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 th