to the need to surprise the reader and not telegraphing clichéd plot twists, I’ve never gotten the sense from his work that his intent was to place excessive emphasis on shock value. To group him with Liefeld just seems retarded.

And what’s even more blatantly hypocritical is that just a few paragraphs earlier, Smith had this lamentation about becoming a public target for your work:

For the record, the pull quote [on the cover of the first Preacher collection] was “More fun than going to the movies!,” complete with my name and then-filmography printed underneath.

Then it dawned on me: I was suddenly a very easy target.

And—as with all easy targets—some zero took perhaps the easiest shot in the world at me.

Hiding within a then-current issue of The Comics Journal, at the bottom of the “Viva la Comics!” section, was my quote and credits—over which was the oh-so-damn-witty headline, “Well, maybe one of yours…”

Everyone’s a comedian…

It was my fault, however—if you hang your balls out like that, there’s always at least one person who wants to introduce them to a swift kick (a routine occurrence in my line of work, actually).

Gee, ya think, Kevin? Wow, it sure is a good thing that you’re so above that sort of thing, ain’t it? Unlike that CJ “zero”, you sure took a swift kick at Peter’s writing on Howard Stern, in a Introduction to an unrelated Preacher collection, and if what Scott Iskow said above is accurate, two different comic book stories you wrote—a total of four different places. That CJ “zero” could sure learn a thing or two from you about class.

Peter David:

"ruin: The act of destroying, laying waste, or wrecking." M-W.com."

Raping and killing Sue Dibny: Destroyed.

Blue Beetle murdered: Destroyed.

Batgirl crippled: Laying waste

Wonder Woman and Superman, two iconic characters with deep moral centers, solving problems by murdering opponents--blemishes on their characters that can never be expunged: Wrecking.

Lobo, who had no direct connection to Slobo at all and was not remotely affected by anything that happened in Young Justice: Fits no reasonable definition of "ruined."
Luigi Novi: Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here, but this is how I see these instances:

Sue Dibney: Yes, she was destroyed, since she was killed. Granted.

Blue Beetle: Well, Ted Kord was killed. Blue Beetle the character was not. Kord was not the first Blue Beetle, and not the last. Obviously, no one was doing anything interesting with the character, and getting rid of him paves the way to introduce a new character that provides an jumping-on point opportunity for new readers. I’ve been enjoying the new Blue Beetle series quite a bit. I’m curious as to where it’s gonna go, and like the introduction of a Latino superhero, as there aren’t enough. And if anyone really wants to do a Ted Kord story, they can do so. No one is stopping Alex Ross from visiting past incarnations of characters in Justice, after. So in my opinion, the character wasn’t destroyed. Just one incarnation of it.

Batgirl: Also not destroyed. She went on to be a positive character and supporting player in the superhero community as Oracle, and like Blue Beetle, another Batgirl was created.

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.

Superman: Cannot give a conclusion here, because, while I heard of an incident in which he killed an opponent, I did not read it. If it was unjustifiably out of character for Superman and no explanation was given for it, then it should not have been approved editorially, and something should be done to retcon it or explain it. In any case, everything I’ve seen of Supes over the years, including in recent years, is consistent with his refusal to kill, so one aberrational instance doesn’t have to “wreck” the character. Maybe I’m biased because I’ve never been a regular reader up until the new Busiek/Pacheco series, and didn’t read the story, so for now, I should reserve judgment.

Lobo: Have no opinion of it. Never bought a Lobo comic book, or read a Lobo story that I can recall. Didn’t read Young Justice past the first issue (though I’ve been thinking of buying up the back issues), so I can’t comment.

So my personal score it:
Destroyed/wrecked: 1
Not destroyed: 3
Inconclusive: 2

Your personal mileage may vary. :-)

Let's consider some other characters I consider "destroyed".

Sue & Ralph Dibny: Their long-time character/role in the DCU was the Nick and Nora Charles married detective with usually a light touch to their stories one. That characterization was destroyed.

Leslie Thompkins: Deliberately lets a patient die (completely out of character) in order to try to teach Batman a lesson so he won't recruit any more Robins (because he'd stopped doing that after Jason Todd's death...oh, wait, he didn't). Completely destroyed the character.

Jean Loring: Completely destroyed a character, who was one of the few known lawyers and only ex-spouse of a super-hero in the DCU (no, the current Manhunter's ex- doesn't count; they were exs before she became a super-hero).

The JLA: OK, mindwiping Dr. Light is a story point. Mindwiping the Top at Barry's request...pushing it but still just barely in bounds...mindwiping Catwoman for no particular reason at all (not an immediate threat, low on danger/power threat scale, her not doing anything at the time to warrant it) and we're in Gruenwald Squadron Supreme territory where they're no longer heroes.

DiDio's not completely wrong in that a character can be hard to shift back once they're (long-term) made into a joke. But he's completely overlooking how many characters have been destroyed under his aegis by going to the opposite extreme.

Peter, you're in San Diego. Why don't just print this thread out and hand it to Dan and ask him to post?
Or how about this idea to raise some more "crazy" money at this year's San Diego con for the CBLDF? (No tattoo's involved.) Since Dan laments Lobo's lack of popularity so much these days-- why don't you just get some Huge Dude painted and dressed to look like Lobo (there's still gotta be somebody walking around there doing that?) to go sit on Dan's lap and kiss him full on the lips. If "Lobo" then utters, "I wish I knew how to quit you, too." and you can get the whole snippet posted on YouTube... I'll personally pony up $100. for the CBLDF just to get the donation wheels rolling.

Hmmm. Except for a few scattered one-shots, the bestappearances of Lobo have been as Slobo. I cared about Slobo as a character.

As for YOUNG JUSTICE, it was one of my favorite titles from DC when it was being published and as I am currently 43 years of age, I guess I am not a kid. So, Peter might have been writing for a younger audience, but the title was clearly readable from the adult perspective. Damn, I miss this book.

PAD:
'They canceled it for one reason and one reason only: To relaunch "Teen Titans" so that they could tie in with the new animated series. A series which was, ironically, in tone and style, influenced by "Young Justice."'

*Ding* We have a winner! Anyone should be able to see this is the reasoning (and I wasn't even a regular reader of YJ).

As a business decision on DC's part, it was probably the correct thing to do. But, having Dido come up with these fake excuses is insulting to the creators and the audience.

Ibrahim Ng---All the DC books moved One Year Later. Maybe they will explain the change in Batgirl in 52.

Not defending what Kevin Smith has said (because one CAN say what is on one's mind without being a prick), but perhaps he has an irrational fanboy love of Aquaman.

I, too, thought the harpoon hand was too far out, but whatever management wants, management gets.

1PAD, Thank you for all the good work you did in young justice. That is my son's all time favorite comic and helped to get him interested in comics. I also enjoyed YJ because it would always make me laugh. I hope that you will one day write for the Hulk & Aquaman again. Thanks again.

"Not defending what Kevin Smith has said (because one CAN say what is on one's mind without being a prick), but perhaps he has an irrational fanboy love of Aquaman."

I think this is the beginning and the end of Kevin Smith's opinions on Aquaman. I like Smith in general, but he made a lot of silly comments in that foreword. Like saying that Aquaman was a "time tested" character. No, he was a time tested joke. There were significant problems with Aquaman, and the sales were better with PAD than they were before or since.

Smith is just one of the people who doesn't want anything from the Super Friends to ever change. Hal Jordan has to be GL, Aquaman can never be seen without an orange shirt on, etc.

For what it's worth, Peter, I was a Marvel Zombie until my girlfriend got me reading Impulse. From there, I started reading Young Justice, and they were the two most entertaining books I'd read in a long time. From there I started reading other DC titles.

So really...you did your job, and you did it well.

And I'm still pissed that those books were canceled and for what they did to Bart.

Personally, I think DC ruined Impulse. One of the few things I really liked about Zero Hour was a scene where Bart told Superman, "Don't call me Kid Flash." I *liked* that he wasn't Kid Flash. His name fit his personality, and they changed both in the Teen Titans. Really, they created a new character and threw Impulse away.

Hi, I'm a longtime Lobo fan, also a YJ, in fact, I don't like what Geoff Johns has done to the YJ characters since issue one of TT

About Lobo, as someone said, he was a parody of ultraviolent comics and Keith Giffen used him to do parodies of everything he imagined, religion, joining the army, comic book fans, etc. But Giffen couldn't stay forever, I think that who really ruined the character was Alan Grant in his nonsense ongoing book, Alan did good dialogues for the Main Man, but his stories were terrible. Val Semeiks wasn't a bad artist, and when he left the book Lobo was fucked. Grant continued with his stupid stories, maybe there were a few good ones(issue 50 for example), but nothing could compare with what Giffen did, and slowly Lobo became a parody of himself.

I must admit that Slobo wasn't my favourite YJ character, but his role in the book was well written, far better that what Alan Grant did in Lobo

About Teen Titans, they've ruined Superboy, Impulse and what the heck, Arrowette

For what it's worth, Young Justice was, and still remains, one of my all-time favorite comics. Every issue by you and Todd was amazing. And I agree with an earlier comment, that YJ did ruin Superboy and Impulse, and even Robin, for me, because no other writer has handled those characters as well as you, Peter.

For what it's worth, Young Justice was, and still remains, one of my all-time favorite comics. Every issue by you and Todd was amazing. And I agree with an earlier comment, that YJ did ruin Superboy and Impulse, and even Robin, for me, because no other writer has handled those characters as well as you, Peter.

Actually I think Mark Waid and Chuck Dixon did an excellent job developing Impulse and the Tim Drake Robin respectively. It just seems that no other writer except PAD had a good grasp on them. Not even the usually awesome Geoff Johns.

A little off topic, but since somebody brought up Siegal's walking out of the screening of Clerks 2, I just wanted to say this:

Siegal is a dick who's reviews I'll never read nor trust again.

Ok, he didn't like Clerks 2, but the sob is paid to watch movies and gives his opinions of them. And not only did he walk out 40 minutes into it, Siegal was quoted as saying "Time to go!" out loud, thus disrupting the screening for everybody else on the way out. So much for being a professional.

Kevin Smith isn't helping himself at times either.

Er. I can't throw in too much meta here, being more or less a casual comics fan, but I will say that YJ is without a doubt one of my favorite titles of all time (and I didn't start reading it until I was 19, so it wasn't really the "appealing to a younger readership" thing sucking me in). I felt this book did an excellent job of combining very strong characters with plotlines/jokes that were allowed not to take themselves so seriously all the time. (Compared to pretty much every DC title running these days, nearly all of which make me want to roll my eyes at the over-melodramatic stuff going on.)

Additionally, while I'm still not too horrified by the characterization in the current Teen Titans, both Robin in his own title and Bart in The Flash make me want to cry.

Young Justice was one of my favorite series, and when it was cancelled my opinion of DC began a long downward spiral that continues to this day. (And it was given a rocket sled when Fallen Angel was cancelled.)

To see if I was being fair to DC, I looked up some information on characters I liked, and was horrified at what had been done to them since I last read their adventures. It's like the only stories they enjoy publishing anymore involve taking established characters and destroying them in one form or another. Geoff Johns alone is responsible for enough damage to make me almost give up on DC completely. (DC's only saving graces for me right now are Judd Winick and Mark Waid.)

Peter, I say this honestly - I think that you getting away from DC is one of the best things that could have happened to you.

Batgirl: Also not destroyed. She went on to be a positive character and supporting player in the superhero community as Oracle, and like Blue Beetle, another Batgirl was created.
*****************

I disagree. Bruce Wayne could have remained in a wheelchair and became an interesting character while mentoring a new Batman (sort of what was done so well with BATMAN BEYOND) but I think that there would have been a definite loss if he was never Batman again.

I miss Batgirl (Barbara Gordon Batgirl) and the animated series made it clear how great a character she is. I'm not fond of Oracle. I thought she was a narrative cheat -- instead of Batman being a detective, he just had Oracle look up stuff for him on the Internet.

*******************

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.

***************

She was depicted as having crossed a line, so DC at least went to a lot of trouble to "wreck" the character. It was the whole point of the story in a way.

**********************
Superman: Cannot give a conclusion here, because, while I heard of an incident in which he killed an opponent, I did not read it. If it was unjustifiably out of character for Superman and no explanation was given for it, then it should not have been approved editorially, and something should be done to retcon it or explain it. In any case, everything I’ve seen of Supes over the years, including in recent years, is consistent with his refusal to kill, so one aberrational instance doesn’t have to “wreck” the character. ***********

I actually like that story. Superman did the right thing but at the cost of a part of his soul.
Granted, I didn't like the fact that green kryptonite had an effect on non-powered Kryptonians (the story never explained why this was the case, when so much of the Pocket Universe was based on pre-Crisis Superman "rules")

SER, I don't think PAD's point was actually that all those characters were ruined. I think he was mainly saying that those changes were much more significant than anything that happened in YJ. So if someone says that YJ was ruining characters, then that would mean that it wasn't the only thing ruining characters.

RE: Superman and Wonder Woman killing.

In both of these cases, I have a great deal of trouble understanding why anyone gets upset over these killings. Both Superman and Wonder Woman were faced with extraordinarily difficult situations that could have had world-shattering consequenses, and both of them chose the greater good in a mature fashion.

In Superman, the three pre-Crisis Phantom Zone villains escaped the Phantom Zone and literally destroyed the earth. Billions of people were dead, and by the end of the story, while Superman had depowered them using Gold-K, Superman and the other three were literally the only four beings left alive on the planet. Bear in mind that these three were pre-Crisis Kryptonians, capable of moving planets around and travelling through time. The recent Infinite Crisis fight between Superboy Prime and the two Supermen does not do an ounce of justice to exactly how mismatched the post-Crisis Superman was with these three.

When they laugh at Superman's use of Gold-K to rob them of their powers, arguing that "We'll get our powers back someday!", Superman basically says, "That's a risk I can't take. As the last representative of law and order on this planet, I find you guilty of genocide and sentence you to death." He then uses Green-K to execute them. In subsequent issues, BTW, he has such a guilt complex over it that he develops a split-personality (the original post-Crisis "Gangbuster") and then later exiles himself from Earth for a significant amount of time.

As for Wonder Woman, let's not forget that she had the Magic Lasso of Truth tied around Max Lord, who claimed, under the Lasso's influence, that the only way to stop him from taking over Superman again at some point in the future was to kill Max Lord. Now, as I understand it, the Lasso forces a person to tell his understanding of truth, so it's possible that a way could have been found to prevent Max from taking control of Superman again. At the same time, as others here have been pointed out, she is from a warrior culture. Maxwell Lord's dominion over Superman's mind presented a very clear and present danger to the safety of the earth, and the only solution to that danger was the immediate death of an admitted traitor and murderer. Killing in this way should not really be a moral problem for her.

The way it was presented to the public of the DCU was skewed, and her behavior afterward (attempting to kill Mongul) was, IMHO, non-sensical. I can see that DC editorial wanted to say that "she crossed a line," but I have personally never seen it that way.

In any case, I don't see either of those instances as examples of someone "ruining" either of those characters. Sorry for the long post, but there's the history as I remember it.

Eric

SER, I don't think PAD's point was actually that all those characters were ruined. I think he was mainly saying that those changes were much more significant than anything that happened in YJ. So if someone says that YJ was ruining characters, then that would mean that it wasn't the only thing ruining characters.

By invoking the dictionary definition of "ruin," PAD seemed like he was making a case for the, ah, "ruination" of those characters. In this case, however, I don't think the dictionary definition is adequate, as it doesn't take into account the eternal bounce-backedness of superheroes. Superman bounced back from death. Spider-Man bounced back from the Clone Saga. Wonder Woman bounced back from killing an opponent. Hardly what I would call "ruined" characters. But then, the one who ultimately decides whether a character is ruined is the reader, and the deciding action occurs when they stop reading. Whether or not a character is ruined depends greatly on how much forgiveness the readers have in their heart.

I think there's a distinction to be made between ruining a character and rendering that character unusable/unreadable. Obviously, in spite of being ruined in the past, Superman and Wonder Woman are still very readable. Many people think Spider-Man has been ruined by totems, new costumes, and the unmasking--although I would disagree with them. None of those things really change the core of what Spider-Man is, namely Peter Parker. Superman or Wonder Woman killing an opponent is a much better example of ruining a character at their very core, and yet they are still here with no signs of going anywhere except to the silver screen, t-shirts, and bandaids. Go figure.

I enjoyed Young Justice far more than I thought I would. It took a few issues for me to latch on to it.

I can see DC wanting to cancel YJ and move them all to Teen Titans because of the cartoon. And if they had just stated that only, there wouldn't be this discussion.

Its a shame they had to leave Neverland

SER: I disagree. Bruce Wayne could have remained in a wheelchair and became an interesting character while mentoring a new Batman (sort of what was done so well with BATMAN BEYOND) but I think that there would have been a definite loss if he was never Batman again.
Luigi Novi: That’s because Bruce Wayne and Batman are not mutually exclusive. Bruce is inextricably tied to Batman. I don’t think the same holds true for Barbara and Batgirl. As a character, and in carrying her own series, Cassandra’s showed that.

SER: She was depicted as having crossed a line, so DC at least went to a lot of trouble to "wreck" the character. It was the whole point of the story in a way.
Luigi Novi: If by crossing a line you mean that she did something she should not have, I disagree. I don’t see anything “wrecked” about her, nor do I see any trouble to which DC went to do so. The point of the story, as I saw it, is that sometimes even heroes have to make hard choices. She did what she had to do, and I haven’t heard a single argument that has convinced me that she was wrong. Sometimes taking a life is necessary.

If Dan Didio thinks that badly of YJ, I am forced to assume the man is an idiot.

And I don't see how Lobo can be ruined in the first place. That assumes there's something of much worth to the character in the first place. From what I can tell, Lil' Lobo, and Slobo after him, were about ten kagillion times more interesting than the "Main Man" himself.

In fairness, maybe I've missed all the really good Lobo stories, but the few I've read have been mindless violence, which while fun, isn't exactly something that needs protecting. Dime a dozen, eat all you want we'll make more, etc.

"The whole thing just seems unfortunate, because I've never heard PAD say anything mean about him, within or without the context of his storytelling."

He felt that, in my BID review of "Mallrats," I wasn't positive *enough* in my comments on the film.

PAD

It amazes me how people in power often feel a need to justify their decisions by blaming the people underneath them, offering rationalizations for doing so that just don't hold up under scrutiny.

You know, I adore Kevin Smith, but his ridiculous feud with Peter David really made it clear how the man is stuck at a grade-school level of maturity. If he was angry at Peter, he should've approached Peter and explained why he was upset and requested an apology. If he felt the need to explain his displeasure with Peter, he should have simply stated his position. Instead, Smith made numerous swipes at Peter for ages whenever the opportunity came up, which is a child's way of approaching conflict with another individual. Look at Peter's feelings about DiDio's bashing YJ: Peter simply responded to a comment made about him. He didn't devote years to a black-ops campaign of acidically insulting comments; Peter established his position on a matter Didio raised concerning him. Like an *adult*.

Smith versus PAD: http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/97590426713192.htm

Thanks for the link, Ibrahim. It's pretty obvious that PAD came off the better in that exchange, and he did it without going ballistic or questioning just who Kevin Smith's mother really was. For REAL entertainment value (for those of us who slow down at auto accidents) he should have gone after Byrne.

I had wondered about the Kevin Smith thing, and after reading that article I can only shake my head and use a line from his latest film: "I'm not even going to point out the irony."

I'm amazed he can criticize PAD the way he did, especially in light of the fact that the FIRST person to tell you how "brilliant" Kevin Smith is, is... Kevin Smith. I couldn't even get through the introduction to the Green Arrow TP because I thought he was going to break his arm patting himself on the back with how DC made the right choice in choosing him. Condescending? Unless you're in his "Inner circle" of friends, he comes off as an arrogant, smug, superior... Well, douchebag.

Despite this, my friends and I still like most of his work. In fact, my theatre company here on Long Island wanted to include a short one-act play he had posted to his website called 'The Flying Car', starring Randall and Dante stuck in traffic. We had contacted his people about royalties and such, asking the logistics of performing it in public. Yes, he posted it publicly, but we were trying to go about this professionally and respectfully.

Several weeks go by without a peep, and we're getting down to the wire where we have to start sending out press material as to what comedies are going to be included. Finally, in desperation one of our people called his agents to inquire on the matter, since several calls and e-mails went unanswered. The response? A very terse "Mr. Smith does not allow others to perform his work." >CLICK

Hmm... Rest of my post did not... Er, "post".

Anyway, to follow up: Yes, it's his work and his perogative to not allow others to perform his pieces. I just thought it could have been handled in a more polite and TIMELY fashion than it was. Thankfully, we were able to get a replacement show in time.

Don't listen to Dan, Young Justice was one of the best DC books I was reading back then. It was sure hell of a lot better than the rehash Teen Titans book now. YJ was both fun and original and Lobo/Slobo were cool.

The thing that kind of annoys me about me Wonder Woman killing Max Lord is that people seem to think it came out of left field. I rememeber reading a line between Supes, Bats, and WW in
Superman: For Tomorrow where the 3 of them are talking about how the villians are becoming more violent and more dangerous and that the heroes might have be just as violent and dangerous.

While both Bats and Supes said that they would never kill someone on purpose Wonder Woman tells both Bats and Supes that if they threated her or the people she loved she would no problems about killing a villian if she saw no other choice.

I don't know if Young Justice worked to lead in younger readers but it certainly brought me in when a friend sat me down with the complete run and told me to read it. I'd been hovering on the outskirts, trying to make sense of Flash and all the Bat-titles and work out what was what with all the angst, and then YJ was there and it just worked.

Hell, I even mentioned it as one of my all-time favourite comic runs to Sequential Tart.

The proof is in the box-office. If you can't beat the SECOND weekend gross of an execrable, one joke Marlon Wayans comedy...Well Dude, I don't care if your film cost only 5 million to make or not-- your core fans are deserting you if you can't beat the second weekend of a Marlon Wayans craptacular.

As a fan of YJ, in particular one who was not part of the target demographic (I was in my mid-late 20's at the time the book was published)I'd like to chime in. After YJ was cancelled, I tried to read Teen Titans, and found myself disliking it. Partially it was because some of the best characters (like Secret, or Arrowette) were gone, but it was also because Geoff Johns took one of my favorite characters, Impulse, and ruined him. No longer was Impulse a candidate for ritalin (much as I myself had been when I was younger), no longer was he unable to sit still for more than five seconds (as I myself was, and indeed still find myself), and he stopped playing those video games all the time, (which I find myself doing to this day, having been weaned on Pac-man and Donkey Kong Jr.). No, suddenly he wants respect, so he completely changes his identity. I dropped the book a few months later, occaisionally dropping in, and dropping the book again.

Anyway, thanks to PAD for the memories. And to Mark Waid for inventing Impulse.

I wish people would stop giving me MORE reasons to hate Kevin Smith, because, you know... what am I supposed to do with that?

Writing young adult stuff that's still enjoyable for grown-ups? Hard. YJ managed to pull it off pretty consistently, which is really, really impressive. That said, it's not so much in line with DC's usual style, so I can see why a lot of fans wouldn't like it. It seems it was a series you either loved or hated; I was the former but I can see why a lot of people would be the latter -- not as a reflection on the quality of the comic, but just because the style is so drastically different from most of DC's other stuff.

I have to say that if the goal of YJ was to bring in new readers -- well, it did succeed in my case, but only to leave me sorely disappointed by where the characters went afterwards (case in pont: poor Anita, who may as well have vanished off the face of the earth). Oh, Peter, we miss you so, particularly we fans of the female members of the team.

I really liked "Young Justice" because the jokes were fast and funny but could easily give way to absolutely heartbreaking drama. The school shooting story touched me, Red Tornado's daughter being assaulted by classmates disturbed me, and Robin trying to be Secret's friend while keeping his distance held my attention. I really enjoyed all of Impulse's antics. I thought Peter David's Robin was note-perfect.

I bought the first trade paperback of Geoff Johns' "Titans," and it wasn't to my taste. The dialogue didn't really have any slap or cleverness to it, the plot was a fairly straightforward Titans versus Deathstroke story without any real points of innovation or drama. It was a very square superhero comic. Well-illustrated, perfectly competent, and it felt like eating cardboard. Nothing against Johns, who seems a very nice guy, but he strikes me as old school and I don't have much interest in that anymore.

SER: She was depicted as having crossed a line, so DC at least went to a lot of trouble to "wreck" the character. It was the whole point of the story in a way.
Luigi Novi: If by crossing a line you mean that she did something she should not have, I disagree. I don’t see anything “wrecked” about her, nor do I see any trouble to which DC went to do so. The point of the story, as I saw it, is that sometimes even heroes have to make hard choices. She did what she had to do, and I haven’t heard a single argument that has convinced me that she was wrong. Sometimes taking a life is necessary.

Steven: Which makes pretty much everyone else in the DCU an idiot then.

I heard about the story, saw the set-up where she *had* to kill Max Lord to prevent him from killing millions and I thought, "if she did that in the real world, they'd pin a metal on her." Instead, Superman (Superman!) is giving her crap about hereos not killing under any circumstances.

Funny how Silver Age LOSH comics say it's alright for non-invulnerable characters to kill in self-defense or to kill in order to preserve life, but modern, "sophisticated" comics don't seem to make this distinction.

But I don't think that's really the issue. If we accept the conceit that these are children's characters, then we probably *shouldn't* have them kill, just to bring down the level of violence... but it's been so long since Wonder Woman's audience was primarily children that you wonder what the deal is.

Instead, the fans and pros *cling* to this little shred of childhood morality (which they kinda misremembered) and declare that *real* heroes don't kill... never mind Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones or John Wayne's numerous cowboy heroes or the Fellowship of the Rings or the soldiers we praise on the nightly news or so many others. It's just a ridiculous notion and I marvel that so many comic writers seem to willingly place themselves in this little never-neverland that's too adult to be childish and too childish to be adult. If you don't want your heroes to kill, then *don't* go there... don't make a big deal out of it, just *don't* have them kill. Don't talk endlessly about the *line* that *must* not be crossed... just don't cross it.

Young Justice was great. It brought me back to comics when I was nearly lost from the hobby. It was consistently entertaining for about five years. It's probably among my all-time favorite comic books.

As far as I'm concerned, Didio can talk all he wants. He did his thing. He made his little business decision and brought in big Titans numbers. I'm glad that paid off for him. The real deal is with the fans. Young Justice developed a cult following that still praises the book two years after it was cancelled and seven years after it was launched. I've encountered YJ fans in places on the 'net I didn't expect to find them (cartoon sites, '80s nostalgia sites, etc). Everytime it comes up at Newsarama, there are fans to sing its praises. YJ isn't one of those books that was "sort of" popular and then forgotten. It's got a loyal cult following and that's more than can be said for a number of comic book series from around that time.

About the "ruining" of Superman and Wonder Woman:

--SUPERMAN: For those who don't know, in this John Byrne story arc "our" Superman was transported to a world where three uber-powerful Kryptonians had basically destroyed the planet Earth. Superman stopped them by exposing them to gold kryptonite, they vow they'll get their powers back and destroy his planet. Superman announces that, with no one else left on Earth, it's up to him (Superman) to act as judge, jury, and executioner, then exposes the Kryptonians to green kryptonite until they die. In my opinion, this (temporarily) ruined the character: Part of the strength of Superman is that he never kills, no matter what. If he killed because the opponents might continue to commit crimes, almost every one of his villains would be dead by now. (Does he really think catching Luthor would keep Luthor on the straight and narrow? Or that Parasite or Metallo won't snuff any civilians that get in their way?) They tried to "redeem" Superman by giving him a mental breakdown (developing a 2nd personality and having him become Gangbuster for a while) and having him realize that murder is bad (duh), but if you accept that as part of continuity, he's still guilty of first-degree murder.

--Wonder Woman: I've had a problem with this one. WW has Max Powers bound and asks how he can be stopped; Max answers "Kill me;" and she does. Now what if Max forced her to kill him? He wanted to expose the dangers supers posed to ordinary people, and by killing himself through her (the killing was broadcast around the planet) he became a martyr and supers became viewed as killers. Anyone know/read subsequently if Wonder Woman was being controlled or if she knew she was killing him?

Hmmm. If you are a fan of YOUNG JUSTICE, you should be picking up Peter's X FACTOR. It has a lot of the same dynamic and is a fun read, too.

I'm not about to get into the "ruined characters" debate, but I will say this:

First, I absolutely loved Young Justice. Still one of my favorite runs to bring up an read every few years. I also had a problem with changing Bart into Kid Flash, but as I'm not so invested in the Flash books, I took it in stride, and continue to read and enjoy the Teen Titans book today.

On Dan DiDio: half of what he has to say makes me want to give him a hug, and the other half makes me want to smack him. I could say the same of Joe Q. Neither got their jobs by being either soft-spoken or overly tactful. Unfortunately, this means they're going to say and do things that piss off the fans and the creators. But they both have very clear visions of where their characters and their companies should be, and it's this vision and their willingness to piss people off that makes them successful.

On the other hand, one of DC's biggest mistakes of the last ten years was firing Peter David in favor of Erik Larsen, and then subsequently cancelling every book PAD worked on since then. I have no idea if DiDio had any involvment in the Aquaman decision, but it seems he had a direct hand in both YJ and Supergirl. I also feel they should have come right out and said that YJ (and Devin Grayson's "Titans" for that matter) was cancelled to make way for a Teen Titans book that whose characters more closely mirrored the TV show. It probably would have gone a long way toward easing the animosity some fans and creators might feel, but who knows?

And, as to "ruining" Lobo...well, really, how can anybody truly ruin Lobo? It's frelling LOBO for God's sake!

Anyway, that's what I think.

If you can't beat the SECOND weekend gross of an execrable, one joke Marlon Wayans comedy...Well Dude, I don't care if your film cost only 5 million to make or not-- your core fans are deserting you if you can't beat the second weekend of a Marlon Wayans craptacular.

I'm pretty sure CLERKS 2 will beat LITTLE MAN this weekend but boy, talk about setting the bar low!
It's been an ugly weekend at the boxoffice for 3 big name directors. Shyamalan's LADY IN THE WATER was the dud people have been predicting (ironically, the woman who passed on the script at Disney, a descision that looks pretty wise right about now, got canned; Ivan Reitman continues a 10 year drought of good movies with MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND and Smith's CLERKS 2 will be lucky to clear 10 million (which, admittedly, will make it profitable in its first week. Smith's movies never make more than 30 million or so in domsestic B.O. so as long as he keeps the budgets below 10 million I guess it's ok.)

Meanwhile MONSTER HOUSE was quite fun (don't take Caroline! Definitely not for small kids, unless they've grown up in my home, in which case there is little hope for them anyway). I also caught up with KISS KISS BANG BANG on pay per view which was an unexpected surprise--I don't know how I let that one slip through, since it's the kind of thing I like.

No amount of movie going can make up for not being in San Diego. Damn! What a convention! Looking at it on G4 makes me weep with envy.

Re: Young Justice.

Over here in Germany, Young Justice succeeded in dragging in younger readers. In the German addition, they added reviews about video games, films and whatnot, but I think what really had the (mostly young) readers come back were the stories by Peter (and Todd DeZago. His Impulse run was used as backup stories in Young Justice). Mission accomplished. Teen Titans doesn't have the sales YJ had.

Re: Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman is not a warrior. She is an ambassador of peace. Ambassadors of peace don't kill.

Re: Aquaman.

Peter David wrote a great run. Dan Jurgens wrote a great run. No other writer (including Grant Morrison, Mark Waid and other favourites) ever made the character interesting to me. No, wait, he was great on the Super Best Friends episode of South Park.
Kevin Smith obviously misunderstood Peter's review of Mallrats, took it personally and overreacted. Same thing happened to me a few times in the past as well. But to still carry a grudge years later and call another writer a "motherf***er"? That's even more childish than I expect of Smith.

Re: Lobo
There are exactly three Lobo stories that I like. Lobo/Mask. Lobo/Hitman. And the Lil' Lobo/Slobo issues of Young Justice. Make of that what you will.

Argh. I shouldn't post around 2 am. Make that the German "edition", not "addition".

*sigh*

Dido is an idiot. HIs most creative idea is to steal concepts from the media to try and pump up sales, and, even worse, return to the thrilling days of the silver age of comics. I grew up and read comics in the silver age, but I also know I, nor the comics, can go back again. DC's sales are doing well at the moment, just as Marvel's did when they re-launched all their series, but I have a feeling that they will start sinking as storylines that have no meaning nor direction slowly turn the readers off. As of this point I have cancelled Superman, Action, and Aquaman off my pull list. Nightwing (It hurts because I so love the character), Outsiders, and Wonder Woman are in the tentative pile and may not make it through another month. Dido hasn't a clue.

Loved the work Johns and Busiek did on Superman. Loved the work James Robinson(sic?) and Paul Dini did on Batman. Enjoyed the Shadowpact. Birds of Prey is also on my list. That being said, I totally and utterly disagree with Didio's take on Young Justice. I loved (and still love) that series - apart from the great humor, the characters were also beautifully written. It still remains my favourite comic book series of all time, because it encapsulates everything I enjoy about comic books.

I thoroughly enjoy reading Geoff Johns work on both Green Lantern and Superman, but I felt both he and Didio completely missed the point on Teen Titans. Just because characters grow older doesn't mean that they need to become disillusioned and cynical. And that's what these characters have become.

It was PAD's writing of Young Justice and Supergirl that got me into DC comics in the first place, and the relaunches of both titles, along with their majorly confusing crossovers like Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, and 52 that eventually drove to only buy Marvel comics again (and Fallen Angel, when IDW remembers to ship my subscription).

PAD, you and YJ are simply fantastic. You are the writer who got me into comics again. I had avoided since I was seven because one of my first comics, which my older brother gave to me for Christmas, involved Venom brutally murdering a little old lady who looked just like my next door neighbour. Then, one day on the internet, I came across a site dedicated to your version of Supergirl. I was fascinated and the Idea of intelligent comics stuck in my mind. Later, I encountered YJ on Scans_Daily and was inspired to buy almost all of them on Ebay. I was hooked. From there I accumulated your entire run on Supergirl and the first sixteen issues of Fallen Angel. I started getting your X-Factor and Fallen Angel(I've pre-ordered the trade but haven't found #6 yet) and I still am in love with your style of writing. You don't write down to your readers and I love that. You brought me into the wonderful world of comics after twelve years of indifference and I owe you the world for that. Dan Didio can say what he wants but to me you are forever one of comic's giants. I just wanted to say thank you and tell you what an impact you've had on me.

Your Loyal Fan,
William

I wrote:

If you can't beat the SECOND weekend gross of an execrable, one joke Marlon Wayans comedy...Well Dude, I don't care if your film cost only 5 million to make or not-- your core fans are deserting you if you can't beat the second weekend of a Marlon Wayans craptacular.

Bill Mulligan responded:

I'm pretty sure CLERKS 2 will beat LITTLE MAN this weekend but boy, talk about setting the bar low!

And then proceeded to write in the SAME post:

"It's been an ugly weekend at the boxoffice for 3 big name directors. Shyamalan's LADY IN THE WATER was the dud people have been predicting (ironically, the woman who passed on the script at Disney, a descision that looks pretty wise right about now, got canned; Ivan Reitman continues a 10 year drought of good movies with MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND and Smith's CLERKS 2 will be lucky to clear 10 million (which, admittedly, will make it profitable in its first week. Smith's movies never make more than 30 million or so in domsestic B.O. so as long as he keeps the budgets below 10 million I guess it's ok.)"

Gee, Bill... If you can look up the grosses for LADY IN THE WATER, MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND and CLERKS II... Then I am absolutely sure that you saw that Wayans LITTLE MAN is projected to gross $11,000,000... $1,375,000 MORE than Clerks II projected gross of $9,625,000.

In short, you are wrong.

If you accept the projected grosses for the other (3) films then you should also accept the project gross for LITTLE MAN.

And I never said or intimated that Clerks II wouldn't make money. I didn't even go there. With a $5 million budget, the movie will most assuredly make LOTS of money. This 1st weekend gross just proves that Peter was right all those years ago... Smith's audience is maturing (probably planning to buy the film on DVD or watch it on cable) while the kids-- who drive the movie marketplace-- are basically asking "Kevin who?"

And about Kevin Smith's nasty attacks on Peter's work-- I don't blame Kevin as much as I do DC.

Kevin has shown time and again that he will attack almost anyone who he perceives to hold the barest of criticisms or grudges against him or his work... and will continue his attacks to the point of absurdity.

So he thought Peter attacked him in an old BID column in CBG. So he counter-attacked.

But the Powers That Be at DC decided to PRINT and REPRINT Kevin's diatribes.

I find it GHASTLY that DC would allow one creator to BESMIRCH another creator-- while writing the Foreward to yet another creator's book. If I had been one of the creators who had been lucky enough to have Kevin promote my work with a Foreward-- I would have been dismayed and appalled that Kevin then used that space to attack another creator's work.

So in my mind, DC bears the brunt of my disgust for exposing Kevin's ire for Peter in THEIR mass distributed Trade Paperbacks... Especially since Peter has been responsible for making DC a tremendous amount of money during his career... and has NEVER once used DC's paper and ink to attack Kevin Smith.

Mea culpa insideman, I just looked at the chart at http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-07-21&p=.htm which had CLERKS 2 in 4th place and LITTLE MAN in 6th. Oddly, though they have all three days estimated they seem to be ranking them only by Friday’s estimates. So you are correct, LITTLE MAN will beat CLERKS 2. What's even worse is that CLERKS 2 saw its ticket sales go down each day, indicating poor word of mouth (ditto LADY IN THE WATER).

And I didn't mean to imply you thought that it wouldn't make any money.

I take no pleasure in Smith failing; I find him very funny. His anti-PAD thing has always puzzled me and his explanation seems rather weak. At any rate, I think the movie business is a bad place to be if you take criticism that badly. I mean what the hell, you get to make movies with your friends and become famous and marry a girl who a few years back you would have thought was out of your league. The man should be whistling zippity doo dah out his butthole.

Wonder Woman is not a warrior. She is an ambassador of peace.

The two are not mutually exclusive, especially when the character in question is an AMAZON, by definition a mythical female warrior.

As for the death of Maxwell Lord:

It had been established earlier in the story arc that Big Blue's psyche is such a mess around the mental trauma of having executed the Kryptonian criminals that neither J'onn or Zatanna could risk any tinkering, lest they end up with a comatose or completely berzerk Superman. Superman had broken Wonder Woman's wrist, and she was out of tricks. Lord, under the influence of the Golden Lasso, promised that he would continue to use Superman to wreak havok and kill, and that even if kept sedated somehow, he would use any moment of consciousness to cause countless deaths. The only way to prevent it was to kill him. That, combined with the fact that she had about 2.5 seconds before Superman recovered enough to waltz over and turn her in to Wonder Grease-Smear, led her to make the only decision she could to save countless lives.

-Rex Hondo-

What I found hilarious was that, not even a WEEK after reading that Preacher intro, I read an Erik Larsen letter page where he slammed Smith the exact same way (for killing Mysterio).

Hell with it. Every creator has another creator they don't like personally. Every creator has a creative deicison they don't agree with. Aside from the morbid fascination of watching them fight (I'm addicted to Byrne stories), fans shouldn't let it concern them.

PAD,

Given the ending of FNS, I find this whole discussion ironic. I thought the ending was out of character. (I will refrain from defending why since you have not started a thread on that topic and I don't want to ruin anything for those who have not read it.)

Since the only DC comics I ever regularly bought were your Aquaman and Supergirl, I have only heard of the story lines you mention. I'll stick to X-Factor (your best work right now) and leave the DC to others.

Iowa Jim

Instead, the fans and pros *cling* to this little shred of childhood morality (which they kinda misremembered) and declare that *real* heroes don't kill...

Well said, Steven. The idea that there are not times when lethal force is needed is absurd. Whether it is Captain America, Superman, or an American soldier, in a real world there are times when lethal force is the only option. Yes, I do mean "only." In a comic book world where Superman can fly faster than a speeding bullet, you can have the illusion it is not necessary. But to make such a big deal about Wonder Woman is frankly condesending to an adult reader. (I have not read the book but just summaries, but it really doesn't matter. The premise is flawed.)

That said, I am not interested in body counts. I *want* there to be a better way. I want Wonder Woman, whenever possible, to find a better way. But to say that killing one person in what is clearly self defense as well as saving the lives of others (as I understand the story) is wrong is laughable. No wonder DC has never kept me reading its books.

Take a different example: Green Lantern. That is a story where it *was* wrong for him to kill. I read the recent miniseries that tried to undo the damage, but I still find the character ruined for me.

Iowa Jim

Peter David: He felt that, in my BID review of "Mallrats," I wasn't positive *enough* in my comments on the film.
Luigi Novi: Oh my god, is that that reason he took all those swipes? Geez, if so, what a little kid. I never read your review of it, but it was hardly his best effort. That movie felt as if he had become an enfant terrible with the success of his first film. The fact that I had so much trouble finding it on home video (by contrast both Clerks AND Chasing Amy were easy to find) should tell him something.

What’s interesting is that Smith’s comments about Mallrats’ performance is one of the examples I think of when I think about how no one talks about bad writing in Hollywood. He claims it did bad because it was the second film, and something to the effect that second films always get such a bad rap. Yeah, never mind about Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II, The Godfather part II, Die Hard II, etc.

Ibrahim Ng: Smith versus PAD: ">http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/97590426713192.htm
Luigi Novi: Again, geez, what a little kid. Just because Peter pointed out that he doesn’t like Animal House-type fair as much now as he did when he was in college? Christ, it’s common knowledge that adults tend to like juvenile fair when they get older.

And as far as “condescending” is concerned, I’ve never gotten that from his column. It’s been my observation that people tend to simply resent those who choose their words carefully, and end up not painting themselves into a corner with their mouth, and that accusations like “condescending”—which they never illustrate with examples, mind you—is just their knee-jerk response.

For him to have wasted so much time and paper taking pot shots at Peter—not for to express some sociopolitical point of view, but just for his not liking a movie enough or for conducting himself well in his column—is really mind-numbingly dumb.

Steven Clubb: Instead, the fans and pros *cling* to this little shred of childhood morality (which they kinda misremembered) and declare that *real* heroes don't kill... never mind Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones or John Wayne's numerous cowboy heroes or the Fellowship of the Rings or the soldiers we praise on the nightly news or so many others. It's just a ridiculous notion and I marvel that so many comic writers seem to willingly place themselves in this little never-neverland that's too adult to be childish and too childish to be adult. If you don't want your heroes to kill, then *don't* go there... don't make a big deal out of it, just *don't* have them kill. Don't talk endlessly about the *line* that *must* not be crossed... just don't cross it.
Luigi Novi: Bravo, Steven! Well said. :-)

Michael Heide: Wonder Woman is not a warrior. She is an ambassador of peace. Ambassadors of peace don't kill.
Luigi Novi: She’s also a warrior. Ambassadors—that is, people who are only ambassadors—do not carry shields and eagle-motif battle armor and a big friggin’ swords. She’s an “ambassador” in the same way that Batman is just a “billionaire industrialist” and Superman is only a “reporter.”

Just a few thoughts I've had rambling around in my head.

First off, Peter, while DiDio's comments were certainly out of line, I would hope that after standing back and taking a deep calming breath, you'd probably see that sniping back at DC in general for one man's ill-considered remarks is hardly fair, especially making comments about "ruining" characters.

I, personally, dislike talking about creators "ruining" characters/titles/franchises. It reeks a little too much of talifan thinking, a sense of entitlement that says my opinion of what a character should be is somehow more valid than the ones creating him/her. (Iowa Jim, I'll give you a pass for saying "ruined for me." It's a fine distinction and I appreciate that you qualified it such. But I'll be keeping my eye on you. :P )

Each of the examples cited in the initial post became an important story element. They're all hotly debated, and likely will be for some time. Hell, Superman's execution of the Kryptonian criminals was a good two decades ago.

The important thing to remember, in my humble estimation, is that in each of those instances, the writers took a chance to do something different, to take characters places they hadn't gone before. Let's remember, real people don't always react the same way in every situation, or even in the same situation at a different time. There are so many forces at work in our lives that we just aren't that consistent, and when a fictional character is robotically consistent in their actions and reactions, the suspension of belief breaks down and the stories just become retreads of each other.

It's true, when taking chances, there is by necessity the occasional misstep, and you're NEVER going to please everybody at once, especially when dealing with such iconic characters. However, if you don't take those chances, characters become stagnant and stories grow stale.

It is worth noting that a willingness to take those chances, to have bad things happen to good and even beloved characters is one of the elements that draws many people to the work of a certain writer of stuff we all know and love.

-Rex Hondo-

Young Justice was one of the last DC comics I enjoyed, and I was 45 when I read it. It didn't ruin characters or underperform so much as it didn't pander to the masturbation fantasies of thirteen year old boys. I still miss that title and Impulse.

As for Lobo, you can't ruin a character that was a trainwreck to start with. You can only improve it.

And as for Dan Didio, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Dan Didio is an ass.

Since the future is now, it appears to me that YJ was cancelled with Infinite Crisis in mind; the "we're doing it to match the cartoon" watch just a smoke-and-mirrors excuse. It's too bad that they didn't inlcude PAD in it, but they already had their trinity, Geoff Johns, Judd Winick, and Mark Waid, in place.

So you are correct, LITTLE MAN will beat CLERKS 2.

Which is sad and disturbing, imo.

The Wayans Bros have no shame when it comes to absolutely craptacular films, and apparently neither do audiences. :)

Just curious...is it possible to have enjoyed Young Justice and also like the Teen Titans series? Seems like you have to choose sides here....

While I unfortunately missed out on Young Justice (it came out during a time when I was too cash-poor to do anything other than drop by a newstand and keep my runs of "Uncanny" and "Adjectiveless" X-Men more or less complete), I have to say that regardless of the quality of the "L'il Lobo/Slobo" story in YJ, Lobo is what ruined Lobo. The series of miniseries steadily declined in quality that by the time they got around to the monthly, it was such unreadable dreck that I just wasn't interested in him anymore.

As for the Kevin Smith debate, I've enjoyed his movies, but my mileage has varied insofar as his comic writing. If lopping off a character's hand is "sensationalistic crap writing," then what, pray tell, is senselessly killing a title's major supporting character (after giving her AIDS)? Oh no, I'm sure that the death of Karen Page wasn't at *all* "sensationalistic"...

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. Guess what?

That said, PAD, I can't wait to see what you can do with the ungodly mess that Smith made out of Mysterio...

I was actually more upset over the way the ruined max Lord's character than over what Wonder Woman did. What she did was a natural extension fo the situation. What Max did went against years of character development.

Oh, and Clerks II did better per screen than Little Man, it was just released on fewer screens (which I guess says how much faith they had in it from the beginning). Not defending Smith for what he said re: PAD (very childish, and remembering the stuff that Jemas and Quesada did it makes his Marvel tenure that much more fitting with them), just making some observations about the weekend's box office.

"Just curious...is it possible to have enjoyed Young Justice and also like the Teen Titans series? Seems like you have to choose sides here...."

No, it's completely possible. I'm enjoying the "One Year Later" stuff a fair bit myself. Not as much as YJ, but still enjoying it. Comic fans just like to create rivalries.

PAD
They canceled it for one reason and one reason only: To relaunch "Teen Titans" so that they could tie in with the new animated series. A series which was, ironically, in tone and style, influenced by "Young Justice."

And that's one reason I'll never read a Teen Titans* comic (unless, ya know, PAD writes it). Since I feel PAD's "Supergirl" was also canned simply because they decided to do a different series, I'm not reading any future "Supergirl" titles, either.

Sure...it might not be fair to the creators of the new series and I might end up missing some good stuff, but it's not like I can read 'everything' anyway. One reason for not picking up a new title is just as valid as any other reason to me.

(*not that big a threat - not being a big fan of team books, I don't think I've *ever* read a Titans book)

then what, pray tell, is senselessly killing a title's major supporting character (after giving her AIDS)? Oh no, I'm sure that the death of Karen Page wasn't at *all* "sensationalistic"...

As I remember it, Karen didn't really have AIDS. She just thought she did; it was a ruse by Mysterio.

Speaking of "Sensationalistic, crap writing", you guys just reminded me...

What does he call having the Black Cat drugged and raped by a mutant crime-boss in that gawdawful mini series that took him 2 years to finish?

Victor: If I remember correctly, Mysterio was a little vague on that point. Still, the AIDS thing (whether "real" or "fabricated") seemed to be a desperate grab for attention by making it appear that a noteworthy character had a "buzzworthy" disease.

Re: Clerks 2 box office. Someone did point out this weekend that opening it the weekend of, y'know, San Diego Comic-Con, ain't exactly going to help the first weekend box office (yeah, let's say 10,000 people who would've gone to see it at $10 a pop don't go, it's still only $100,000 box office gross).

As it happens, a co-worker of mine was playing poker in Vegas a few weeks ago when someone who he thought "had that whole Silent Bob style going on" sat down at his table. He commented on this. A few minutes later, his girlfriend came up and pointed out that the new player was in fact Kevin Smith. My co-worker apologized (having made the style comment out loud), and said that Smith was nothing but kind and polite about it and they had a nice conversation. Just a data point.

>>>They canceled it for one reason and one reason only: To relaunch "Teen Titans" so that they could tie in with the new animated series. A series which was, ironically, in tone and style, influenced by "Young Justice."

I'll just note that the last issue of YJ (#55, 3/03) sold approximately 24k copies.

TEEN TITANS #1 (7/03) sold approximately 75k.

The most recent issue of TT (#36) came in at 71k.

Regardless of the "tone" of Didio's comments, it does appear that his decision was the correct one FOR THE FRANCHISE -- sales have about TRIPLED in the rebranding/repositioning, and have stayed high ever since.

-B

Speaking of "Sensationalistic, crap writing", you guys just reminded me...

What does he call having the Black Cat drugged and raped by a mutant crime-boss in that gawdawful mini series that took him 2 years to finish?

[nit]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.[/nit]

You're so, so, so right about critizising DC.

I'm 20, I only recently discovered YJ and it's immediately become one of my favourite comic series ever. When it's serious, it's a whole damn lot more serious than many of those oh so dark and gritty things and when it's funny, then it's actually funny. It may be intended for kids, but personally, I wish more comics were like YJ, less violent and less sexist than most other comics. It was a good series, and sweet and honest, and that counts more than sales.

(yeah, let's say 10,000 people who would've gone to see it at $10 a pop don't go, it's still only $100,000 box office gross).

Well, yeah, SDCC isn't going to be a factor unless you're a limited release film only opening in San Diego that weekend. :)

What?? Young Justice ruined characters? Well now Superboy's dead, Impulse is adult-aged and sullenly withdrawn, not to mention losing anything that's ever distinguished him from generi-Flash, and Wonder Girl's switching between being a cultist (52) and rebounding to Robin (OYL).

Loved YJ, and it got my wife into comics. And we weren't kids...

"Regardless of the "tone" of Didio's comments, it does appear that his decision was the correct one FOR THE FRANCHISE -- sales have about TRIPLED in the rebranding/repositioning, and have stayed high ever since."

Sales are hard to argue with. However, there are still unknowns. What if Young Justice had been renamed "Teen Titans (of Young Justice)" and they'd added a couple of characters to make the roster closer to what was on the show. The feel of YJ is very similar to the TV show. Maybe that would have raised sales more, maybe less. Getting Teen Titans onto a cover has definitely worked, but there might have been another way to do it.

What are the sales numbers for Teen Titans: Go?

>>>What are the sales numbers for Teen Titans: Go?

ABout 29k on issue #1 (11/03), and down to around 11k currently, on issue #32.

That's DM only, though.

You can find sales figures at http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1850.html

-B

Sasha wrote:

"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."

I was referring to the scene where he "teleported" the drugs into her body. Then while she's helpless and strung out, he starts unzipping her costume, commenting about how some people equate the drug she was experiencing as "Better than sex", saying that she was now going to get to find out first-hand if that's true. Unless I'm totally misreading it, it seems like it was pretty heavily implied that he was about to rape her while she was under the influence, while that "College" sequence was shown in flashback to give a parallel to her current situation.

Either way, after that scene I was turned off from the rest of the series. Which eventually made no difference because I think the next issue came out... What, a year later?

Two years later.

For the record, said crime boss didn't get around to doing the deed on account of a sudden case of death. (Long story.)

Sasha wrote:

"Two years later.

For the record, said crime boss didn't get around to doing the deed on account of a sudden case of death. (Long story.)"

Ah. Okay, so I missed a bit when it finally picked up. I apologize. Regardless, I just found the original scene rather repulsive. And far more "Sensationalistic".

OK, this is me trying really hard not to say a big "Told You So!" since I've been saying all this about DiDio being an ass and Titans sucking for 3 years. In fact, just so I don't have to go into it too much, just go do a search on the Newsarama forums. In reality the whole thing Johns did to Cassie (making her revert back to a brat just so he could "remature her") is what turned me off to TT right off the bat. Not to mention it was just lazy writing.

My whole contention with the WonderWoman killing Max Lord is that coming from the society she does, she'd know that killing is not a good solution in any case. You only open up more conflict. Plus she was supposed to be a ambassador to show "Man's World" the error of their ways wasn't she?

Finally though, the real conceit that needs to be made is not whether a hero should kill but whether it's good for a writer to put that character in that position in the first place. My motto is that a hero shouldn't reflect us but instead embody what we want to be at our best moments.

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.

Michael

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 Dick 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 Dick 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 damn thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that's out of character.

To me, the problem with the Wonder Woman and Superman stories are that they *invite* you to analyize their actions, because the whole damn thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that's out of character.

Huh? That's the point of stories, to make characters make choices that they have to struggle to make.

That's not a problem; that's a feature.

Well, first Roger Tang, I agree with you. This is defintely a feature of comics that is positive.

To Luigi, I did not ignore your point in my opinion but if I did, surely I am not alone. You yourself didn't quote me whole in your post. And for the record you stated that character is defined by action. By that logic (and it's one I agree with btw), Wonder Woman's former actions of NOT killing, define her as one who always finds a way not to kill.

Stating that not wanting a hero to murder is avoiding all the "tough questions" is a bit of a sideline. The truth is that you can study a hero killing in any number of ways, including alternative universes, without setting it into the hero's character and ruining it for everyone. It's sad in my opinion that DC has decided to make "New Frontier" an "Elseworlds" when at one time it would've been cannon.

And I agree with those who've stated that once you introduce the "real world" idea of heroes murdering people it negates the rest of your fictional universe.Indeed, you can not have it both ways.

Are the police who died on 9/11 or the soldiers in Iraq not heroes? First off, your using one single event to define the characters of an entire group. There indeed might have been a dirty cop present in the WTC on 9/11/01. There are muderers in Iraq (Hadeitha, etc...).A person can do heroic acts and not be a hero overall. The opposite however can not be true, and any true hero, in my opinion, will only kill as the absolute, 100 % last choice. Greg Rucka never sufficiently explored the other options because they were not tried in the least.

Bill, I do not feel I was being personal. Rather I enjoy everyone here on this thread very much. Den may not have said that the only way he's entertained is to read/see the tragic heroes but that's what I read from it. I stand by my statement, something like that says something wrong about a person who enjoys this kind of story so much as a lot of people do.

Finally Rex, let me quote your own response so you're clear on what I am saying to you regarding Ralph being a "weak" character. You yourself have answered it.

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.

So Batman himself is described as being part Shadow, part Zorro and so forth but he's not a weak character. Ralph Dibney is described as a "stretch Nick Charles" and he is? Seems to me if inspiration and comparison is what makes a "weak" character, then no character in comics is beyond it.

Just because Plastic-Man exists doesn't make Ralph weak either. Otherwise, Reed Richards is weak too. That also makes every GL after Alan Scott and every Flash after Jay Garrick weak. Obviously that is not the case.

Wanna know who else could've been killed to make a JLA murder mystery? It has to be someone from the JLA? Well, Sue and Ralph were NOT in the JLA at the time. And certainly not enough that that is the context one thinks of them in. Since that is the case you could've killed Alfred or even Mr. Terrific and while it would've been bad, it would've been equal to Sue Dibney AND would not have ruined the one fun character left in the entire DCU.

Bats is already dark and nuts but because DC wants to irradicate any sense of fun and humor from the DCU, under the wrong headed belief that angst equals "literature", they chose a funny, warm and humorous pair and killed one and made the other a nutcase (from what I hear).

When it comes down to it this is really about the direction the DCU is going in. Either you think its great joy to read about people dying, killing and being angsty all the time and enjoy DC now, or you don't and would want to abandon DC altogether until Dan DiDio is gone and someone who understands that variety is best for a comic company is in charge.

I don't mind a dark twisted Batman, but I want it balanced with a fun Elongated-Man and I want the heroes to hold their moral line where they always have. So they can inspire us and those in their world to be better.

Michael

The one fun character? Again, I'm not that familiar with Sue Dibny, so I'm not sure what it is about her that sets the bar for "fun" so high, but there are lots of fun DC characters. Plastic Man, for one. Or just check out the new Atom series, which is all about having fun with the concept.

roger Tang: Huh? That's the point of stories, to make characters make choices that they have to struggle to make.

Steven: Then after it's all said and done, the only message that gets put out there is that they must hold all life sacred... no matter what.

Which kinda undercuts putting them in a situation where they *had* to kill. After Superman's exile in space (and I don't know if this is Byrne's original intent, because Byrne left without putting the execution of the super-villains into any sort of perspective), he decided that he would not kill again. Which leaves me with a "HUH?", because what's the point of having Superman kill just so he won't kill again.

And we get the same thing with Wonder Woman, where they stack the deck so that she has to kill, then reverses course to say they shouldn't do that.

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.

dark Schneider: Well, I have the silly theory that Lobo could kill Superboy-Prime
Luigi Novi: And I have the silly observation that the above quote by me clearly says that they couldn’t kill him, not Lobo, and that the “they” refers to the coalition of heroes that confronted Superboy, of which Lobo was not a part.

I find it quite telling that so many of the arguments that I’m reading here in support of the notion that Wonder Woman’s actions were not legitimate employ the distortion of facts, reasoning and other’s words.

Andy: 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.
Luigi Novi: False Either/Or Fallacy. The idea that “realistic in a meaningful way” necessarily leads to Punisher-like actions is false. Police officers are generally not Punisher-like murdering vigilantes, but they do sometimes take lives when they have to. I’ve used the analogy of police officers in this thread more than once, and I notice that no one is able to refute it.

spiderrob8: That's just ridiculous. We can kill Superman even, but not Superboy Prime.
Luigi Novi: It’s only “ridiculous” if you gloss over the specifics, as so many of you have on this thread. Villains who generally try to kill Superman use kryptonite. Kryptonite doesn’t affect Superboy Prime. Some have used red sun rays, but then the immediacy of the situation precluded anyone from just pulling a red sun ray generator out of their pocket. So there’s no inconsistency.

Doomsday used brute force, but then again, I thought that was a lousy story, generally because the writing and art were bad, but in as it pertains to this discussion, specifically because it makes no sense that mere brute force would kill Superman.

spiderrob8: 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.
Luigi Novi: Again, it is easy for arguments to not make sense if you keep chickening out of answering the specifics. So far, no one has been able to refute the things I and others have pointed out about the Wonder Woman situation. We’ve pointed out that the circumstances of the situation, and how the conclusion that the kill was justified is borne out of them, but you on the “Wonder Woman is a murderer” side of the table keeping running away from this point. Now why is this? If this arguments don’t make sense to you, why not respond to them directly? A million options? Okay. Mind listing a few of them?

spiderrob8: 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.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. You point out that the DC universe is a science fictional/fantasy world, but you don’t explain how specifically this leads to the conclusion that killing is never justified. Without doing so, linking the two is arbitrary.

michael j Norton: To Luigi, I did not ignore your point in my opinion but if I did, surely I am not alone.
Luigi Novi: So what? That others did so makes the tactic more honorable? Seriously, where do you get these non sequiturs from? The fact remains that you employed a logical fallacy—arguing something is out of character merely if you’ve never done it before—and I pointed out that that reasoning is false. Because you made that argument, I directed it to you. That others also ignored that point (among others) has been noted. Where exactly in one’s timeline is the cut-off point? 1990? 1970? At one point in a character’s history must a character kill in order for it to be “in character”? The first issue?

michael j Norton: You yourself didn't quote me whole in your post. And for the record you stated that character is defined by action. By that logic (and it's one I agree with btw), Wonder Woman's former actions of NOT killing, define her as one who always finds a way not to kill.
Luigi Novi: Nice little argumentative smoke-and-mirrors, Michael. But I’m not falling for it, as the only one who thinks this bit of tap dancing is “logic” is you. That actions define one’s character do not mean that you can just pick and choose one action or set of actions and say that “Okay, these actions over here define her character, but not these other ones over there.” One’s actions are often determined by the situation. If the specific situation WW faced never presented itself, then it is not surprising if they demanded an extreme response on her part that she had never had to give. That she may never have had to kill does not mean that she cannot, or will not ever. It must depend on the circumstances, and you have not shown why the circumstances of the story in question made the killing wrong.

michael j Norton: Stating that not wanting a hero to murder is avoiding all the "tough questions" is a bit of a sideline. The truth is that you can study a hero killing in any number of ways, including alternative universes, without setting it into the hero's character and ruining it for everyone.
Luigi Novi: Or, to put it in less euphemistic words, the writers have to do it in another universe, and cannot do it in the main universe. Same problem. It’s a cop out that leads to writers being handcuffed from posing those tough questions to the main continuity’s character. If you acknowledge that those questions are valid springboards for stories, then it’s cowardice and censorship to say that you can’t use them in main continuity. No thanks.

michael j Norton: It's sad in my opinion that DC has decided to make "New Frontier" an "Elseworlds" when at one time it would've been cannon.
Luigi Novi: Superman being raised in the Soviet Union would’ve been canon? Batman existing during the Civil War would’ve been canon? Batman tracking Jack the Ripper in 1880’s London would’ve been canon? Really?

michael j Norton: Are the police who died on 9/11 or the soldiers in Iraq not heroes? First off, your using one single event to define the characters of an entire group. There indeed might have been a dirty cop present in the WTC on 9/11/01. There are muderers in Iraq (Hadeitha, etc...).
Luigi Novi: You continue to evade the point. The point of the question was to challenge your assertion that heroes never kill and that all killing is murder. The hypothesis assumed by the question, therefore, was not that any of those thousands of men and women were dirty or murderers, but that they were cops or soldiers who did their jobs as they were supposed to, which may at one point entailed taking a life. By splitting hairs like this, you continue to display your intellectual dishonesty, and your inability to participate in this discussion in a good faith manner.

michael j Norton: A person can do heroic acts and not be a hero overall. The opposite however can not be true, …
Luigi Novi: Then you have an extremely naïve idea of heroism, because you can pick any person in history who is considered “a hero overall”, and find a non-heroic act that they committed at some point.

michael j Norton: …and any true hero, in my opinion, will only kill as the absolute, 100 % last choice. Greg Rucka never sufficiently explored the other options because they were not tried in the least.
Luigi Novi: Please elaborate. Explain what he could’ve had Wonder Woman do.

Rex Hondo: 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.

michael j Norton: So Batman himself is described as being part Shadow, part Zorro and so forth but he's not a weak character. Ralph Dibney is described as a "stretch Nick Charles" and he is? Seems to me if inspiration and comparison is what makes a "weak" character, then no character in comics is beyond it.
Luigi Novi: Try reading what Rex actually wrote. He stated that any response from a respondent on the street would NOT be that he’s "A blend of Sherlock Holmes and Zorro, with a dash of The Shadow.", because he is iconic enough that describing him would not require referencing other characters. The issue is not that Ralph is weak because Plastic Man exists. Rex’s point was that Ralph is not a very strong character by virtue of the fact that no one could describe in any way that would be unique from other similar characters.

michael j Norton: Wanna know who else could've been killed to make a JLA murder mystery? It has to be someone from the JLA? Well, Sue and Ralph were NOT in the JLA at the time.
Luigi Novi: More distortion and hairsplitting. Red didn’t say anything about the characters being in the JLA. If you actually read what he said (you know, that thing you seem to hate doing), you’ll see he said:

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.

michael j Norton: Bats is already dark and nuts but because DC wants to irradicate any sense of fun and humor from the DCU, under the wrong headed belief that angst equals "literature", they chose a funny, warm and humorous pair and killed one and made the other a nutcase (from what I hear).
Luigi Novi: Or, Bats is dark and nuts because that makes a more compelling and realistic persona, given his origin and m.o. As for angst equaling “literature,” well, some literature does contain angst as a perfectly valid element.

michael j Norton: When it comes down to it this is really about the direction the DCU is going in. Either you think its great joy to read about people dying, killing and being angsty all the time and enjoy DC now, or you don't and would want to abandon DC altogether until Dan DiDio is gone and someone who understands that variety is best for a comic company is in charge.
Luigi Novi: Another False Either/Or. Another possibility is that one can dislike these stories, but still read some DC stuff that they like, since they’re not all like that. Just because you’re too pessimistic to see only two possibilities doesn’t mean that all other people fall into those two categories.

Steven: Then after it's all said and done, the only message that gets put out there is that they must hold all life sacred... no matter what.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see why they has to be the “only message”, since I myself don’t think that “all” life is “sacred”.

Steven: Which kinda undercuts putting them in a situation where they *had* to kill. After Superman's exile in space (and I don't know if this is Byrne's original intent, because Byrne left without putting the execution of the super-villains into any sort of perspective), he decided that he would not kill again. Which leaves me with a "HUH?", because what's the point of having Superman kill just so he won't kill again.
Luigi Novi: The point is that he may have decided that he didn’t want to kill again because of how he felt about killing after he had done it.

Steven: And we get the same thing with Wonder Woman, where they stack the deck so that she has to kill, then reverses course to say they shouldn't do that.
Luigi Novi: Why is a given outcome necessarily “stacking the deck”, but not others. In decades past, when writers always wrote the stories so that they never killed, because they had to write them that way, how is that not also “stacking the deck”? All writing is artificial, and all the outcomes of all stories are artificial. How is a directive to produce one and only one type of story or ending “stacking the deck”, and another type not?

Well, that's kinda of the point. The writer controls the vertical, the writer controls the horizontal. Wonder Woman didn't decide to kill, a writer did.

My problem is that they derive the most brain-dead lesson from these stories, that being "heroes don't kill", which is more simplistic than the Code Against Killing in the Silver Age, which allowed heroes like Star Boy to kill in self-defense, and for Superboy to defend his actions when they kicked him out of the Legion Of Super-Heroes because of it.

I don't have a problem with writers going there, so much as I have a problem with the recursive loop they tend to fall into. It's not portrayed as a tramatic event they had to cope with, it's portrayed as an object lesson to why heroes shouldn't kill... but they want to have it both ways by stacking the deck so their actions were 100% justifiable and the hero left with no other choice.

As I said upthread. To adult to be childish. Too childish to be adult. I had no problem with Iron Man killing in Ellis' arc, because I think he hit the right notes with his story. Tony Stark took no pleasure in killing the villain, and did what he could to resolve the situation without lethal force, but he did what he had to do... and the story didn't wring their hands and ultimately decide that killing was bad, even though he was totally justified.

michael j. norton: "Bill, I do not feel I was being personal. Rather I enjoy everyone here on this thread very much. Den may not have said that the only way he's entertained is to read/see the tragic heroes but that's what I read from it. I stand by my statement, something like that says something wrong about a person who enjoys this kind of story so much as a lot of people do."

Michael, I know you were addressing Bill Mulligan and Den, and not me, but I feel compelled to chime in. Enjoying "this kind of story so much" does not say "something wrong about a person."

Violence and tragedy are part of the human experience. Not every life has a happy ending, and thus some stories will reflect that. Want an example from "real" literature (I put that in quotes because I consider comics to be a valid form of literature)? Of Mice and Men has an awful, awful ending. I almost cried when I finished the book. But it was a worthwhile and thought-provoking story.

I'm not saying that Identity Crisis is on a par with Of Mice and Men, by the way. I'm simply pointing out that being entertained by a story that explores the uglier side of life doesn't mean there's "something wrong" with you. I think I'm safe in saying that Den isn't a rape and murder fetishist, any more than I'm a fratricide fetishist because I was moved by Of Mice and Men.

I think you'd do well to accept that your tastes are simply your tastes, and Den's tastes are different, and the world's big enough for both of you to coexist. There's no need to look for "something wrong" with Den just because he liked something you didn't.

Son of a BITCH! I only just now realized that "fratricide" is complete inapplicable to Of Mice and Men because George and Lennie aren't brothers. I have no idea why I thought they were.

Crap. Crap. Crap. I am an idiot.

1Luigi Novi: Or, Bats is dark and nuts because that makes a more compelling and realistic persona, given his origin and m.o.
****

Yeah, because when we read stories of men who dress like Bats to scare people, we do so for realism!!!!

A million options? Okay. Mind listing a few of them?
***

I did. You ignored them or gave weak explanations against them. I don't particularly enjoy debating things with you, and I choose not to do so any further. (Translation-I don't like you very much, not that I expect you to care, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who glosses over any explanation I give just to repeat the exact same thing he said before).

To me, the problem with the Wonder Woman and Superman stories are that they *invite* you to analyize their actions, because the whole damn thing is set up to shock the reader by showing the lead character acting in a manner that's out of character.

****

Yes, true. the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won't be repeated. Either Superman and WW are now characters who will kill from time to time, or the story is weak. Iron Man killed before and will kill again, when justified. We are given a story about Superman and a story about WW in which they "had to kill"-not that it was only justified, but there was no other option. But then we are told in each case, by either the characters or others, was that it was the wrong thing to do. And the characters vow not to do it again-but I thought they had no choice? So how can they vow not to do it again (without losing)? (WW might not have specifically vowed it, but the rest of IC showed her actions being used against heroes, and her going on some soul searching, not really necessary if there was no choice). Only because in those future situations, there will be "no choice" (I dispute that in the WW case-convientely there was no way to call anyone else for help-GL, Zatanna, etc. and be the Ultimate Nullifier effect) and yet miraculously, they will still find a way. So each story is cheap in my mind. and it invites the "If it was necessary for Max Lord, why not for X, Y, and Z"

I agree with Spiderrob8, I have been accused several times of just ignoring things said (even when I quote a full sentence instead of partially) and yet no one has been able to give me an instance when WW killed someone she had control of before Rucka and DiDio decided they wanted her to do it. This isn't about censorship. If WW had done it before I'd question my view of the character and not the actions that took place. When Ed Brubaker brought back the lethal aspect to Captain America at first I was a little shocked but in the Golden Age he regularly dispatched enemies. Batman even carried a gun at one point so even though he chooses not to now, I could see the argument for it.

Again, I'd say this whole thing was a contrivence because DiDio things mature writing equals angst. It's like he's watched "My So-Called Life" and assumed all teenagers are like that.

And Luigi, normally you're a rational debater who I enjoy but you've kinda lost me here. I don't even know what to say when you've accused me of ignoring things and you're arguing like a neo-con. Trust me, nothing I've said is out of line or a non-sequiter.

Bill (Myers this time), I may have gone a bit overboard stating that something is wrong with someone who enjoys this kind of story. To clarify, what comes across is that the people who are into DC right now seem to enjoy ONLY this type of story. And they defend Dan DiDio on this point when I've pointed out already that I'd be fine with alternative universes or any other way DC wanted to go with this instead of making it the only story out there. Luigi says you can dislike the current IC stuff and enjoy other stories because that's not all there is but frankly, as someone who feels very,very crapped on by DC and took a break, that's all I see advertised and thus the impression is that this is all there will be for the foreseeable future for DC. DiDio's comments and actions don't help the perception either.

To be honest this big event summer has got me looking elsewhere from both Marvel and DC. Both their events are taking up way too much space in their titles to allow other stories to be told.

On a side note regarding DiDio, did anyone read that crap he wrote in the back of WW # 1 recently? I bought the issue out of curiosity (and because I love Young Avengers which Allan Heinberg also writes and is basically Young Justice for Marvel) and read his little diatribe about how much he wants new writers but only if they're already published. I have to say (and no offense intended to PAD here) if Marvel or DC were serious about developing new writing talent it would go a long way to probably solving a lot of these issues with Wonder Woman and IC and Civil War. The other thing is they'd be wise to develop a program for such a thing, in my opinion.

Since this thread has basically gotten away from any serious discussion and fallen into the "You're just ignoring logic" mode, I'm gonna make this my final post on this thread. I don't wish to get to the point where I can't enjoy reading posts here. I genuinely like most of you and would hate to see that ruined like my love for WonderWoman.

However, if anyone has anything specific to ask of me, I'll be glad to do so because I don't wanna be the "play my way or I'm taking my ball and going home" guy.

Michael

Posted by michael j. norton: "Bill (Myers this time), I may have gone a bit overboard stating that something is wrong with someone who enjoys this kind of story. To clarify, what comes across is that the people who are into DC right now seem to enjoy ONLY this type of story. And they defend Dan DiDio on this point when I've pointed out already that I'd be fine with alternative universes or any other way DC wanted to go with this instead of making it the only story out there. Luigi says you can dislike the current IC stuff and enjoy other stories because that's not all there is but frankly, as someone who feels very,very crapped on by DC and took a break, that's all I see advertised and thus the impression is that this is all there will be for the foreseeable future for DC. DiDio's comments and actions don't help the perception either."

To be fair, nothing that Den said indicated the he liked only stories like Identity Crisis, merely that he liked the level of complexity that IC added to the Elongated Man (and there is just something really creepy about that name to me -- it's kind of a double entendre). The idea that "Den likes those kinds of stories, therefore those must be the only stories he likes" is a logical fallacy called a syllogism. Another example of a syllogism is "apples are red, therefore all things that are red are apples."

I, like you, used to feel "crapped on" when a comic-book publisher began pursuing a direction I found distasteful. I've since realized that comic-book publishers don't owe it to me to always cater to my tastes. All they owe me is a comic-book in exchange for my money. If I don't like it, I needn't buy the next one.

Entertainment is different from, say, coffee makers, in the sense that coffee makers can be judged by objective standars of quality. Does the coffee maker make coffee without leaking or exploding or giving you coffee that tastes like dirty toilet water? But tastes in entertainment are entirely subjective. So if you buy a comic you didn't like, you've really not got cause to feel "crapped on."

Now if DC were to advertise this great comic in this special polybag so you can't flip through it til you get home, and when you do get home and open the bag you find nothing but 32 blank pages, then you'd have cause to feel "crapped on."

Yes, true. the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won't be repeated

Generally, that's the case in literature.

My 2 cents: I hate the trend in comics to be angst filled and dark with stories more about the moral failings of super beings. I miss the days of honor-bound/fallen Samuri Wolverine or Simonson's Heroic Thor. It seems the point to drive home is: "These Marvels or Super Powers are just selfish, narcisstic, hedonistic beings just like everyone else." Okay, I get it, no more heroes. Just guys in capes.

To be fair, nothing that Den said indicated the he liked only stories like Identity Crisis, merely that he liked the level of complexity that IC added to the Elongated Man (and there is just something really creepy about that name to me -- it's kind of a double entendre).

You know, I could swear I once heard Harlan Ellison talking about how DC was going to have a book with a gay theme in it and it was going to star Elongated Man (which got a bog laugh) and then, when the obvious problem with that became apparent, Jimmy Olsen, but they ditched that because one of the acters who played Jimmy was gay and they didn't want to start the idea that the character was gay...it's been a while so I may not be remembering things exactly right. Maybe it was suppoed to star Elastic Lad (Jimmy), but that isn't as funny. GAY COMICS #1, with ELONGATED MAN! F'nar! F'nar!

spiderrob8: Yeah, because when we read stories of men who dress like Bats to scare people, we do so for realism!!!!
Luigi Novi: The science fictional or fantastic elements that are the conceit of the premise are excepted. It is how the material is executed on its own terms that is either realistic or not, particularly with respect to characterization, emotion, theme, and so forth. It is precisely because these stories are fantastic that writers choose to address timeless aspects of the human condition that resonate with readers, in the hope that those premises allow the writers to explore those ideas without the reader bringing in the baggage of preconception, whether it’s using mutants to explore issues of bigotry, Harry Potter to explore issues of adolescent growth, and so forth. Arguing that stories like this are not realistic because they’re science fiction or fantasy is a non sequitur that ignores the very role of fiction and storytelling. It’s a common refrain by the rationalizers when someone expresses an opinion about a given work’s realism, and it’s pure bunk.

spiderrob8: I did. You ignored them or gave weak explanations against them. I don't particularly enjoy debating things with you, and I choose not to do so any further. (Translation-I don't like you very much, not that I expect you to care, but I choose not to waste my time with someone who glosses over any explanation I give just to repeat the exact same thing he said before).
Luigi Novi: You seem to be confusing our roles here. You did not provide any alternate scenarios or options for what Wonder Woman could have done. You and others did attempt to provide explanations as to why it was somehow untenable or out of character, but they those arguments were based logical fallacies, arbitrarily redefining terms, and distorting others’ words, and I refuted those fallacies quite well. It is you who chose to gloss over these responses by me by not responding to them. I, on the other hand, have not done this, as I have responded to all of your comments, and those of others, directly, and in detail. For you to argue that it is somehow I who am doing this is a lie. The fact of the matter is, if my responses were “weak,” then you would’ve responded by dismantling them as such. You didn’t, because you couldn’t, which is the real reason you are now claiming not to respond to me, despite your anemic smoke-and-mirrors about my being the one who glosses over things or repeats the exact same things—something only necessary because you keep ignoring them yourself.

But if you’re right, why don’t you quote those “options” you gave right here? And why not quote the “weak explanations” I gave, and explain what’s wrong with the underlying logic of them?

Simple.

Because you can’t.

And your only tactic left is the same one utilized by all trolls, flamers and paralogists: Chicken out. Run away. And distort the record of what was really said, accusing the other guy of doing what in fact you yourself did. You’re not the first message board coward to punk out in this way, and you’ll hardly be the last. :-)

spiderrob8: the stories make little sense to me, because they are these one time event things that won't be repeated. Either Superman and WW are now characters who will kill from time to time, or the story is weak.
Luigi Novi: Or, Wonder Woman might kill again if a similar combination of threat and limited options comes up. Or, they might not kill precisely because they’ve resolved, after these incidents in which they killed, that they don’t ever want to do so again. I made this suggestion above. (Was this a “weak” suggestion?)

michael j Norton: I agree with Spiderrob8, I have been accused several times of just ignoring things said (even when I quote a full sentence instead of partially)….
Luigi Novi: Maybe it’s because you have ignored things, and quoting doesn’t mitigate this.

michael j Norton: …and yet no one has been able to give me an instance when WW killed someone she had control of before Rucka and DiDio decided they wanted her to do it.
Luigi Novi: And yet you never answered my response to this point about cut-off points. Guess that’s just another thing that you didn’t really “ignore,” huh?

Maybe she didn’t kill anyone before because it wasn’t necessary.

michael j Norton: And Luigi, normally you're a rational debater who I enjoy but you've kinda lost me here. I don't even know what to say when you've accused me of ignoring things and you're arguing like a neo-con. Trust me, nothing I've said is out of line or a non-sequiter.
Luigi Novi: Trust me, Michael, some of what you said has been, and I pointed out to you where. Your latest comment that my position is that of a “neo-con” is certainly another. Sorry if you think my saying so is not up to my usual “rational” standards. :-)

I'm late to comment, but YJ was a favorite. I'd have read it into advanced old lady-hood, if only we were allowed to have it. I'd have never guessed it was for kids.

Since most humans have different takes on real individuals, I don't know that variance under different authors "ruins" characters. And please don't tell me raping a woman "ruins" her. That's just a sad take on a human tragedy that is far too common among us females. Sue prevailed and had a history that extended far beyond the rape, which was only discussed after her death. I expect a lot of women carry the story of their rape to their grave without ever letting on that it happened. In retrospect, I don't know that it has a big influence on how I see the character, though it adds a poignant backstory seeing how she managed to have a fantastic life, and was a survivor of rape. As a reader, I'm kinda glad to have that. Killing her is a separate issue, and I'd much rather have her still alive since I don't know if she could ever come back. Breaching the heavens, is tricky stuff. I think only Oliver Queen managed to wiggle his way out without it damaging his character, and it's because it wasn't seen as an easy act to pull off.

However, I do agree that characters that are intended to be heroes should act heroic. There ought to be some expectation that good triumphs over evil. DC doesn't seem so sure they believe that any longer. DC inherited iconic characters that rank up there with Santa Claus and the President as influential good guys in the minds of children. While we need to eventually learn that the president is merely human, I don't know that there's a point to portraying either Santa Claus or Wonder Woman as a murderer. Heroes don't accept zero-sum arguments, so when Max Lord says the only way to stop him is to kill him, WW has got to see that this is "villain's logic", not "heroes logic." Why she would fall for such a pathetic trap without even a brief attempt at other solutions is indicative of a lack of imagination, but also a disallusionment with heroic standards of conduct. It seems that cruelty for the greater good is acceptable since 9/11, and even the revelations of the horrors of Abu Ghraib haven't caused authors to relent in their portrayal of torture as cool and effective. That's damaging comics. They should really stop that, and maybe take a minute to think about what it means to be a hero.

A couple of wrongs dont make a Right

There PAD

Doesnt matter if DC ruin other charcter sense there Dawn. A ruin charcter still a ruin charcter.

To 'someguy'
The thing is PAD didn't ruin Lobo. His stories of Lil' Lobo/Slobo are the ONLY times I've read Lobo that I found it worth my money. He didn't 'Ruin' him, he made him actually good.
Even if you don't like Slobo, then the solution to get old "I'm a badass" Lobo back is as simple as having Lil' Lobo bleed, which was done.

Old fashioned "Biker" wasn't changed at all, altered at all, a new character who was sort of related to him was used.
It's like saying when writing a story with Ben Reiley someone ruined Peter Parker.

Just a few comments

1.) Luigi, I agree with you 100%! Wonder Woman's murder of Maxwell Lord was something she HAD to do to save lives, starting with her own. A recent "Supeman/Batman" issue shows that Superman could kill Wonder Woman, perhaps easily. Not to mention the other lives she saved.

2.) Spiderrob8 was frustrated that he couldn't refute your statements, so he called you a neocon. Now you know how I feel.

3.) Arc Light,
PAD's "Supergirl" and "Young Justice" were cancelled because of sales. It's really that simple. If PAD's "Supergirl" were in the Top 10 saleswise, as the current book is,rather than teetering at the edge or out of the Top 100, we would still be reading about Linda Danvers. I don't even particularly care for the current "Supergirl" series. But facts is facts.

4.) Just because Didio made a statement you don't like and because many of you obviously were fans of "Young Justice", does not mean it is right to crap al over Geoff Johns - who in addition to being talented is also a very nice guy. There is no need to attack him personally.

To Jerome.

About YJ and SG canned due to sales. I'm pretty sure both where making a profit. No they where not top 10 titles, but they where not exactly pushed by DC as muc has TT or the new SG are.

As to Geoff, I admit the man can write well, at times, but for alot of us who where YJ fans, he just plain ruined several characters.

Superboy has a new origin that contradicts his old one, and it's not even mentioned that it contradicts the old one for 3 years.
Superboy finally 'gets his soul' because he 'suffered'. Uhh, the man had suffered much before that, he had been in love and seen his girlfriend die and THAT didn't trigger a 'soul'?
Also does 'you get a soul through suffering' mean rich or spoiled kids have no souls?

Cassie: Remember when Cassie used to be a smart person capable of being a team leader? Then she just went to being Conners Girlfriend.

Bart: Changes ID because of getting shot in the knee and Wally saying the same stuff he had said a billion times before.
Maybe it's just me but if seeing a different version of me DIE didn't trigger me to change my identity, I don't think a gunshot to the knee would.

Geoff comes across like he didn't even bother to browse through an issue of YJ and just started writing characters the way HE wanted them.
That's the same thing we criticize Chuck Austen for.
I admit Geoff can do fantastic work, but when it comes to Titans, I judge him by Titans, and he FUBAR'd 3 different characters.
IF Dido wants to talk about ruining characters, that's 3 for Geoff right there.

HunterD,
Turning a profit and dramaticaly increasing sales are two sepaarate animals. But at least you argue your points intelligently and I do see some validity to them.
And, you know, I can't get inside PAD's head, but to respond to Didio's comments with the idea that about ten different high-profile characters have been "ruined" strikes me as "Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah", which is something I would expect from...Kevin Smith. Speaking of which

Sasha,
It took Smith THREE years to finish his "Spider-Man/Black Cat" limited series. The third issue was out around the release of the first movie, back in 2002. The fourth issue did not hit shelves until late 2005. Leaving readers in suspense for over three years in the MIDDLE of a story? Busy or no, that's pretty unprofessional.

"profit and dramaticaly increasing sales are two sepaarate animals"

It's true that sales for Teen Titans were good, but that happened after the cancellation, and it wasn't guaranteed. It's entirely possible that if they'd slapped "Teen Titans" above "Young Justice" at the time the cartoon came out, there would have been a sales boost. There's no way to know.

As for a the profitability of YJ, I believe someone said that two thirds of DC's line *wasn't* profitable at the time. So I have to think the decision had to be based on more than just sales, or else a couple dozen other titles would have gotten the ax, too.

As for PAD's comments about the high profile character's being ruined, that was in direct response to comments that Didio made about PAD's work. The worst anyone can reasonably say is that PAD sunk to Didio's level.

Hi, been away for a while, but I saw that some of my comments seem to have sparked a mini-debate.

So, let me clarify in case there is any doubt: No, I'm not a murder and rape fetishist. :)

There, I hope that clears it up.

Seriously, I like light-hearted, fun stories, too. I just never cared much for the character of Ralph Dibny. If I don't care about a character, then it's hard for me to enjoy any story starring him, whether it's a light or a serious one. I think it's a shame that there had to be such a tragic story for me to fell some sympathy for me, but that's simply my take on things.

What I don't like are characters that are very superficial and Ralph had always come across to me as such. So have Blue Beetle and Booster Gold for that matter, particularly during the Giffen/DeMatteis run.

So now Ralph has some depth to him and I suddenly finding myself carrying about his happiness. That's a real switch for me.

No he was THE amateur detective, recognized by everyone in the DCU as second only to Batman.

I would have to disagree with this statement. I can't recall anyone saying he was "second only to Batman." Just in the JLA, he's had to compete with the likes of J'Onn and Hawkman to be the second best. Then there's Nightwing and half a dozen other characters trained by Batman, plus Jason Bard, Christopher Chance, Slam Bradley and about 20 other plainclothes detectives in the DCU.

But, even if we were to concede that he's the number 2 detective, he's still just the second banana. Is that a great selling point? "Don't worry, the guy who is almost as good as Batman is on the case?" Aw, hell, let's just get Batman!

And Sue was a big reason for that.

Given that her main role has been to be his cheerleading section, I can agree to that. :)

First of all thanks for the comment about argueing points well and seeing validity to them.
Too often in the online world people mistake argueing for debating, and I've always tried more debate than argument.

I agree there's a difference between massively increasing sales and turning a profit, but as Jason sort of pointed out, TT had more help along the way. First and foremost it had the cartoon that helped out the sales. The toon has a huge following, the comic featured the entire cast of the cartoon (atleast at first) so it's logical to think people who loved the toon picked up the comic simply for that where they may have skipped Young Justice.

Also, I saw LOTS more press on the new Teen Titans than I ever did for YJ. The kicking off of Teen Titans was a MAJOR deal for DC with tons of press in comic magazines. YJ wasn't nearly as promoted. If you promote a title as a "must read" it's going to get more readers than a title that's merely just another book by the company.

As for PADs response, it may not be the height of moral superiority, but I do think it is a valid point in that they are accuseing him of 'ruining' a character that in many ways he never really wrote, and that can easily be changed (not even really retconned) to ignore his YJ work.
Meanwhile they have tons of characters doing other things that can't be as easily written around, can't be as easily ignored, that 'really' happened. And they say HE ruined a character.
I think almost any of us would respond with some indignation and talk of hypocrisy. (Although we may have used different examples of such.)

Den,
Have to admit I was never a huge Ralph Dibny fan. But both Blue Beetle and Booster Gold actually had well written series that were refreshing at the time. Especially Len Wein's stories, which evoked a lot of his clasic Spider-Man stuff.
I am REALLY tired of people trashing the "humorous" Justice League, though. People complain about all the darkness in comics, and then when something that doesn't take itself so seriously comes around, it's either ignored or bashed.
Back to Beetle, I really felt his loss in "Countdown", because the way the other heroes treated him is the way DC and many readers did- dismissively.
The character had so much potential and now he is gone for good...unless Superboy throws some more punches:)

I think there's a limit to how far you can carry the "The cartoon is what sold the new Teen Titans comic." The first issue of the comic came out in July 2003, while the cartoon didn't premiere until August. The cartoon might have helped reorder sales and the second and third printings, but it didn't sell 75K copies of the first issue in its first month.

Additionally, TT sales have consistently remained above 60K, even after the cartoon was cancelled (while the sales of Teen Titans Go, the title you'd expect to get a boost from the cartoon, have been much lower). Even if people started reading it because of the cartoon, they've stuck with the title; it's not just a case of people picking something up because of the hype and then losing interest (which does seem to have been the case with TTG).

If I may...

I'm a little surprised that there's an argument about Hal. However you may feel about his handling, the intent is well-known: DC did its best to ensure that Hal couldn't be a good guy ever again with Emerald Twilight and Zero Hour. That they changed their minds eventually is beside the point.

Beyond this, however, I don't understand Didio's point about "ruining" iconic characters. Isn't this something that's cried out every time a character significantly changes? Sometimes it's just a vocal minority operating more on gut than on logic (which isn't the same as being wrong), but sometimes it's a sustained, pronounced loathing from the general fanbase.

But, honestly, Lobo? Lobo's a parody character. In the last ten years, he's never been anything but. It's hardly ruinous to try to do something else with a character so limited in scope. It may be a bad idea (can anyone imagine a serious Ambush Bug comic being anything less than a catastrophe?), but it's not like it hasn't worked before - several characters traditionally played for laughs have had some heart-wrenching moments. It's not the end of the character, it's just a different take on him.

But both Blue Beetle and Booster Gold actually had well written series that were refreshing at the time. Especially Len Wein's stories, which evoked a lot of his clasic Spider-Man stuff.

I liked Len Wein's Blue Beetle stories as well. In fact, I blame Giffen and DeMatteis for killing it. While Wein was true to produce a somewhat light-hearted series about a character who was neverless, competent. Giffen and DeMatteis were turning Beetle into the idiot.

As for Booster Gold, I was never a big fan of the character as a whole. His series had some good moments, but the thin premise of the yuppie super-hero really couldn't sustain an ongoing title for long. It's a such an 80s idea that I'm surprised that he's popular enough to have sustained for so long, when there are characters with a lot more dimension who have been all but forgotten (Chronus, Resurrection Man).

I am REALLY tired of people trashing the "humorous" Justice League, though.

Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Myself, I've never felt that Giffen was all that funny as a writer (and I don't want to even get started on his habit of drawing nothing but chins and elbows as an artist). He has a tendency to take single joke and run it into the ground and then proceed to drill his way to China until I'm ready scream, "enough already!".

>Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Myself, I've never felt that Giffen was all that funny as a writer (and I don't want to even get started on his habit of drawing nothing but chins and elbows as an artist). He has a tendency to take single joke and run it into the ground and then proceed to drill his way to China until I'm ready scream, "enough already!".

As much as I'm not a huge fan of most of Giffin's solo work, his stories with co-writer DeMatteis are simply hysterical to me and the pathos that they tend to sprinkle in make it very impressive in my eyes.

Den,
"I liked Len wein's Blue Beetle stories as well"
Thank you! Two scenes i remember most were when Beetle was in a situation similar to the classic story where Spider-man is buried under a pile of machinery and slowly triumphs. The other is when HIS predecessor died. Both were examples of powerful and compelling storytelling, IMHO.
I always have liked the underrated characters, be they Blue Beetle or Sleepwalker or Manhunter
or Darkhawk. It's part of what makes comics fun and is more interesting to me most of the time than a new creator's Batman vs. Joker story.

I didn't read a whole lot of DC but I did read Superboy ( I was here and there with Superman), Young Justice, and Supergirl. Supergirl took a while --but I was soon hooked. Linda really grew on me. At first I only read YJ for Superboy but the others grew on me quick, especially Impluse. The comic was absolutely awesome--it felt like the Seinfeld of DC to me. It was funny yet it could be serious when you didn't expect it.

One by one all that ended. Superboy's book is cancelled, then Supergirl and YJ. Now post-infinite-crisis, according to Dan, Linda's gone, Superboy's dead, and Impluse got aged into an adult and is now the Flash. It's like DC has it in for me or something.

On the topic of Kevin Smith and his Spider-man series: I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE WORD "RAPE" IN COMICS EVER AGAIN!!!

Ahum.

As for Young Justice: I for one wasn't into comics during the series' run. I found some scans of several issues, and went to get as many issues as possible (An argument in favor of allowing internet comic scans, btw). It is one of my all-time favorite series, and I applaud the characterization of the heroes in Young Justice. What DC seems to forget is the cameradery(sic?) that exists within a group of people who hang out with eachother. Even if you don't like certain aspects of them, even if they annoy the hell out of you, because of spending so much time with one another, you get to know eachother. Making jokes, having a good time, that is what people, especially teenagers, do in their life. THAT is far more realistic than what DC's current series of Teen Titans is all about. Reading that, I think to myself, "how can you live a life like that?". These people you see, they aren;t kids, they are old and worn soldiers, stuck in a teenagers body.

Another argument in favor of PAD's portrayal of Young Justice: with JL and JLU , which heroes are the fan's favorites? Those who have a sense of humor. The Flash, always kidding around (very similar to Impulse, btw). Batman, who can always recognize the rediculous side of the situation, very much like Batman. The Question, conspiracy theorist, not very socially well-adjusted, and thus an excellent source of humor. The Green Arrow, outsider, leftist pinky commie. Most, if not all of the DCAU characters are loved by comic-fans, because they have a sense of humor, and the writers are willing to allow them to stay real, instead of what DC is doing with their characters now.

No, in this case, I can't say I agree with Didio. Make Mine PAD!

Also, at a completely different note: Peter, Retcon-bombs? I was reading it in the shop, and the shop-owner nearly called an ambulance. He thought I was having some sort of attack. :p

Wow. Dan DiDio must have a very short-term memory, hmm? Actually, wasn't it all along that YJ was to blend in to the new Teen Titans right?

To me, the current Robin, Superboy, Wonder Girl, Impulse/Kid Flash II/Flash IV are our generation's Dick Grayson, Donna Troy, Wally West and others, and I've always felt that YJ was our generations TT (1st series), as the characters grow up (and Wonder Girl has grown up impressively, thanks to you!) I think DC has ruined that. Robin now a paranoid, Superboy dead, Wonder Girl beating the crap out of everyone with some crazy cult, and Bart becoming the Flash so quickly -- by growing up quickly again. I think DC really has, yes, RUINED the brillant efforts you've put to these characters. Maybe that's why you're now at Marvel?