Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Jul 2007 20:50:35 GMT
Anlatt the Builder <tirhuan@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1184741291.162589.103030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Jul 16, 2:47 pm, Dan McEwen <ferroSPAM...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, *I* don't necessarily think she has to be there at the beginning
Explain how. Are the JSAers "iconic" because they came first? No.
Are Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, and Elvis iconic because they came
first? No, especially since they weren't first. Can you name any of
the first baseball players or just the greats? Icons are not formed
by being first to do something but by being great a something. Heck,
Hippolyta was now WW before Diana and she's not an icon. She didn't
need to be there at the beginning.
to be "iconic," but DC seems to.
I'm glad we agree. I still think WW has lost something by starting at
the same time as the others. Oh, well.
The first issue of the new JLA had a bunch of brief, poorly-conected
flash-backs and flash-forwards concerning the Big Three in the JLA.
They clearly wanted to restore her status at having been there at the
beginning of that group. And I imagine that they think that, if any
flashbacks they do to the early days of Superman and Batman can't
include Wonder Woman, she won't seem as important. and they LOVE to do
flashbacks to the early days of Superman and Batman.
I was fine with Superman, Batman, and WW having been removed as JLA
founders. Why was it necessary when someone like Grant Morrison could
make them seem godlike and inspirational regardless of when they joined?
I think DC would rather take shortcuts with writing quality rather than
make what they have work. Of course, they're not the only comic company
doing so.
I'm not sure the comparison to real-world figures is all that useful
here. In the real world, people are born when they're born, and become
famous due to their actions and circumstance. There's some randomness
to it. Fiction isn't necessarily the same. The people are born, meet,
and act in accordance with the story the writer(s) want to write. Look
at Harry Potter: not only are many of the improtant characters in
school together, but many of the older characters who are important
today (Snape, Harry's parents, etc.) were in school together during a
short period a generation ago. This can be explained well or poorly
within the fiction (it's done pretty well in HP, less so in DCU), but
it's not the same as Elvis Presely, JFK, and Marilyn Monroe.
In which case, WW being an icon is even less reliant upon when she
appeared. DC merely has to write her as an icon. They set her up as an
icon within the first year of the post-CoIE WW book. If you have to go
with "first" for being iconic, that really only has to do with how the
readers perceive her. In that sense, WW has been around for 60 years.
In the comics, that time doesn't matter at all since it wasn't the
length of time she's been WW. If writers write her as an icon then
that's what she is.
In some ways, TPTB at DC seem to se the whole DCU as a working out of
the relationships of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. You can see
this in both Kingdom Come and Kingdom. In the latter, especially, the
key "mystery" character turns out to be the som of Superman and Wonder
Woman, with Batman as godparent. He's even referred to within the
story as having "three iconic parents."
Again, not a problem. She rises up to be revered. Whatever someone
else said about the JSA being iconic, I disagree. DC really only has
three first-stringers and it's these three. There's a reason why these
three are always being published and have all had ongoing television
series of some sort over the years - while most others didn't. They're
the ones who represent DC. After rebooting them and moving their
timeline forward yet again, it doesn't matter when they first showed up.
Which I hated, by the way. "Iconic" is poorly defined and terribly
overused, and is mainly a concept EXTERNAL to the actual story being
told. To have a character refer to it within the story is like making
their publishing history into a plot point. (But what am I saying?
Half of the DCU since CoIE has been like that.)
This is what I think, too. It's why the idea about having to make WW
among the first of the modern super-heroes is crap.
The Dak Knight Returns similarly plays off the three of them, with
Diana getting pregnant by Kal AGAIN. It's her big moment.
Perez did a fake-out with this one when he made it seem like the two
were going to get together. One kiss and they knew it would never
happen. This was pretty early in the post-CoIE era.
So if they're going to run the DCU like that, you can see why they'd
want to have the three of them having parallel careers, including
starting their careers off at the same time. And then they all go
missing simultaneously for ayear between InfC and OYL. Why, it's
almost like someone was pulling strings....
Where are Alex Luthor or Superboy-Prime when you need them?
.
- References:
- Fatality
- From: batface
- Re: Fatality
- From: Jinx
- Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen
- Re: Fatality
- From: Daibhid Ceanaideach
- Re: Fatality
- From: Jinx
- Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen
- Re: Fatality
- From: MWG
- Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen
- Re: Fatality
- From: Tony
- Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen
- Re: Fatality
- From: Tony
- Re: Fatality
- From: Dan McEwen
- Re: Fatality
- From: Anlatt the Builder
- Fatality
- Prev by Date: Re: Mike W. Barr
- Next by Date: Re: Waid and Kitson seem to be gone
- Previous by thread: Re: Fatality
- Next by thread: Re: Fatality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading