Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Batwoman Can't Get Married

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    him and Jim Lee as a co publishers are clowns.

    And those tweets are nothing. A while back a friend of mine tweeted Jim Lee. She said she wasn't happy with the New 52 Superman books.

    Jim Lee's response back was we're going after new customers. So she tweeted back saying what about the loyal old customers and I'm paraphrasing here but he basically told her we couldn't care less about you guys. Now even if you feel that you shouldn't say that to a potential customer. That's marketing 101. We at the end of the day will know if you're telling the truth or not.

    Comment


    • #17
      You're not going to please everyone. I understand having a mission statement and I understand the constraints that they have put on their product. These are necessities to promote brand longevity.

      But you can see where protecting the brand can corrupt creativity.

      I don't want to straight up bash DC, but... ya know... let the ladies get married.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think I get their point now.

        - There are people who like action stories.
        - There are people who like romance stories.
        - There are few people who like both, which is why very few stories succeed at both, Pearl Harbour is an example of what happens when you have both a romance story and an action story: you alienate both kinds of fans.

        This ties in to what was posted a few weeks ago from Millar, McFarlane, etc saying that comics are not for girls. I think DC simply figures that by consistently reducing the romantic component to superficial, they will maximally appeal to males aged 10-25.

        Comment


        • #19
          And do you agree comics are not for girls? Tell that to my sister see what you get for saying that. Me and my sister have both grown up reading comics specifically Superman ones since we were seven.

          They're are comics that cater for the females it's just that the demographic these idiot's are focusing on is most likely the teenage male one. Then the the over 25+.
          Last edited by maasaloo; 09-11-2013, 06:11 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DA_Champion
            I think I get their point now.

            - There are people who like action stories.
            - There are people who like romance stories.
            - There are few people who like both, which is why very few stories succeed at both, Pearl Harbour is an example of what happens when you have both a romance story and an action story: you alienate both kinds of fans.

            This ties in to what was posted a few weeks ago from Millar, McFarlane, etc saying that comics are not for girls. I think DC simply figures that by consistently reducing the romantic component to superficial, they will maximally appeal to males aged 10-25.
            Pearl Harbor alienated people by being a bad movie. Using it to draw conclusions about action fans or romance fans being unable to tolerate films that mixed romance with action is pointless. As for DC trying to maximally appeal to males aged 10-25, (a) 10 year-olds don't have much disposable income, and (b) DCs own Nielsen Survey put most "New 52" buyers in the 25-44 age bracket.

            That survey also revealed that most of those buyers were existing comics customers, so Jim Lee's "new customers" were largely "new to DC" (or "lapsed DC"), not new to comics. Many of them placed themselves in the "avid fan" category, and "avid fans" strike me as the sort of people who often seem extremely keen on continuity and the importance of the shared universe. DC may have dropped a lot of its old continuity with the New 52 reboot, but it has allowed them to create a new shared universe where everything is designed to fit together from the outset in a consistent manner. Unfortunately, this seems to be done in a very top-down, rigidly imposed manner. In the case of the Bat-family, Scott Snyder's Batman takes the lead, and all the other Bat books to fit in with it not only in terms of stories and continuity, but overall tone and characterisation. A book like Bryan Q. Miller's Batgirl, with Stephanie Brown attacking life with "a utility belt full of crap and a positive mental attitude" could not exist in the current Batverse - the idea of a Bat comic that provided a bright contrast to the dark goings on elsewhere in Gotham, or even to Batman himself. Merely being able to co-exist isn't enough - if Batman has a screwed-up personal life because of his dedication to fighting crime, so must the rest of the Bat-family. It doesn't matter that Williams and Blackman wanted to take Kate Kane in a slightly different direction by having her marry - Batwoman, like the other Bat books, had to follow Batman's lead for how the character could be allowed to develop.

            A tightly-restricted shared universe isn't the only problem. Characters like Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman may only display the "illusion of change" - things may happen in their lives, but nothing can happen that changes them in any lasting fashion. As people, they remain static, never ageing, never altering in any meaningful way. It is a bit like the way TV shows used to be made so that episodes could be shown in any order, so anything that might have resulted in a lasting change (other than those necessary for production reasons) would often be somehow "reset" by the end of the episode. Nowadays, we are used to our stories being more serialised, of events having lasting effects that are not subsequently undone, of characters growing older - and changing as they do so. Smallville was mentioned earlier, and the comic follows the TV show in that the characters can age and change, but the comic will not last forever. The fact that the comic, like the TV show, would come to a natural end long before stories would feature an elderly, or even middle-aged, Clark and Lois removes the concern that the characters must remain static.

            By contrast, in the mainstream DCU, where the characters have to essentially stay the same for decads, introducing real lasting changes is much harder. These are people who never age and who, generally speaking, lead much the same lives for decades, so real changes, indicators that years are genuinely passing for these characters, may often be seen as unwise. The resultant limitations, the inherent unreality in the situation, may be passed off by claiming that the status quo is the result of the character being noble or unselfish by not seeking change. Didio's "Heroes shouldn’t have happy personal lives. They are committed to being that person and committed to defending others at the sacrifice of their own personal interests." is pretty much why Superman movie writer Tom Mankiewicz gave why Superman could not be married or have a steady girlfriend. Of course, 1990s comics, Lois and Clark and (eventually) Smallville set about showing that not only could a superhero be married, but that he could balance dedication to saving others with a personal life. For Suprman, at that time, marriage seemed a change worth making. However, in a shared universe where Batman is "king" - and Didia, a big Batman fan, is co-publisher - it is hardly surprising that the other heroes have to copy Bruce Wayne's approach to the life of a hero, rather than appear to contradict it. Hence the apparent "marriage ban."
            Last edited by newbaggy; 09-11-2013, 06:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              this is really sad to know about that actually. i really look forward to have the family life together but the team changing really make it worse. i cant believe it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Blackman one of the Batwoman writers has jumped ship to Marvel and will be writing the new Elektra title.

                As far as the marriage yeah DC's appearant anti marriage policy is annoying. I do not know how I would react if . Marvel ended Sue and Reed Richards marriage. Ending MJ and Spidey' s marriage was bad enough even if it is understandable given how unstable the marriage was.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Seriously there oh heroes can't be married and stuff garbage is actually drive people away big time because readers can't relate to them. Now I get characters like Batman marrying or a long relationship doesn't work. But guys like Peter Parker, Oliver Queen, Clark Kent, Kate Kane yep I say at least stick them in a relationship. People don't read comics so they can watch other people be miserable all the time we see that enough in our own lives.

                  New Edit as of July 25 2017: I was wrong on Batman not marrying. He can get married but DC screwed Selina and him over the same way they did for Batwoman/Maggie.
                  Last edited by Haggard01; 07-25-2018, 08:12 PM. Reason: I learned and changed my mind

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X
                  😀
                  🥰
                  🤢
                  😎
                  😡
                  👍
                  👎