So Superman gains his powers from the yellow sun, which in turn strengthens his skin, and muscles. But is this really realistic? What would happen if it was real?
And it's in the CW:
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'll try to lay out my thoughts:
- Superman as a Supergirl spin-off. How ironic.
- I'm worried about the future of the Supergirl show. I'm convinced that Berlanti wanted to make a Superman show but his pitch was rejected at the time, so he settled for a Superman show where Clark Kent happened to be a woman called Kara Danvers. The CW doesn't care for Supergirl and isn't interested in doing the character justice. So, what will happen now they have secured the rights for Superman?
- And why should I think they'll do Superman justice, for that matter? It isn't as if the CW shows are high quality. And a lot of his villains have already been used in his cousin's show.
- I don't want both shows to compete with each other. It sounds like a recipe for disaster, and I suspect Supergirl will suffer the most. Most of people will probably choose to watch the original character rather than the derivative one. Kara is different from Kal and she's a great character on her own, but the CW hasn't tried to show that.
- On the other hand, if I've understood correctly how the CW works, Supergirl will last six or seven seasons before Melissa's contract may be renegotiated. Kara Zor-El, a character who was once continuity-banned due to being supposedly worthless, has starred in a multi-season live-action. More than one hundred episodes is nothing to sneeze at, and Kara can be proud. I don't want another "Kara Zor-El never existed" scenario to happen ever again, and if her flawed show has ensured she'll not be erased ever again, then it was worth it in the end.
- Likewise, I'm happy with the existence of a Superman show where Supergirl exists, is a fully established hero, and is very close to Superman. I'm sick of Supergirl being ignored in Superman media.
And I mean stuff like who belongs to what generation, and how old is each age group.
Personally I think the "DC is about legacy" slogan was mostly 90's marketing propaganda, fueled by the success of Mark Waid's Flash. Definitely DC wasn't kind to their legacy heroes before or after that decade. The different Supergirls, Batgirls, Robins and Titans have often been fridged and served as mega-event cannon fodder. But I digress.
Regardless, I think DC has messed up their legacy characters, and -unsurprisingly to those who know me- I think the roots of that mess can be traced back to the Crisis on Infinite Earths.
Personally, should DC approach me and task me with the unenviable chore of straightening their universe up, this is what their generations would look like.
Earth-Two First Generation: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, JSA... In their fifties or sixties.
Earth-Two Second Generation: Power Girl, Huntress, Fury, Silver Scarab, Infinity Inc. In their mid twenties.
Main Earth First Generation: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Justice League, Green Lantern Corps, Vixen, Batwoman, Black Lightning, Steel... Mid-thirties. Superman, Batman, Hal Jordan or Barry Allen should be in his early forties at most.
Main Earth Second Generation: Supergirl, Batgirl, original Titans and New Teen Titans... In their early twenties. Babs should be a little older than Kara and Dick.
Main Earth Third Generation: Kon-El, Cassandra Cain, Cassandra Sandsmark, Stephanie Brown, Stargirl, Bart Allen, Jaime Reyes, younger Titans and Young Justice... In their mid to late teens. Jon Kent and Damian Wayne should be in their early teens, at most.
64 Votes in Poll
So season 2 so far took a bit of time to get going and this whole episode just crackled with action, originality and style. It was so good I put down my phone to watch it! Anyway without giving too much away if you watched the previous episode this one is totally disorientating and if you didn't ever watch titans before you can watch this as a standalone to find the answer to the question what would happen if lex and Clark had a baby. I note there are not many posts about titans so I hope it's getting the ratings as it definitely deserves them.
The recent rumors regarding DC replacing five or six of their biggest guns at once, which can negatively affect characters like Jon Kent, have made me ponder about why some characters are successfully replaced whereas other legacy characters fail and are forgotten.
Of course, there're many reasons why a character succeeds, fails, or succeeds for a while before failing. Maybe they had potential but they weren't given enough chances. Maybe they were put through a string of terrible runs. Maybe the revolving door of creative teams with little to no interest on building on foundations set by former writers makes almost impossible flesh their world out. Maybe editorial didn't know what to do with them. O maybe -and this is a possibility which hardly anybody wants to face- they aren't good enough of a character.
Keep in mind, though, Morth Weisinger used to say (or at least I think he said) there're no bad characters. There're bad writers and worse editors. Whatever else you think of the man, I think he was right. Batman was nearly cancelled once (Maybe twice?). X-Men was cancelled.
So, why some replacements are widely accepted whereas others fall by the wayside? Why some fans feel Superman cannot be replaced whereas Flash fans bicker over who the real Flash is (Jay Garrick, obviously)?
After much pondering, I think I have narrowed it down. Leaving aside creative reasons -and obvious exceptions to the rule-, I think legacy characters are more liable to be regarded as the real deal when they have been born in early ages when the mythos were being expanded; they have been around for more than ten years; and they have headlined her own title or backup strip.
Why? Well, when you've been born in the formative early years/decades, people will usually respect your seniority, at the very least, since you have been around since almost the beginning. If you've been around for decades since your creation, fans usually come to regard you as a permanent fixture (Have you noticed how Marvel's "super-heroes shouldn't be married" creatives leave Reed and Sue alone most of the time?)
And it's easier earning a lot of fans if you have been born during those times when comics were read by hundreds of thousands of kids. Especially if you have been around for several decades headlining your own adventures, which means you'll be not forgotten for the next generation of readers.
Moreover, being born early means more chances to show up in other media. Increased exposure often results in increased number of fans, increased sales of merchandise, and editorial favoring you over other options.
Let's examine some examples:
* Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have been around since the late thirties/early fourties, headlining their own books. Even though they've been replaced every so often, their substitutes (Mon-El, Azrael, Donna) have been very short-lived. Hence, most of fans think Clark, Bruce and Diana are the real SM, BM and WW, and replacing them is non-negotiable.
* Alan Scott, Jay Garrick, Al Pratt... Either they had no solo books or they were cancelled within nine years. The original JSers were limboed for a while during which their original fanbase -which wasn't enough to sustain them- moved on. They are generally well-liked but not considered the REAL GL or Flash.
* Barry Allen was created in 1956 and headlined his own book for twenty-six years. Wally West was created in 1960, and headlined the Flash book for... a long while, too (I'm not sure how long since if I'm not wrong Wally was missing or replaced several times before Barry's return). This is because there's a Flash Fanbase War. Both characters have been around for long that every one is THE Flash to many, many readers. Barry fans were told "Shut up and get over it" by Wally fans during twenty-three years, and Wally fans aren't happy that their positions have been swapped.
* Green Lantern. Again, Alan's book was cancelled because of low sales after nine years and he was limboed in a time when the audience moved on. So, his fanbase wasn't a threat to Hal Jordan when he was created ten years later. Hal was the main GL during thirty-five years, which is because his fanbase was large, loud and wouldn't be silenced. Kyle Rainer had the deck stacked against him because of the circumstances leading to his becoming the newest -and only- GL, his book lasted only ten years before being cancelled, and he lost importance as soon as he stopped being the sole GL in the cosmic neighborhood.
* Supergirl. Lucy of Borgonia was limboed after one issue. Super-Girl was limboed after one issue. Kara Zor-El was created in 1959, and until her death twenty-six years later she headlined her own backup strip and even her own books (short-lived, but bear with me). Neither of her replacements lasted so long. Seven or eight years, at best. Kara was -grudgingly- brought back fifteen years ago, and during that time she has starred in her own book(s) as well as series, cartoons, movies and her own show (and even during the eighteen years she was The-One-Shall-Be-Never-Mentioned she made several cameo appearances). The fact that DC's new timeline appears to ignore the existence of other Supergirls sounds like DC thinks they can dismiss their fans safely.
* Batgirl is a more complicated case. Bette Kane was created in 1961 and dismissed shortly after. Barbara Gordon was created in 1967 and completely eclipsed Bette. Babs' adventures were Detective Comics' backup strip until 1982, and she was also a regular in two immensely popular media, the Adam West's show and Batman: TAS. Because of all this, Barbara had gained a sizable fanbase among comic and non-comic fans who regarded her as THE Batgirl and didn't care for her Oracle identity. However, her successors became popular enough on their own right in a relatively short time (well, Cass did. Steph was created seventeen years before becoming Batgirl) than DC finally got to acknowledge their stints wearing the Batgirl cowl.
* Green Arrow is in the same place as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. Olliver Queen was created in 1941. Did someone truly believe back in 1994 Connor Hawke would be able to replace him permanently?
There're more instances worth of looking over (like, you know, the original sidekick Robin whom I've completely skipped over), but I think it's enough for now.
So, what do you think?
DC has announced a new, streamlined... Bwahahahahahah... timeline where WW is the first generation's first hero and SM the second generation's first hero.
It sounds like another mess which will be retconned and/or ignored in less than one year:
The more time passes, the more I miss the Pre-Crisis setup...
I'm asking this because after the announcement of Brandon Routh playing Superman in the Arrowverse I've seen people all over the place arguing if Superman Returns retconned Supergirl, Superman III and IV out of continuity.
I know SMR was supposed to be a sequel to Superman II which would ignore the rest of the Donnerverse, but the Wiki allocates its own continuity to that movie.
Please, could someone tell me what is the official word in the subject? SMR is officially the sequel to SMII? Or it is out of continuity due to underperforming?
Have you ever wondered about it?
I don't know how accurate or reliable is this study conducted in the last June, but I find it interesting, regardless.
Hulk seems real popular. Funny. I never got the appeal.
So, the December solicits reveal Superman will ditch his secret identity:
To those whose memories are mercifully short, DC published a "Superman's secret identity is revealed to the world" only four years ago. It was called "Superman: Truth", and I'll just say that it was not well-received, and was reversed over one year later.
(It was also -way better- done by Alan Moore in "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", but that isn't relevant right now)
I know/understand comics recycle storylines constantly, but four years is too short of a time lapse. Back in the 50's, Mort Weisinger had the excuse of the audience turnover happening every five years. This is no longer the case, and it hasn't been for decades.
Moreover, someone does believe this status quo will stick? It will not. I believe the Clark Kent identity is more essential to Superman than the Diana Prince identity was to Wonder Woman.
And I still remember when Spider-Man revealed his identity to the world during Civil War. Back then Joe Quesada swore that development would have long-lasting effects and wouldn't be reversed by magic or something.
Taling about recycling storylines, I can think of at least four or five "I murdered Krypton" storylines prior to Bendis.
And it's rumored another character will be soon wearing the Batman cowl. I can think of at least twice this has happened (Azrael, Dick...) and I KNOW I'm missing someone.
And I've lost count of how many "Supergirl must get over Krypton"/"Dark/Angry Supergirl"/"Supergirl falls for a jerkass" stories I've read!
It feels to me like DC (and Marvel) are running out of ideas so they recycle old stories or make random changes to see what sticks.
To be honest, this sort of stuff is getting tiresome, and it's making me lose interest in current continuity and clinging to my old comics like the cranky old man I'm undoubtedly becoming.
Hi, guys. I'm already back. Did you miss me?
You didn't have to laugh so hard, you know.
I've been catching up with comics a bit. I've... thoughts on several developments. Some of them may not be nice thoughts.
But I don't want my first post-vacation post to being negative, so let's play another OoC game again.
So, what is happening in the image below? Why are Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne sharing a bed? Why do they seem pissed off?
No, the real question isn't: "Why are they wearing clothes?"
Anyone remember the time that Superman punched Joker through the chest?
Alright, I've been holding this in for long enough. Ever since Brian Michael Bendis splashed onto the scene in Action Comics #1000 and later in Superman #1, I've seen DC's comics take a real nosedive in their quality, connectedness, and scope. And, in all honesty, I think it's because Bendis has been given so much power over the company. I can't speak for his creator-owned works like Pearl or Naomi, but his mainstream DC work has been just awful. Superman and Action Comics, not to mention The Man of Steel miniseries, threw away everything that made Tomasi's Superman and Jurgens' Action Comics great in favor of incomprehensible plotlines and stiff dialogue. For an extra dollar, no less. Bendis has set a precedent for releasing worse stories less frequently for more money, which has since spread to the rest of DC's books. So, the question stands: Is Bendis good for DC? Why or Why Not?