State Your Opinion on A DC Character - Part 2

[Mystirious]

I also love pornography

I mean pornography

I mean HUNTRESS

Pornography Huntress is fabulous

 

[Mystirious]

And so is pornography

 

[HighFivingMF]

[YT]odoUzxgH35Y[/YT]

 

[Mystirious]

Glorious

 

[Mystirious]

Double post

 

[Anubis]

Well, that's it for Huntress. Mostly good.

Spoiler

I don't care what anybody says, that Costume is hot.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Huntress' super-functional belly window is a revolution in costume design.

Adam Strange is cool. I loved Ferry's redesign of his armor.

 

[Mystirious]

Adam Strange is pretty cool I like the stories I've read about him they were fun sci fi tales

I don't care what anybody says, that Costume is hot.

That skintight leather is epic hawtness

 

[HighFivingMF]

I've only seen him in Brave and the Bold here and there, but he's always been pretty neat. If he got a new series I'd read it.

 

[Anubis]

You should read Planet Heist. That mini was the s**t.

 

[Kurosawa]

adam Strange is awesome, the 60's series with Murphy Anderson art was just geat, story after story. Pure classic science fiction.

 

[Mystirious]

Good times

Those stories were a lot of fun

You should read Planet Heist. That mini was the s**t.

True 'dat

It was crazy amounts of

 

[BLACKVULCAN]

I don't care what anybody says, that Costume is hot.

&^%$# YEAH IT IS!! THAT OUTFIT IS SEXY AS HELL!

Anyways Adams cool he's a 5 on the rocktor scale.( plus his last name is strange. thats always cool!. i dug dude during the Thanagarian war! Those earthmen know to kick some serious alien butts!

 

[The Question]

Well, that's it for Huntress. Mostly good.

Spoiler

I don't care what anybody says, that Costume is hot.

Pornography.



... oh, wait, we're done with that.

Yeah, Adam Strange.

Eh...

Okay, he's fun. His old stories are pretty solid old school sci-fi adventures. Planet Heist was a pretty solid read.

But I'm being asked to state my opinion on the character, not the stories he's in, and character-wise there's not a whole lot to Adam Strange. He's a brainier Flash Gordon. He's brave, quick thinking, and adventurous. His life is completely ****ing weird. That's all cool, but it's not especially interesting and there's not much to him beyond that.

 

[Mystirious]

Pornography.

I wonder what outer space pornography is like

I'm sure Adam Strange has starred in his fair share

... oh, wait, we're done with that.

Yeah, Adam Strange.

Eh...

Okay, he's fun. His old stories are pretty solid old school sci-fi adventures. Planet Heist was a pretty solid read.

But I'm being asked to state my opinion on the character, not the stories he's in, and character-wise there's not a whole lot to Adam Strange. He's a brainier Flash Gordon. He's brave, quick thinking, and adventurous. His life is completely ****ing weird. That's all cool, but it's not especially interesting and there's not much to him beyond that.

His life is gloriously weird

I'd love an Adam Strange mini series full of adventures and space weirdness

It would be amazing

 

[Kurosawa]

Pornography.



... oh, wait, we're done with that.

Yeah, Adam Strange.

Eh...

Okay, he's fun. His old stories are pretty solid old school sci-fi adventures. Planet Heist was a pretty solid read.

But I'm being asked to state my opinion on the character, not the stories he's in, and character-wise there's not a whole lot to Adam Strange. He's a brainier Flash Gordon. He's brave, quick thinking, and adventurous. His life is completely ****ing weird. That's all cool, but it's not especially interesting and there's not much to him beyond that.

Like Ray Palmer and the real Hal Jordan, Adam Strange was a product of a time when the plot was the thing. Now plots no longer exist.

 

[Anubis]

So what you're saying is that they weren't multifaceted characters and could pretty much be swapped out for one another cuz they were pretty much just card board cut outs?

 

[Kurosawa]

So what you're saying is that they weren't multifaceted characters and could pretty much be swapped out for one another cuz they were pretty much just card board cut outs?

To a certain degree, yes. But the characters of today are just as much cardboard cutouts, as they all have their required amounts of flaws and angst. That's the Marvel thing-every character must have a flaw, a real or self-perceived failure of character or accomplishment, or a handicap of some sort that gives them angst. DC characters didn't have those sorts of obvious flaws, you had to look harder to see where their depth was, leading to the somewhat true idea that their heroes are hard to relate to. But if you look hard enough at the Silver Age DC, you see there are differences in each hero's personality.

Ray Palmer was an intellectual, a thinking man's type hero. He was never the type to overreact to much. How he approached life and his career was with a certain amount of thought and reason. A career woman like Jean Loring was a good fit for a character like Ray because he was a rationalist.

Adam Strange is the sort of character whose strongest tie is that of romance-everything came back to getting home to Alanna. He's heavily influenced by John Carter, but a much more sanitized version, of course.

Hal Jordan was not the brash, cocky, reckless character that Geoff Johns made him into in order to give him Marvel flaws. Hal was a much more conservative, accomplished, and together guy in the 60's. That's part of why Denny O'Neil cast him as the representative of the right in Green Lantern/Green Arrow, although Hawkman later on became a much stronger conservative advocate as Hal pretty much immediately bought into Ollie's hippie stuff. At the same time, Hal had no issue with having a female boss, and his closest friend was an Inuit, and despite the bad nickname, Tom himself was written as a serious character and the entire Silver Age Green Lantern series was pretty forward thinking for it's time. Hal Jordan was basically John Glenn with a power ring.

So yes, the older characters had personalities, but they were much more reserved and subtle. Those stories were driven by plots, and character moments came out every now and then. Today's stories are driven by characters, and the usual plot is villain X wants revenge on hero Y and is willing to kill like crazy to get it, because he really means business this time!!!! Plots are unimportant, what the focus is on is making characters as cool, edgy or as angst-driven and as flawed as possible. When DC stopped letting their characters be themselves in the late 60's and tried to be Marvel characters instead, they fell behind Marvel and have never caught back up except for the occasional stunt like killing Robin or Superman, or the new 52. And long term, they never will. Why read fake Marvel characters when you can read the real thing?

 

[Primal Slayer]

I know im late but im sad that helena B. has been erased and replaced by H.Wayne.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

To a certain degree, yes. But the characters of today are just as much cardboard cutouts, as they all have their required amounts of flaws and angst. That's the Marvel thing-every character must have a flaw, a real or self-perceived failure of character or accomplishment, or a handicap of some sort that gives them angst. DC characters didn't have those sorts of obvious flaws, you had to look harder to see where their depth was, leading to the somewhat true idea that their heroes are hard to relate to. But if you look hard enough at the Silver Age DC, you see there are differences in each hero's personality.

Ray Palmer was an intellectual, a thinking man's type hero. He was never the type to overreact to much. How he approached life and his career was with a certain amount of thought and reason. A career woman like Jean Loring was a good fit for a character like Ray because he was a rationalist.

Adam Strange is the sort of character whose strongest tie is that of romance-everything came back to getting home to Alanna. He's heavily influenced by John Carter, but a much more sanitized version, of course.

Hal Jordan was not the brash, cocky, reckless character that Geoff Johns made him into in order to give him Marvel flaws. Hal was a much more conservative, accomplished, and together guy in the 60's. That's part of why Denny O'Neil cast him as the representative of the right in Green Lantern/Green Arrow, although Hawkman later on became a much stronger conservative advocate as Hal pretty much immediately bought into Ollie's hippie stuff. At the same time, Hal had no issue with having a female boss, and his closest friend was an Inuit, and despite the bad nickname, Tom himself was written as a serious character and the entire Silver Age Green Lantern series was pretty forward thinking for it's time. Hal Jordan was basically John Glenn with a power ring.

So yes, the older characters had personalities, but they were much more reserved and subtle. Those stories were driven by plots, and character moments came out every now and then. Today's stories are driven by characters, and the usual plot is villain X wants revenge on hero Y and is willing to kill like crazy to get it, because he really means business this time!!!! Plots are unimportant, what the focus is on is making characters as cool, edgy or as angst-driven and as flawed as possible. When DC stopped letting their characters be themselves in the late 60's and tried to be Marvel characters instead, they fell behind Marvel and have never caught back up except for the occasional stunt like killing Robin or Superman, or the new 52. And long term, they never will. Why read fake Marvel characters when you can read the real thing?

Amen.

 

[Cain]

To a certain degree, yes. But the characters of today are just as much cardboard cutouts, as they all have their required amounts of flaws and angst. That's the Marvel thing-every character must have a flaw, a real or self-perceived failure of character or accomplishment, or a handicap of some sort that gives them angst. DC characters didn't have those sorts of obvious flaws, you had to look harder to see where their depth was, leading to the somewhat true idea that their heroes are hard to relate to. But if you look hard enough at the Silver Age DC, you see there are differences in each hero's personality.

Ray Palmer was an intellectual, a thinking man's type hero. He was never the type to overreact to much. How he approached life and his career was with a certain amount of thought and reason. A career woman like Jean Loring was a good fit for a character like Ray because he was a rationalist.

Adam Strange is the sort of character whose strongest tie is that of romance-everything came back to getting home to Alanna. He's heavily influenced by John Carter, but a much more sanitized version, of course.

Hal Jordan was not the brash, cocky, reckless character that Geoff Johns made him into in order to give him Marvel flaws. Hal was a much more conservative, accomplished, and together guy in the 60's. That's part of why Denny O'Neil cast him as the representative of the right in Green Lantern/Green Arrow, although Hawkman later on became a much stronger conservative advocate as Hal pretty much immediately bought into Ollie's hippie stuff. At the same time, Hal had no issue with having a female boss, and his closest friend was an Inuit, and despite the bad nickname, Tom himself was written as a serious character and the entire Silver Age Green Lantern series was pretty forward thinking for it's time. Hal Jordan was basically John Glenn with a power ring.

So yes, the older characters had personalities, but they were much more reserved and subtle. Those stories were driven by plots, and character moments came out every now and then. Today's stories are driven by characters, and the usual plot is villain X wants revenge on hero Y and is willing to kill like crazy to get it, because he really means business this time!!!! Plots are unimportant, what the focus is on is making characters as cool, edgy or as angst-driven and as flawed as possible. When DC stopped letting their characters be themselves in the late 60's and tried to be Marvel characters instead, they fell behind Marvel and have never caught back up except for the occasional stunt like killing Robin or Superman, or the new 52. And long term, they never will. Why read fake Marvel characters when you can read the real thing?

Great post.

 

[The Question]

So yes, the older characters had personalities, but they were much more reserved and subtle. Those stories were driven by plots, and character moments came out every now and then. Today's stories are driven by characters, and the usual plot is villain X wants revenge on hero Y and is willing to kill like crazy to get it, because he really means business this time!!!! Plots are unimportant, what the focus is on is making characters as cool, edgy or as angst-driven and as flawed as possible. When DC stopped letting their characters be themselves in the late 60's and tried to be Marvel characters instead, they fell behind Marvel and have never caught back up except for the occasional stunt like killing Robin or Superman, or the new 52. And long term, they never will. Why read fake Marvel characters when you can read the real thing?

That's not even a little bit true.

52, Final Crisis, the first three story arcs in the revived Green Arrow series, pretty much all of Dennis O'Neil's Question series, Final Crisis, Grant Morrison's JLA run, Mark Waid's JLA run, Joe Kelly's JLA run, most of Justice League International, Flash: Blitz, Sinestro Corps War, Blackest Night, The OMAC Project, The Rann/Thanagar War, Days of Vengeance, Villains United, a good chunk of the Secret Six, Batman: No Man's Land, most of Young Justice, The Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Bloodlines, What's so funny about Truth Justice and the American Way, Superman: Grounded, Final Night, Mark Waid's run on the Legion of Super Heroes, Our World at War, all of them have plots that aren't simple revenge stories.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

That's not even a little bit true.

52, Final Crisis, the first three story arcs in the revived Green Arrow series, pretty much all of Dennis O'Neil's Question series, Final Crisis, Grant Morrison's JLA run, Mark Waid's JLA run, Joe Kelly's JLA run, most of Justice League International, Flash: Blitz, Sinestro Corps War, Blackest Night, The OMAC Project, The Rann/Thanagar War, Days of Vengeance, Villains United, a good chunk of the Secret Six, Batman: No Man's Land, most of Young Justice, The Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Bloodlines, What's so funny about Truth Justice and the American Way, Superman: Grounded, Final Night, Mark Waid's run on the Legion of Super Heroes, Our World at War, all of them have plots that aren't simple revenge stories.

No one says that it doesn't exist anymore, but most of these stories are not comparable to Gardner Fox' sci-fi adventures (comparable to the old John W. Campbell school). And I don't there are many writers in comics that could do that.

I mean, things change. Some people might prefer the way comics became, some don't. I do not. To me modern comic books are usually just simple stories stretched out to the max where it's mostly about cheap drama and not great plotting and ideas.

What's also annoying about this emphasis on characters is that they often turn one aspect of the character into the defining thing. What then happens is stuff like Clark Kent becoming nothing more than a bumbling caricature in the Donner movies (because it was something that happened in the comics but not never ever did they dominate the character), Batman being an obsessed maniac or Hank Pym becoming "The Wife-Beater".

 

[The Question]

No one says that it doesn't exist anymore, but most of these stories are not comparable to Gardner Fox' sci-fi adventures (comparable to the old John W. Campbell school). And I don't there are many writers in comics that could do that.

Kurosawa literally said that the usual plot these days is a very basic revenge story. That was what I was attempting to refute.

I mean, things change. Some people might prefer the way comics became, some don't. I do not. To me modern comic books are usually just simple stories stretched out to the max where it's mostly about cheap drama and not great plotting and ideas.

Define "great plotting."

What's also annoying about this emphasis on characters is that they often turn one aspect of the character into the defining thing. What then happens is stuff like Clark Kent becoming nothing more than a bumbling caricature in the Donner movies (because it was something that happened in the comics but not never ever did they dominate the character), Batman being an obsessed maniac or Hank Pym becoming "The Wife-Beater".

What's annoying to me about an older mephasis on plot over character is that it had the characters behaving in ridiculous manners to service the plot and the plots themselves grew to be insane and nonsensical with no inherent merit to them.

The fact is, mass marketed popular media is often pretty bad. People have deadlines to meet, quotas to fill, and it is where a lot of inexperienced artists cut their teeth. These things lead to a lot of rush jobs, a heavy use of creative shorthands and reliable fallbacks. Because of this, most Superman stories are kind of shallow and not very good. Most Batman stories are kind of shallow and not very good. Most Spider-Man stories are kind of shallow and not very good. It has nothing to do with these characters or what era they're in, it has everything to do with the fact that at any given time about a hundred cooks are in the kitchen with just under enough time and money to create anything worthwhile, all working to meet the bottom line.

A certain avenue of storytelling may be more to your liking over another, but the era in which your prefered style is more common is no more immune to the buisness side of comics than any other, and just because a huge chunk of comics of a certain era are shallow and not very good, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that era, because every era has a ton of comics that are shallow and not very good.

I do think a greater emphasis on character is an inherently good thing, because it gives stories greater emotional weight. Tying this back into Adam Strange for a second, yeah, his old sci-fi adventures are fun, but at the end of the day it's just an archeologist fighting monsters or solving puzzles or something. It's not really about anything. There's nothing for the reader to take away with them other than "Yeah. That was fun." And while there's absolutely no harm in something being plain old fun, and more comics probably should be these days, a story can be basic fun and still have something deeper and more meaningful that it's about.

Look at Star Trek. And I mean the Original Series, forget any of the others for a second. Plot wise, it's a mix of morality plays and fun sci-fi adventure. For the most part, it did those two things really well. But the reason it became a pop culture icon, the reason it resonated with so many people, was because of the emphasis on the characters. Now, TOS didn't have a huge character emphasis, there weren't long complicated character arcs. But Kirk was a well rounded character. He had a lot going on for him. He had layers. You saw him at all sorts of emotional highs and lows. You saw a lot of different sides to his personality. The same gos for Spock and McCoy. And their relationships, both individually with each other and as a trio, were fairly complicated and interesting and given a good deal of focus. It made the audience care about the characters and what they were going through. It turned their emotional journies and experiences into a lesson and a cathartic and theaputic experience for the viewer. When Kirk was faced with a moral dillema, you cares because you knew who Kirk was and you could feel the struggle going on inside him and you could see the gears turning in his head as he tried to sort through the problem. When there was some kind of crisis and the trio agreed or disagreed with each other on how to handle it on different points, it really made the compexity and severity of the situation sink in because you can feel for and understand each of the characters and their various opinions on the subject. Put that together with the aformentioned morality plays, and you have a very unique and groundbreaking show for the 60s. It was the characters that elevated the morality plays from college ethics essays and the adventure shows from shallow but fun spectacles into something with real emotional and intellectual teeth.

The same thing goes for comics. For the most part, in the 50s and 60s, the stories were just cool things that happened and then that was it. The greater character focus started getting people thinking about making them about something more, about giving the audience what they need as opposed to simply what they want. That's not to say that plot heavy stories did not continue to exist and should not continue to exist. But the greater character emphasis that came out of Marvel injected fresh perspective into the medium, and popularized an invaluable storytelling tool. It increased the horizons of popular comics. That is a good thing.

 

[Anubis]

^Better post.