DC Comics Ongoing Discussion
- Thread starter theenglish
- Start date
I'd imagine it was probably after CoIE. Mid-80s feels like the time when the public image of how much money a single rich person could have.
Y1 might have been intended to be set in the 1970s. Anyway, Denny O'Neil became the editor of the Batman comics in 1986, and I'm pretty sure he'd be the one to make that change.
A quick online search suggested that Bruce was referred to as a billionaire in DKR (I'm too lazy to check ... come to think of it, I'm not sure if I currently own a copy), and that he was regularly referred to as a billionaire in comics and other media in 1994. Which kinda makes sense, Zero Hour just happened and the question how Bruce funds all the Bat-vehicles and gadgets was explored during that era, and then there also was the release of Batman Forever, which referred to Bruce as a billionaire.
A quick online search suggested that Bruce was referred to as a billionaire in DKR (I'm too lazy to check ... come to think of it, I'm not sure if I currently own a copy), and that he was regularly referred to as a billionaire in comics and other media in 1994. Which kinda makes sense, Zero Hour just happened and the question how Bruce funds all the Bat-vehicles and gadgets was explored during that era, and then there also was the release of Batman Forever, which referred to Bruce as a billionaire.
This is just something I was thinking about, but does anyone ever think that some supervillains get turned too cartoonishly evil at times? It works for some characters, like The Joker, but sometimes I think certain villains get too dehumanized and just kind of become less interesting.
I'm mentioning this in the DC thread because I was specifically thinking of Lex Luthor. I really don't like when he's a total sociopath with literally nothing in his head but the desire to kill Superman. Specifically I'm thinking of what he did to his sister, Lena Luthor. She had an incurable disease that eventually put her into a wheelchair and basically made her a vegetable. Lex cures her when Superman challenges him to, but then takes away the cure as a "fuck you" to Superman, ruining his sister and niece's life (and to be clear Lena was explicitly the only member of Lex's family that cared about him, its not like she was antagonistic to him). It was just so cartoonish, and proved that Lex had literally no humanity in him at all. At that point, what is the difference between Lex and Joker or any other generic villain, outside of his intelligence level and obsession with Superman?
I'm not saying that Lex has to be a sympathetic villain or anything, but at some point the villainy becomes so one dimensional that it just kind of makes some characters boring. Its one thing if being chaotically evil, to the point of not being able to function in normal society, is the point, but I feel like a character like Lex Luthor should have at least some layers to the character.
I honestly liked the short run a few years ago where Lex tried to be a hero and even tried (or maybe succeeded, I can't remember if it was official) to join the Justice League. He was still an egotistic a-hole, and in the end he went back to being a villain, but it showed he wasn't just one thing.
I don't know, this is just a stray thought I wanted to get out. I guess there is no right or wrong answer, I've just been thinking about Lex Luthor and his various incarnations recently.
I'm mentioning this in the DC thread because I was specifically thinking of Lex Luthor. I really don't like when he's a total sociopath with literally nothing in his head but the desire to kill Superman. Specifically I'm thinking of what he did to his sister, Lena Luthor. She had an incurable disease that eventually put her into a wheelchair and basically made her a vegetable. Lex cures her when Superman challenges him to, but then takes away the cure as a "fuck you" to Superman, ruining his sister and niece's life (and to be clear Lena was explicitly the only member of Lex's family that cared about him, its not like she was antagonistic to him). It was just so cartoonish, and proved that Lex had literally no humanity in him at all. At that point, what is the difference between Lex and Joker or any other generic villain, outside of his intelligence level and obsession with Superman?
I'm not saying that Lex has to be a sympathetic villain or anything, but at some point the villainy becomes so one dimensional that it just kind of makes some characters boring. Its one thing if being chaotically evil, to the point of not being able to function in normal society, is the point, but I feel like a character like Lex Luthor should have at least some layers to the character.
I honestly liked the short run a few years ago where Lex tried to be a hero and even tried (or maybe succeeded, I can't remember if it was official) to join the Justice League. He was still an egotistic a-hole, and in the end he went back to being a villain, but it showed he wasn't just one thing.
I don't know, this is just a stray thought I wanted to get out. I guess there is no right or wrong answer, I've just been thinking about Lex Luthor and his various incarnations recently.
Didn't that story with Lex and Lena actually involve the Conner Kent Superboy, not Superman? Or am I misremembering?
Lex only went back to being a villain because Snyder wanted him to form the Injustice League and be the main villain of his Death Metal arc. And Bendis rolled with it. Luthor went right back to being more nuanced when that run was over.
EDIT: Sorry, not as soon as it was over--more like a couple of years after that.
You're right it was with Superboy, although he seemed to be trying to get Superboy to help him kill Superman. It doesn't really change my point though, its a cartoonishly evil moment that, in my opinion, just kind of ruined Luthor as a character. I guess that was one of the few good things about the last DC reboot, that scene is technically not canon (although Lex still randomnly goes from a nuanced character to a cartoon villain on the whims of the writers to this day).
Snyder is definitely someone I think about when it comes to writing villains badly, he definitely tends towards one dimensional evil when he's not going for super convoluted.
I'm not completely unsympathetic to your point, but I do think there's value in showing the side of Luthor that relishes being a right bastard for its own sake. I liked that Superboy story, and John Byrne's "Metropolis 900 Mi" is another excellent example. Luthor's brilliant, and capable of some nuance and complexity as you argue, but he's fundamentally narcissistic, selfish, and cruel, and those qualities will ultimately always overcome any better angels he may possess.
I like the Luthor that embodies all of that. Luthor as an antagonist for Superman without being an outright villain; but, your never sure when he is going to turn on Superman for what Lex perceives as the greater good for humanity. And there is always that jealousy there that Superman gets more attention from the masses. Smallville's version has all the qualities I enjoy in the character.
That makes sense, that seems like the era where you'd start to see billionaires overtaking millionaires as the standard for people with an extreme of money. And it's kinda scary to think that we know look like we're getting to a point where trillionaires will be overtaking billionaire. I guess by the time we hit 2034 Bruce Wayne will probably be a trillionaire.
Batman has received a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame earlier today:
Jim Lee gave a speech, and among the guests were Burt Ward, Dietrich Bader, Paul Dini and Nicole Maines.
Jim Lee gave a speech, and among the guests were Burt Ward, Dietrich Bader, Paul Dini and Nicole Maines.
I just think the superboy story made him irredeemably a one dimensional cartoon character, a Superfriends villain but if someone like Mark Millar wrote Superfriends. I just happen to think that a Lex Luthor without a bit of nuance and humanity is worthless as a villain, especially for Superman who has enough completely inhuman villains to begin with.
If, in that story, Lena had been anything but the one family member who loved and supported Lex then maybe I could have gone with it, but as it is it really was just a bad story and character moment. It really doesn't effect things nowadays because its not even remotely canon anymore, its just that remembering it made me thing about the character in general.
I don't do Bat-stuff, but I'll be checking out Absolute Superman -- albeit with very low expectations and little initial enthusiasm. I've been following reactions to its announcement on CBR's Superman forum, and there appears to be a lot of excitement, driven by the fervent hope that it will dispense with absolutely everything that makes a Superman story a Superman story, leaving nothing but an in-name-only version of the character and his world. It's all rather baffling to me. I mean, why is that desirable to supposed fans of the character? Do these people actually like Superman, or not? 
Absolute Batman was okay. Not pay for it every month good, but read it a month later in the app good. There are moments where Bruce looks like a roided up 12 year old, but overall the art is good.
