DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)

[Dick Whitman]

It’s clear they want to evoke Guardians of the Galaxy. But differences are inherent in the two premises alone. That was about a human male who was raised in space and has adventures with a group of aliens. She is a female alien who is one of the few survivors of her species. She is the primary lead and title character. That is just a start of the differences.

 

[StarTrek1701]

In dullest day, in grayest night...

 

[theenglish]

I guess the core problem is using one of the most overrated comics of the last decade from one of the worst writers in mainstream comics to make a movie with one of the worst versions of Supergirl.

You are certainly allowed your opinion. It is a minority opinion, but it is still a legitimate one. For my part, the worst Supergirl was Byrne's Matrix Supergirl.

I really like King's story. It starts off with Supergirl in a dark place and is about her remembering what it means to be a hero. Like your criticism of Billy Batson about a decade ago, the parts of the character that you don't like are just a starting point on a journey that ends with the character being completely different. Super-heroes need to go on personal journeys, just like any other character. The one thing King did that pissed me off was when created that PTSD clinic for super-heroes story.

 

[The Realist]

I really like King's story. It starts off with Supergirl in a dark place and is about her remembering what it means to be a hero. Like your criticism of Billy Batson about a decade ago, the parts of the character that you don't like are just a starting point on a journey that ends with the character being completely different.

Spoiler

I’m not sure I agree. Kara has not forgotten what it means to be a hero at the beginning of WoT; she in fact embarks upon the entire journey under false pretenses with the purpose of helping Ruthye and hopefully saving the young girl from herself, by redeeming her from her intended path of mortal vengeance.

The poetry and the thematic beauty of the story is that, as Ruthye grows and changes for the better as a result of Kara’s kindness and friendship, Kara herself descends into an increasingly dark place as she witnesses the unimaginable cruelty of the Brigands, with whom their quarry, Krem, has allied himself. The emotional climax comes as Kara is ready to kill Krem herself — the very act she was trying to divert Ruthye from — and it is Ruthye who ends up saving Kara from crossing that line, so changed is she by Kara’s example. So Kara’s kindness to another ends up saving her own soul.

Damn, it’s a beautiful story.

 

[Mudd]

 

[theenglish]

Spoiler

I’m not sure I agree. Kara has not forgotten what it means to be a hero at the beginning of WoT; she in fact embarks upon the entire journey under false pretenses with the purpose of helping Ruthye and hopefully saving the young girl from herself, by redeeming her from her intended path of mortal vengeance.

The poetry and the thematic beauty of the story is that, as Ruthye grows and changes for the better as a result of Kara’s kindness and friendship, Kara herself descends into an increasingly dark place as she witnesses the unimaginable cruelty of the Brigands, with whom their quarry, Krem, has allied himself. The emotional climax comes as Kara is ready to kill Krem herself — the very act she was trying to divert Ruthye from — and it is Ruthye who ends up saving Kara from crossing that line, so changed is she by Kara’s example. So Kara’s kindness to another ends up saving her own soul.

Damn, it’s a beautiful story.

That's interesting. I remember the story, but sometime over the past years my memory of it may be blurred. I was sure there was the story began with Kara in a funk. It was the first King story I read after Heroes in Crisis (which I wasn't fond of) .and I wasn't particularly used to his style. I'm looking forward to re-reading.

 

[Greg Cox]

With all respect to Matheson — and he deserves enormous respect — I’m not sure how much this applies to superhero comics (or adaptations thereof), which are usually stuffed full to bursting with virtually nothing but fantastic elements.

But I mean, if the cube Earth didn’t work for you, then it didn’t work for you. No harm no foul.

Coming late to the party: I was Matheson's editor at Tor Books for more than twenty years and am relentlessly evangelical about his work.

That being said, I would never consider him an authority on superhero comics and the wild, outrageous universes they create. That was very much not his sensibility.

Indeed, it occurs to me that that, despite his extensive career writing for television, he never wrote for Batman, Wonder Woman, The Incredible Hulk, Buck Rogers, etc. (At least as far as I know.)

 

[The Realist]

That's interesting. I remember the story, but sometime over the past years my memory of it may be blurred. I was sure there was the story began with Kara in a funk. It was the first King story I read after Heroes in Crisis (which I wasn't fond of) .and I wasn't particularly used to his style. I'm looking forward to re-reading.

Spoiler

It’s not altogether unfair to say she’s in a “funk” — when we first encounter her, she’s getting drunk alone on the occasion of her 21st birthday — and King treats her as affected by the burdens and traumas of her past throughout. (This is not the sunny Supergirl of the TV series.) But her arc in the story isn’t really “starts bad, gets better”; it’s more intricate and artful, as I described. I hope you enjoy the re-read!

 

[Praisey]

I do not know how I feel about the supergirl film. The trailer was meh

 

[theenglish]

Spoiler

It’s not altogether unfair to say she’s in a “funk” — when we first encounter her, she’s getting drunk alone on the occasion of her 21st birthday — and King treats her as affected by the burdens and traumas of her past throughout. (This is not the sunny Supergirl of the TV series.) But her arc in the story isn’t really “starts bad, gets better”; it’s more intricate and artful, as I described. I hope you enjoy the re-read!

Okay--that is more how I remember it, but I forget the nuances your discussing. I look forward to my reread.

 

[Christopher]

That being said, I would never consider him an authority on superhero comics and the wild, outrageous universes they create. That was very much not his sensibility.

There have been comics writers who have tried for a fair amount of scientific plausibility to justify or ameliorate the fanciful things in comics universes. Chris Claremont and John Byrne did a lot of that in X-Men, e.g. having Nightcrawler's teleports obey conservation of momentum. Byrne tried to make Superman's powers relatively more plausible in his 1986 reboot, and he worked with hard-SF writer Larry Niven to develop a more scientifically grounded series bible for Green Lantern, IIRC, whose ideas were used in their graphic novel Green Lantern: Ganthet's Tale. (The bit I remember most was when Hal accelerated away from his target at relativistic speed so that the green light from his ring would be redshifted into yellow.)

People tend to think of scientific plausibility as an inhibition for writing fiction, but I feel it's the opposite -- knowing how science works can give you a lot more ideas that would never have occurred to you otherwise.

 

[Santa Kang]

I do not know how I feel about the supergirl film. The trailer was meh

Apparently you feel "meh."

 

[theenglish]

I do not know how I feel about the supergirl film. The trailer was meh

You can't really feel anything about the Supergirl film right now.

 

[Tosk]

You can't really feel anything about the Supergirl film right now.

Of course you can. Some may feel excited, some trepidatious, some ambivalent, some indifferent...

 

[JD]

I’m not sure that was Earth.

Yeah, I didn't think of that when I did my last post, but it would make sense if that wasn't Earth.

 

[Santa Kang]

A lot of planets are called earth.

 

[Mudd]

A lot of planets are called earth.

You notice in Superman, his parents say in their message:

"We love you more than heaven our son, we love you more than land..."

That stood out to me as a weird phrasing; it took me a moment to get that they were somewhat awkwardly paraphrasing the construction. "Heaven and Earth."

 

[Greg Cox]

There have been comics writers who have tried for a fair amount of scientific plausibility to justify or ameliorate the fanciful things in comics universes. Chris Claremont and John Byrne did a lot of that in X-Men, e.g. having Nightcrawler's teleports obey conservation of momentum. Byrne tried to make Superman's powers relatively more plausible in his 1986 reboot, and he worked with hard-SF writer Larry Niven to develop a more scientifically grounded series bible for Green Lantern, IIRC, whose ideas were used in their graphic novel Green Lantern: Ganthet's Tale. (The bit I remember most was when Hal accelerated away from his target at relativistic speed so that the green light from his ring would be redshifted into yellow.)

People tend to think of scientific plausibility as an inhibition for writing fiction, but I feel it's the opposite -- knowing how science works can give you a lot more ideas that would never have occurred to you otherwise.

Depends on the genre and the story you're trying to tell. Nothing wrong with scientifically rigorous hard-sf, but it's not the only possible approach to SF, fantasy, horror, or larger-than-life superheroic, comic-book adventures. And I resist the idea that such fanciful notions are something that need to be "justified" or "ameliorated" where comic-book stories are concerned.

To my mind, they're a feature, not a bug.

Personally, I can't say that I ever thought that "scientific plausibility" was what appealed to me about comics books and superheroes. It was more about about the sheer fun and coolness of, say, a guy flying through space on a cosmic surfboard, an entire bottle city of miniaturized Kryptonians, a super-powered ghost growing to the size of a solar system and hurling planets and moons around, a talking tiger in a bow tie, Red Kryptonite turning Superman into a giant insect-man, Norse gods fighting giant alien robots in the middle of Manhattan, a daredevil motorcyclist with a flaming skull for a head, and, yes, an entire Legion of Super-Pets, complete with capes.

(Says the guy who still can't believe I got paid to novelize a fight between Wonder Woman and Frankenstein's monster. Thank you, Grant Morrison.)

 

[theenglish]

Of course you can. Some may feel excited, some trepidation, some ambivalent, some indifferent...

Those are feelings about the idea of the film, not the film itself.

 

[Christopher]

And I resist the idea that such fanciful notions are something that need to be "justified" or "ameliorated" where comic-book stories are concerned.

Call it grounding them, then. You want a story to have enough detail and texture to feel substantial to the audience. Think of how Marvel strove to be "the world outside your window," to ground its stories in a real-world context, featuring real cities and political figures and celebrities and social trends and such, rather than making up entirely imaginary ones. Think about how Richard Donner made "versimilitude" his buzzword in making Superman: The Movie, which was promoted with the tagline "You will believe a man can fly," even though the story was full of utterly fanciful ideas. A realistic texture helps sell the fantasy.

And, as I said, knowing science opens the door to more ideas you can use. A writer without scientific knowledge would never have had that inspired idea to redshift a Green Lantern ring's light to turn it yellow. Science is all about extrapolating from what you know, figuring out ramifications and letting them lead you to new possibilities. Which is the same thing writers do when we plot stories, extrapolating from character and setting and events to figure out where the stories lead us.