Trying to Make Sense of the New 52

I am confused. I have been a comic book fan for more than twenty years and have been able to keep track with any confusing storyline throne at me by any number of titles. But the New 52 has me scratching my head on a regular basis.

For those not in the know, The New 52 refers to the recent reboot of titles at DC Comics. Every title got a brand new #1 one issue. Now here is where the confusing part began. While numerically titles were reset to one, some titles continued their story lines from before the reboot. Green Lantern continued the events of War of the Green Lanterns as if no reboot happened. The multiple Batman titles didn’t necessarily continue stories from before the reboot, but it referenced events that occurred in the pre-New 52 universe.

The real victim of the New 52 from my perspective was Superman and the Teen Titans. Apparently the original Teen Titans team never existed. This is most clearly revealed in Red Hood and The Outlaws #1 where Starfire and Red Arrow meet and apparently have no idea who each other is. Though there is recognition between Jason Todd (Red Hood, former Robin II) and Roy Harper (Red Arrow or as he was known in the Teen Titans, Speedy). Also the Teen Titans that exist in this New 52 were just recently put together by Red Robin (Tim Drake, former Robin III).

And yet with all this confusion involving former Robins, the Batman titles are going along fine. Better than fine. The recent Court of Owls storyline showed an excellent sense of cohesion among the many titles connected to Batman. Which is confusing because his colleague in Metropolis received such a complete make over.

The Last Son of Krypton has had a number of changes made to his character and history. For one thing his marriage to Lois Lane has been completely retconned away. The two aren’t even in a relationship. The famous Death and Return of Superman storylines never occurred. Superboy was only just recently cloned (again showing a problem with the Teen Titans storyline). Supergirl just arrived on earth as opposed to being on earth for years. Also Superman’s uniform is now Kryptonian battle armor.

Now the New 52 is not the first time DC has tinkered with its continuity. One of the most famous DC storylines was 1986’s Crisis on Infinite Earths which eliminated the DC multiverse. Before then, there were multiple different versions of Batman, Superman and other characters all with different ages and backgrounds existing on their own separate parallel earth. A few years later the company launched Zero Hour which was meant to further fix any continuity problems left over from Crisis. 2005 brought back the return of the DC multiverse which remained pretty separate from the core universe but allowed writers to play with some of the Elseworlds characters that had been established over the years.

The point is all these different reboots was meant to make things LESS confusing for the readers of DC Comics. It took the foundations already established by previous writers and got rid of a lot of extraneous information. However the New 52 does not do that. If any thing the New 52 has added a lot of brand new extraneous information that just makes in harder for readers to understand. Of course this has done nothing to curb my comic book buying and I still come home every week with a big stack of DC comics in my pile.

Is Wonder Woman Invulnerable?

Judging from the comics, cartoons and TV show, one would assume that along with being incredibly strong, Wonder Woman is also invulnerable. I however have a theory that she may not be as strong as previously perceived.

One of the most popular characteristics of Wonder Woman are her magic bracelets. These bracelets were a gift from the goddess Athena and are indestructible. Famously Wonder Woman has been seen using these bracelets to deflect away bullets. This has been portrayed in the comic books, the cartoon shows and the famous live action TV show many many times. It’s one of the major visual gags associated with the character.

But my question is “Why?” Why does someone need to deflect bullets if they are already bulletproof? When Superman, another famed invulnerable character, is shot, he merely stands there and allows the bullets to bounce harmlessly off his chest. He doesn’t use his cape or some other object to deflect them away. In fact in the movie Superman Returns (not the best but not the worst super-hero movie), a bank robber shoots Superman directly in the eye and it bounces off him harmlessly. That should concretely establish Superman’s invulnerability considering that most of us scratch and cry if we get so much as a speck of dust in our eye.

But Wonder Woman needs to deflect the bullets with her bracelets. She needs to place pieces of enchanted metal between her and any other part of her body and the bullets. This leads me to the conclusion that Wonder Woman must not be bulletproof. That or she is just a show off. Also, it seems just in general great leaps have been made to make Wonder Woman weaker than her male counterparts.

The closest male equivalent to Wonder Woman would be Superman. In reality, Wonder Woman was created to be a super hero that would appeal to women the way Superman appeals to men. Two invulnerable heroes. But that’s not completely true. Superman has a weakness. A weakness that is so famous that the very word has become synonymous in our society for meaning a person’s fatal flaw. Kryptonite.

And like Superman, Wonder Woman also has a weakness that renders her powers ineffective. But while Superman’s weakness is a rare piece of his home planet, Wonder Woman’s is much more pedestrian. She has to have her bracelets bound together. That’s it. If someone can tie Wonder Woman up so her bracelets are touching, her powers disappear. And before you say that this must be an impossible feet, it happened in the comics a lot.

But let it never be said that I do not hold some high regard for Wonder Woman. While I do question her invulnerability, I do believe she is one of the toughest heroes in the DC Universe. Man or Woman. In fact, even without Kryptonite, I think Wonder Woman could probably mop the floor with Superman.

For all his amazing powers and abilities, Superman is not a fighter. That is, he has no formal training with fighting techniques. Usually just one punch is enough to take out a villain so you don’t really need to know any strategies or techniques. But Wonder Woman was raised in a warrior culture. The Amazons can fight and they’ve been perfecting their fighting for hundreds of years. Plus, not only does Wonder Woman come from a society of fighters but in order for her to earn the right to come to “Man’s World” she had to prove she was the BEST fighter in that society.

There is also the matter of Wonder Woman and Superman’s origins and power source to take into account. Superman’s powers come from his Kryptonian physiology being affected by the rays of our yellow sun (initially it was a combination of the sun and earth’s gravity that gave him his powers but that has since been retconned away). Wonder Woman however gets her powers from the ancient Greek Gods. Essentially her powers are magic. Now for some reason it has been established in the comics that Superman is weak when it comes to magic. They never completely explain it, but my theory is that magic is just a type of energy and Superman has the potential to absorb energy very efficiently but magic is just not combatable with his physiology. It’s kind of the same reason I think why Kryptonite affects him but is relatively harmless to everyone else.

So after careful examination I think the question can be answered. Is Wonder Woman invulnerable? No. Does that make her any less of a character? Also no. In fact, in a way, her being less powerful than her male counterparts shows how strong she really is because she can still hold her own facing the same threats.

Why Can’t Super Heroines Make a Good Movie?

It’s been going on for the past decade and it doesn’t look like it is stopping any time soon. Comic book movies are doing big business for the movie biz. Every major studio or production company has got some sort of comic book movie in development and the majority of them are super-heroes. Of course that makes sense since the majority of comic books are super-heroes. Not to say there aren’t plenty of good indie and non-hero properties out there. There are and I’m a fan of a lot of them. But the big money makers are the super-heroes.

Now when I type “super-hero” I am not only talking about men, but women as well. The super-heroines. Super heroines are by no means rare. There is a long and healthy list of costumed women who are just as good, if not sometimes superior, as many of their male counterparts. And yet, we have not gotten a decent super-heroine film. Why? It seems like there is some mysterious formula for super hero movies that just doesn’t work when you plug in a heroine instead of a hero.

One possible reason why there hasn’t been a good super-heroine movie could be men. The film industry is dominated by men. That seems like the very simple and obvious answer. But I have a problem with that explanation. While yes I do agree that the film industry is dominated by men, so is the comic book industry. Much of the source material these female heroes originate from was written by men.  Also the answer assumes that men can’t write relatable women. While there certainly aren’t men who can write women believably (I know I certainly have that problem sometimes) there have been films about women made by men that were both popular and well made.

Perhaps it is the choice of heroines that are being adapted. There are certainly characters in comics that do not lend themselves well to a big screen adaptation. We certainly will never see Onomatopoeia doing battle with The Dark Knight on screen in any incarnation. So perhaps that is it. The choice of heroines. Sadly that is not the case. Three notable adaptations that have been attempted in the last several years have been Elektra, Catwoman and Wonder Woman. These are three women who hold significant places in the comic book pantheons. And yet all their movies (and in the case of Wonder Woman, TV show) failed miserably.

It is in the watching of these movies where you see the true reason why they did not succeed. All three properties ended up having major changes made to the characters. The Catwoman of the film bore no resemblance to the Catwoman of the DC Universe. Wonder Woman became a CEO which has never been a part of her persona in the comics and they tried saddling her with the unheard of tri-identies where she was both Wonder Woman, Diana Themyscira and Diana Prince which made no sense to me whatsoever. And finally Elektra who was always such a dark anti-hero in the comics was tamed down and turned into a glorified babysitter.

Now while it was easy to see WHAT was wrong with these films, the harder question to answer is WHY. Why such a strong need to change the heroines to fit the screen? Change for the sake of change is not unheard of in adaptations from one media to another, but it rarely, if ever, seems to result in a good final product. And there is a reason Catwoman, Elektra, Wonder Woman, and all comic book super heroes are adapted into films. Because they have an audience. People like them already. So why is there such a huge need to change them?

The Politics of Super-heroes

With the upcoming Presidential election, politics have been dominating the media and even bleeding out of the news and into the realm of pop culture. So as a comic book fan I find myself wondering for whom would my favorite super-heroes vote for. And I realize I can’t answer that question. Because most superheroes (with a few exceptions) do not have a political preference. And for this I am glad.

Now as I mentioned, there are exceptions. Green Arrow has always been described as a bit of a liberal and I’m sure the Punisher would never vote for someone who might take away his second amendment rights (of course as a convicted felon he can’t vote anyway so it’s a moot point). But for the most part super heroes do not have political agendas. Except when a particular writer tries to force one on them. Which is something I hate.

In Action Comics #900 Superman renounces his American citizenship when he is accused of being an agent of the American government while trying to avert a disaster on foreign soil. But the problem here is that Superman is NOT an American citizen. Clark Kent is. Superman is merely a persona Clark puts on to protect those he loves from those who would seek to harm him. Superman is a costume he puts on. Not an actual person. It would be like Brad Pitt renouncing the citizenship of Tyler Durden. Personas do not have citizenships.

An even worse offender of super-hero politics was the DC Universe Decisions mini-series. An unknown villain is targeting presidential candidates (fake candidates, though this storyline did occur during the actual 2008 presidential campaign) and since the assailant is meta-human in nature the Justice League feels it is their duty to protect the candidates. This leads to disagreements among the team members because they each want to protect the candidate whom they agree with ideologically. This struck me as a warped concept. These are supposed to be heroes. It shouldn’t matter what a person’s political motivations are. As a hero they are supposed to save them. It’s the same as being a doctor. You have sworn an oath and nothing can break that oath.

But in this mini-series, not only do the heroes defend the political candidates with whom they agree, THEY ENDORSE THEM! They pose for campaign pictures shaking the hand of the candidate. Even Batman who is usually the most mysterious and aloof of the Justice League signs over a nice big donation check as Bruce Wayne. The entire idea of the Justice League feels polluted and tainted. It turns out the sworn protectors of the earth are just as petty and cheap as anyone.

Now one could argue that if there really were Super-heroes they would indeed display political preferences, just as celebrities do. But that’s mostly where my complaint lies. Super-heroes are creatures of fiction and as such do not have to be burdened with the trivial matters of real life. No matter who is in office, Superman is Superman and Batman is Batman. Our heroes will save us regardless of our vote and that is truly the world we should wish to live in.

"Who needs Superheroes?"

The New 52 Should Add 17 More Titles

Yes the title of this essay is a bad 69 joke and for good reason. Since the re-launch of the various DC titles in September of 2011 there has been a marked increase in the sexual content of these comics. Now comic book women have always been portrayed as sexy. Seeing as how the majority of comic readers are young and not-so-young males (guilty), it just makes sense to appeal to their desires. Still it seems like the new 52 has been pushed to an extreme.

The debut issue of Catwoman, admittedly one of the more overtly sexual characters, featured a flat-out sex scene between her and Batman. Still in costume. What was once always a flirtation between two characters has lost all subtext and innuendo and merely become a straight up hook up. It is true that Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle did enjoy a relationship prior to the reboot but in that world Selina was aware of Batman’s true identity. In the new 52, the two appear to be ignorant of each other’s real identities. Essentially they’re engaging in random anonymous sex.

Of course Batman is not the only member of the Batfamily getting a little something something. According to the new 52 title Red Hood and The Outlaws, both Jason Todd and Dick Grayson have hooked up with Starfire. Roy Harper, aka Red Arrow or Arsenal (I’ve always preferred Arsenal more), also got himself a piece of Tamaranian but I thought I’d mention the two Robins first. There’s probably a Teen Titans joke I could make involving Starfire and Beast Boy but I shall refrain.

It used to be that DC was the conservative publisher and Marvel was the more risqué publisher. I can fondly remember an X-Men swimsuit spread put out by Wizard Magazine that was a big part of my adolescence.  Psylocke and Rogue certainly were far more appealing to me than Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman came across like my mom (Sorry Debbi, but I have to be honest). There was a dignity surrounding the women of DC that prevented them from being completely sexualized. Of course my key adolescent years occurred during the nineties where you had the over sexualized character designs of the brand new Image Comics so of course the DC women were going to appear tame.

The New 52 must be trying to make up for lost time. After years of being perceived as the elder statesmen of the comic book industry the desire to turn some heads is surely there. But is DC overdoing it? Is this a case of Sandra Dee in Grease? After being perceived as the prim and proper little good girl is DC now slapping on some leather, buffing up the hair and speaking in a sultry and smoky voice? Seems to me like they are.

Why Comic Fans Shouldn’t Hate Reboots

Next month The Amazing Spider-Man comes out in theatres. Spider-Man 3 came out in 2007. Some might say that five years is too soon (not soon enough based on the quality of the third film) for a reboot of the franchise. I say that those people are not real comic book fans. Anyone who reads comics should not only be okay with a reboot, it should seem commonplace for them.

When JLA #1 launched in the winter of 1997, it was essentially a reboot. For years the Justice League had dissolved into a collection of second string and B-list characters. Grant Morrison’s run brought the big characters of the DC Universe (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc) back into the fold. Not only did the JLA become the best selling title at DC but it set the record that the Justice League would be a collection of the best heroes DC has to offer. And then after two years on the title, Grant Morrison left and a new writer came on.

Reboots happen all the time in comics. A new creative team jumps on a title and immediately begins to change characters, costumes, and all other aspects of the title. The reason why comic reboots are mostly ignored while big screen reboots set film and comic fans insane with rage is because comic reboots are cheap and easy. With few exceptions the world does not notice when a prominent character is killed off or a costume is changed in a comic. And in reality, most comic fans don’t really notice it. We might complain initially that our favorite ancillary character is no longer around but we usually either get so engrossed in the new story or simply drop the title.

Another reason why we should not be upset with reboots is that if you look at most films, the track record of reboots has been pretty good. Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight completely (for the most part) washed away the bad taste of Schumacher’s Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. The Incredible Hulk remake and Hulk in The Avengers has me almost completely forgetting Ang Lee’s neon green Hulk (the gamma poodles still haunt my dreams).

Even non-comic reboots and remakes have been pretty good. Dawn of the Dead in 2004 was a worth successor to the 1978 version.  Friday the 13^th in 2009 was just as good as the original. The disdain for remakes and reboots has not been earned by the track record of these films. 

Bat-Family Resemblance

The concept of familial resemblance has fascinated me for a long time. Mostly this is because my siblings and I look so very different. I’m always shocked when I see siblings who look almost identical. It makes me feel almost if I am adopted. Now I know I’m not adopted. I can see a bit of my mom in me and there is a picture of my dad at twelve that looks almost identical to pictures of me from that same age. However, how would someone account for familial resemblance if they, in fact, were adopted?

I bring up this issue of familial resemblance and adoption to ask a very simple question: How can Bruce Wayne and all four Robins look so much alike if they’re not related? For those who are unfamiliar with Batman, there have been four young men (well, there was a girl Robin but for the purpose of this essay I’m just focusing on the dudes) who have worn the identity of Robin. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake and the current Robin, Damian Wayne.

With the exception of the last one (the son of Bruce Wayne and Talia Al Ghul), the first three Robins were all orphans taken in by Bruce Wayne. But if not for the fact that brief changes to the costumes were made with each new incarnation, you would not be able to tell which Robin was which. There were also personality differences, which caused each incarnation to be written differently. But physically all the Robins have been the same. Same build, hair color, eye color, completely indistinguishable from each other. Even creepier, they’re also indistinguishable from Batman. In fact the only Robin who is related to Bruce Wayne, Damian, is the one Robin who resembles him the least.

Bruce Wayne has the same physical characteristics as the young boys he trains to be heroes. This fact was made most notable in the Young Justice: Sins of Youth crossover story in which all the adult heroes became kids and all the kid heroes became adults. During this switcheroo, Batman and Robin (Tim Drake at the time) switched costumes, so essentially Bruce was Robin and Tim was Batman. For the most part none of their close friends and family noticed any difference between the two.

There was an explanation for this resemblance in the comics once. During Grant Morrison’s run on Batman and Robin, the writer tried to suggest that Jason Todd (Robin #2) was actually a redhead but Bruce forced the young boy to die his hair in order to look like original Robin, Dick Grayson. Yes, I know, straight out of Vertigo, it added a creepy aspect to the character of Batman. A little too creepy because as soon as a new writer came on the title and also with the New 52 reboot, everyone completely forgot about Jason Todd’s impersonation of Kim Novak.

When it all comes down to it, I’m sure the desire to have Batman and Robin be physically identical is one purely out of artistic aesthetic and not some creepy psychological aspect of the character. Of course there is lots that can be written on the fractured psyche of Batman, but in the end part of me really doesn’t care about the dark and damaged mind of this hero. I just want to see him punch the Joker.

Author's Note: The recent issue of Batman and Robin #10 actually featured the beginning of a storyline entitled War of the Robins and featured a scene where Bruce Wayne was having a family portrait commissioned featuring him, Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, Alfred, and Damian Wayne (later in the issue Jason Todd wonders why he was not invited). Will have to do a sequel blog after this storyline concludes perhaps about the Bat-family dischord.

Hawkgirl is kind of Worthless

Okay, this is something that has bothered me for years and I have given a lot of thought to it. I was a big fan of the Justice League cartoon show. Not since Challenge of the Super Friends had we gotten a chance to see all of DC’s heroes together in a cartoon show. It made me giddy, I won’t lie. But while I was excited to see Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter brought together to defend the earth, I found myself asking a question. What the hell is Hawkgirl doing there?

Now I don’t have any hatred towards Hawkgirl. She’s a fine super-heroine. I know there is much love for her among the fan boys and girls. But we’re talking about the Justice League. The elite of the Super Hero teams. Membership should only be extended to the most worthy of heroes, and Hawkgirl just doesn’t make the cut. She adds nothing to the team.

What are Hawkgirl’s powers? She can fly. Well so can four of the other six members of the team. Nothing special about flight. Well she is a skilled fighter. But so are Wonder Woman and Batman. In fact Batman is probably the best fighter in the DC Universe so skilled fighters are not a big necessity for the Justice League. And before you make some claim of sexism towards me, let me say that I do have a better candidate for Justice League membership and that member is also female.

I propose that instead of Hawkgirl, the Justice League should have recruited Zatanna. Now I know that when Justice League became the show Justice League Unlimited that yes, Zatanna was a member. But so was every other hero. Being in the Justice League was basically the same as having a Facebook profile. It was the limitation of having seven members that made the Justice League so elite.

And I say again, Zatanna would have made a better member of the original seven than Hawkgirl did. For one thing, Zatanna HAS a valuable power set. She can do magic. Magic is something that the rest of the League seriously lacks. Sure Wonder Woman gets her powers from the Gods but she has no practical working knowledge of magic. And magic is a big threat in the DC Universe. Felix Faust, Klarion the Witch Boy, Black Adam, Brother Blood, Trigon, Circe, the list goes on and on. Might be helpful to have a magic user in your ranks.

Super Heroes and Single Childhood

We all have families. Some of us come from big huge families. I myself have a brother and two sisters so we tend to take up a bit of space wherever we go. Now while the four of us all love each other, we do get on each other’s nerves at times. It’s just human nature to have a bit of sibling rivalry from time to time. One of us will do better in school, or have some sort of sports achievement, or just generally feel that one or both parents is paying more attention to someone other than us. So it is understandable why so many super-heroes are from single children households.

I mean, if a child gets extra attention for scoring the winning game point (not a sports guy) then just imagine the praise a child would receive if he or she saved the world. A sibling would have no way to compete. Not only would that child have no way to compete but he or she would constantly have a lower sense of self worth compared to their sibling. Clark Kent is both Superman AND a Pulitzer prize winning journalist. Kind of hard to compete with that.

Even the few super-heroes that do have siblings can’t compare because their siblings are usually super-heroes as well. Scott Summers is Cyclops and his brother Alex is Havok. The Wonder Twins can’t even use their powers without each other. There doesn’t seem to be any super heroes with non-powered siblings. And with good reason. It would just be awkward. 

Feeling left out

For those of you who are unaware, I have started doing a videopodcast (Crossover Appeal, find us on YouTube) with two of my friends and both of them have blogs. After submitting some entries for one of my friends to use for her blog I thought to myself "Hey, I have lots of thoughts and opinions to share about a variety of subjects. Why not write a blog myself?" And thus I shall endeavor to regularly update with at least one new essay a week with this blog here. Please read, enjoy and share.