#injustice is fucked for lots of reasons but one of them is that clark has repeatedly proven he would not in fact do that and also when he

[trekkele]

For the last fucking time: Superman is the reason Batman didnt get to kill the Joker.

#if i have to see. one more post. about how SUPERMAN would have totally 100% avenged jason if he had been together with bruce or if bruce #hadnt been there somehow #if i see one more post suggesting BATMAN is the one who held back clark. who broke clarks hand while scolding him for his lack of #self control. or bruce telling clark it ‘isnt what jason would have wanted’ #i am going to lose my mind #‘well clark killed joker in injustice so he totally would do it for jason!!’ no he wouldn’t because. he. didnt. #injustice is fucked for lots of reasons but one of them is that clark has repeatedly proven he would not in fact do that and also when he #does do that literally everyone suffers but ok! sure! clark is #ok i was going to be sarcastic about clark being the best and a savior and a saint but like i do love my boy #but he simply would not fucking do that.

[distort-opia]

Did joker ever try to make batman jealous? i think that would be so funny actually, imagine him not giving batman attention and somehow giving more validation for some other herói and bruce getting so mad lmao

The only example i can think of is injustice when he messes with supes but i wish there were more

Well, Joker has gone to different cities and has fought a lot of different heroes, over time. More often than not, he goes to Metropolis, though the thing is, to my knowledge, Joker hasn’t ever done this with the express purpose of making Batman jealous. Not even his actions during Injustice: Gods Among Us were for this reason, but rather (as Injustice: Year Zero shows), it was to prove to Bruce that Clark was not the incorruptible, all-good person Bruce believed him to be. It wasn’t to make Batman jealous, it was because Joker was jealous himself.

However, this ask did make me revisit some great interactions between Joker and other heroes, and there are a couple of interesting conclusions to draw from them, regarding this subject. Bruce doesn’t always show up outside of Gotham when Joker himself does; for instance, Joker goes to Metropolis because some businessmen are ripping off his clown brand to sell toys, in Action Comics #714. But Batman doesn’t appear, and Clark deals with Joker on his own. In a similar vein, after No Man’s Land, Joker goes to Metropolis to piss off Lex Luthor (in Action Comics #765), but Bruce is once again absent. Hell, in Wonder Woman (1987) #96-97, Joker goes to Boston because there’s an ongoing gang war and he wants to make the chaos worse, fighting and getting defeated by Diana in the process... because he gets out-crazied by her. She communes with Pan, the Greek God, who teaches her how to dance the dance of chaos, and then she’s just as crazy as Joker, and able to defeat him. (God, I love comics.) Anyway, Batman doesn’t show up here either. You can either chalk it up to him not even knowing Joker changed locations, him not having the time to travel to where Joker is, or him trusting the respective hero to handle Joker themselves. Or, sometimes it’s Bruce being an asshole and knowingly letting Joker go to Metropolis to test Clark’s mettle (like in Adventures of Superman #14). 

But, when Bruce does show up, it’s “I know how Joker works, you don’t. Fuck off.” And it’s kinda funny. I’m putting the rest of these instances under the cut, as always.

Alright, Bruce doesn’t show up in person to this particular caper, but I love the fact that Clark called Alfred to make sure Bruce does not find out Joker is in Metropolis. They both freaking conspire to keep Bruce in the dark, because they know Bruce would instantly go after Joker, and he needs the rest :))

Oh yeah, this is also the issue Joker gets saved by Clark and calls himself a “fruitcake”... All-around delightful. I also recommend DC Comics Presents #72 for Clark kidnapping Joker so him and Phantom Stranger can weaponize his insanity. They team up and have crazy multi-dimensional shenanigans, it’s fun.

-- DC Comics Presents #41

Now, this next one is a story written by Morrison, in which Joker goes to the fictional Vanity City and tries to enact his mad plans there (using dancing crickets for mind control), under the hero Aztek’s nose. However, Bruce shows up this time.

-- Aztek: The Ultimate Man #6

-- Aztek: The Ultimate Man #7

Besides Bruce going “I’m gonna deal with Joker myself!”, I love the explanation he gives Aztek at the end. “He’s playing a game with me, and it goes way back.” This is why I honestly think it’d take quite a bit to make Bruce genuinely jealous. Even when Joker goes somewhere else and fights other heroes, Bruce still assumes the game Joker plays is with him (and he’s usually right).

Aaand lastly, here’s a classic instance you might’ve seen floating around, but the context of the whole thing is honestly so funny. Joker... kind of gains control of Atlantis by talking? After falling into the ocean on accident? And then Aquaman has to get his kingdom back, with Bruce hearing about all of it and managing to find him:

Again, Bruce tries to take Joker down alone and bring him back to Gotham (“Joker’s been mine for quite some time!”), but the funny part is that he does let Arthur deal with Joker first after they fight about it for a bit -- in exchange for Atlantis’ location.

-- Legends of the DC Universe #27

(Worth noting that at the end, when Joker is presumed dead, Bruce is still the one to investigate what happened with him, and discovers that Joker survived.)

Even in Adventures of Superman #14, Bruce treats Joker going to Metropolis as an ongoing game; he turns it into an opportunity to test Superman. It doesn’t occur to him that Joker might genuinely like Metropolis, or Superman, and not come back. 

-- Adventures of Superman (2013) #14

So, to sum it up... understandably, Bruce consistently assumes the things Joker does are about him, at all times. Even when Joker goes away or fights someone else, so him expressing jealousy would require some extreme actions on Joker’s part. Kind of like Injustice: Gods Among Us, although even then... personally I read “This has always been about us. Why did you do this to him?” as despair, not jealousy. It’s Bruce saying “I’ve always been the one to sacrifice myself to contain your madness, why would you go and destroy someone else? Why wasn’t it enough? Why did you ruin him, someone good, someone entirely unlike me?” (Bruce does not believe the best of himself, that has to be kept in mind, I feel.)

Anyway, hope the rant was enjoyable, Anon! I entirely agree it’d be such an interesting story -- having Joker genuinely try to focus on someone else, break away from Batman and Gotham... Sadly it hasn’t been attempted, at least not to my knowledge. I am very curious how Bruce would react.

#mm. was thinking about Kingdom Come since Joker going to Metropolis and killing Lois AGAIN jumpstarts a Superman-related plot #but it's never said why he did that. and then he gets killed so. not a lot to go with there #asks #batman #batman meta #bruce wayne #joker #clark kent #aztek #batjokes #batjokes meta #my meta

[astromechs]

Clark Kent, 1, 14 & 15!

my first impression of them

i was so small when i encountered my first superman thing that i... don't really remember? i must've thought he was cool, though, considering he's one of the most impactful characters on my whole life. what i can articulate in adult terms that i know fascinated me as a child is... there's the push and pull with the character between the immense power, the restraint it takes for him to just live his life everyday, and choosing to direct that toward kindness.

14. best storyline they had

personally, my favorite superman comic is superman: birthright by mark waid. and i do also love alan moore's for the man who has everything — which i know is a classic superman story that gets talked about a lot, but, like. it's a classic for a reason, and gave me this lifelong obsession with stories that explore what a character might want deep down... and showing how that may not be what the character actually wants, while also showing that piece of clark that's missing because he'll never fully understand what he's lost with a home that's gone that he doesn't remember.

15. worst storyline they had

that new 52 shit where they had him dating diana. like. what. i literally ragequit dc comics over that LMAO also... obligatory injustice. just. injustice my nemesis. injustice and any ""evil superman"" story. i'm in your fucking walls.

character asks!

#asks #batmurdock

[jheselbraum]

Injustice is dumb not because "Superman would never do wrong!" but because Superman isn't an idiot and would never blame himself so hard after Joker killed Lois. Like yeah Superman failed to stop the deaths but he has zero blood on his hands until he murders Joker later but both Superman and by extension the audience are expected to believe that he does?

"Superman accidentally killed Lois Lane" no you idiot she died when a criminally insane clown and his equally criminally insane psychologist girlfriend performed amateur heart surgery on her and shoved a nuclear bomb into her chest cavity. There's no way she wasn't already fully dead by the time Superman got within a hundred yards of her. All he did was pummel her dead body into space. Fucked up? Yes, very, but it's not murder. There is no reason for Superman to act like the situation is in any way his fault, let alone for his view on killing to go from "killing bad" to "in for a penny, in for a pound" that quickly

Furthermore, Supes is fast but he's got just enough "fuck, should I kill? Killing seems bad. Also, did I just kill? Like, I want to kill, but I haven't killed yet I don't think" to get through for Wonder Woman to beat him to the punch and just kill Joker herself. Like Joker shouldn't have even made it to prison. If you think Batman could protect Joker from Wonder Woman long enough to even get him into a squad car you're wrong.

Not to mention, like. Batman canonically has contingency plans for this. For this exact thing? Like he just carries Kryptonite on him, at all times. And like yeah yeah batman vs superman yadda yadda, but Batman either has enough kryptonite on him to stop Superman from becoming a dictator at the drop of a hat after one (1) fight or he doesn't, and if he doesn't there are very few reasons Batman should survive the encounter, especially against a superman who's this unhinged. Batman's resistance would not have been this long drawn out thing.

And the parademons, are you kidding me? Batman and Superman's codes against killing very rarely apply to parademons, and if they do for Batman it's usually "I can't kill them but that doesn't mean I can't use my batarang bombs to explode them into Wonder Woman's sword or that exposed rebar or off of this really tall building" and for Superman it's more like "officer they few into my laser vision, they flew into my laser vision thirty-seven times." Why does batman care if supes kills a bunch of them? Why is this decision to kill the parademons seen as further evidence of Superman's descent into just. Endless amounts of murder.

And none of it feels like Superman, it just feels like Zod in primary colors. The only person on Clark's side who really feels like themselves in all this is Wonder Woman, so why isn't she the dictator? You're telling me wonder woman, in the face of a nuclear disaster, wouldn't just go "okay y'all aren't responsible enough to handle this, I'm in charge now." A dictatorial superman is infinitely more likely to just go completely ham with the phantom zone, which is basically killing, they're basically dead, and you can do a lot of things about prison abolitionism with the phantom zone, but like, if Superman does start killing people, I don't think he'd go so far as to kill a kid, like Shazam. Batman, maybe. We've had a lot of precedent for Batman really wanting to murder people but choosing not to because of either his gun phobia or the whole "if I start killing I won't be able to stop myself" thing, usually some combination of both. But Superman? Superman getting really indiscriminate with the whole murder thing takes away the nuance of why half the damn justice league is siding with him. Wonder Woman kills, yeah, but she's got like, standards about it. This was also, coincidentally, one of my many problems with Wonder Woman in Flashpoint Paradox (why is she homewrecking Aquaman of all people, she can do better than that). Wonder Woman is the Justice League member most likely to try to take over the world but as far as her killing code goes she'd probably be a few more rungs up the ethical ladder than ancient Greece.

Not to mention, Injustice has both cop batman out in full swing, and "please get therapy I'm begging you" batman... but not for Superman, which is. An interesting take, because although I hate cop batman on principle, the only reason a story like Injustice holds any weight to it is because of the complete history of these characters. Injustice Superman could've had dickish tendencies the whole time but we know he didn't because we know this is generally "big blue boy scout" superman up until he kills joker. It doesn't hit the same way if it's not. So we have the implied narrative of batman, up until and even after the point where superman fucks up, being cop batman based on how he treats clark. But then we get "go to therapy" batman when he teams up with Harley, you know, the lady who's half responsible for nuking an entire city and by extension Superman's turn to authoritarianism. Oh, but Superman, he's beyond saving.

#I would like what if superman was evil stories a lot more #if people would write them better and not make #literally everyone completely insane in the process #and/or do a bunch of shit that just wouldn't work from like #a logic perspective #theres probably a bunch of injustice stuff i'm forgetting but I covered most of the major points the comics and or adaptations hit #I was just thinking about how injustice begs its audience to suspend not just its disbelief enough to immerse in the story #but also suspend literally everything that we know about these characters and this world that makes sense #the fucking joker is not a goddamn heart surgeon #and no amount of edginess is going to change that

[forestlingincorporated]

Underrated TimKon Scenes #3

Adventure Comics #3 

This might be cheating, because I know most of us already know this scene, but I still think it’s really underrated. Their second reunion with Tim giving him a big ol’ hug gets most of the limelight, but I really, really like this scene for them. 

I feel like their initial reunion really demonstrates how well Conner knows Tim, and doesn’t treat Conner’s return as a Cure All, Fix It for Tim’s depression and suicidality and self-flagellation. 

Conner recognizes that Tim is punishing himself, he knows Tim intimately and knows how Tim responds to guilt, and he calls him out on it, which I can’t remember anyone else doing. Tim is very clear at the start of Red Robin that he views the Red Robin mantel as tainted, and Conner is the only person (that I can remember) to make that connection. 

And Tim is open an honest about the things he expects Conner to be angry with him for. Part of that is Tim’s still kinda seeking that punishment, but it would have been so easy for DC to write a storyline where Tim tries to hide this information from Conner and it turning into a big secret ending in a blowout fight, and instead they chose Honest Communication. 

I also really like that Conner doesn’t get needlessly angry. Tim’s admits to committing a huge violation that he never would have done were Conner alive, that Conner has major issues about... and Conner quickly accepts that Tim knows what he did was wrong, and that getting angry at Tim isn’t going to help. 

Conner is honestly not given enough credit for his emotional intelligence? He’s actually more put together in an emotional crisis than Clark is, which shines particularly in Injustice. Some people really don’t like that Conner DOESN’T get mad at Tim, but like, Tim failed and he admits it was wrong to try and admits it wouldn’t have been Conner and admits to his twisted reasoning and that it was twisted. Tim already CLEARLY hates himself for doing it, so what would Conner possibly have to gain from, like, yelling at him? A lot of short-term catharsis, and a lot of long-term damage to his closest friendship. 

He also doesn’t say it’s okay! It’s not okay, and they both know that. But he opens up to Tim about something that makes HIM feel screwed up, and makes Tim feel less alone, and gets them through what could have been the end of their friendship in the hands of another writer and makes it into a bonding moment. 

Conner also tells Tim the ONE THING Tim needed to hear the ENTIRE TIME Bruce was “dead” - that he’s not crazy, that someone (who isn’t fucking Ra’s al Ghul) believes him. 

And the art is so amazing, the little Not Quite Smile on Tim, again, this doesn’t fix everything - Tim is still passively suicidal - but it does make things a little bit BETTER... for BOTH of them. This isn’t all about Tim, this is also about Conner not alienating his friends, and seeing the goodness in himself, which is something Kon’s agnsting over in this arc. 

also Krypto’s just adorable. 

look at him. 

#adventure comics #timkon

[batricide]

Okay, I'm asking you as a real expert of injustice Damian. what is his relationship with his sister? He treated Athanasia rather coldly and on the day they met, she literally knocked him down. Does he even see her as his family?

oh!! i'm so flattered!

so i think athanasia is difficult for him to quantify. she's only three (maybe four, depending on how much time passed between them meeting and her telling alfred her age) years younger than him, meaning that talia just had her waiting in the wings for sixteen years. they are the heir and the spare personified. and that's a lot to process!

i do think he considers her family. injustice damian might not agree with everything the league stands for, but he very clearly still loves his whole fucked up family. but athanasia is tricky for him because i think he also views her as a reflection of himself, and so his perception of her is extremely warped.

their relationship honestly seems comparable to the one he has with tim. athanasia is both envious and angry that others hold him in high regard, and most likely jealous that bruce knew about damian but not her. meanwhile damian is disgusted by how little she cares about innocent human lives.

the biggest hurdle is that they've seen a fraction of each other and decided they know the whole thing.

athanasia's clearly been told stories about what kind of person damian is and her impression of him is based upon that and what damian presents to the world, which is that he's an arrogant son of a bitch who doesn't care about anyone. hence her surprise when she catches him taking care of alfred.

damian, likewise, probably only views her as a reminder of the path he could have walked. and he's decided that he's a lost cause, ergo a version of him that stayed with the al ghuls and embraced ra's ideology is definitely also one. note that damian never tries to reason with athanasia when she shows up to stop them - jason does that. and damian had just talked jason down.

and i think on another level, him getting to know athanasia would mean he'd need to do a bunch of deep emotional reflection that he doesn't really want to do. athanasia is damaged in all the same ways he is - and more. she didn't get dick grayson and alfred pennyworth, she got ra's and talia and got killed for wanting their approval. her loyalty to ra's is no different from his loyalty to clark - it stems from an intense need to be loved and seen as worthy. knowing her and all her pain would mean he'd have to honestly address his own.

if we ever get injustice 3, i'd love see jason (and alfred) bring the two of them together. or like.. honestly just let athanasia be the new scarlet. i'm begging you dc. the opportunity is right there.

#damian wayne #injustice 2 #i'm sorry i'm so mia i'm just really swamped sobs #athanasia al ghul

[sometimesrosy]

Some clexa shippers were happy just to see Lexa again, even if it wasn't really Lexa. Just the same way a Bellamy fan would have been excited if he appeared for Raven, even though it wouldn't actually be Bellamy.

Others of us are upset in part because of the queerbaiting JR has done throughout the entire show regarding Lexa and clexa but also because watching t100 and seeing clexa again brought up too many bad memories from 307. It's a unique pain to see a gay girl be killed by her overly controlling, religious father figure directly after sleeping with another girl, directly after realizing that love isn't weakness (the narrative decision to give that mindset to lexa specifically was also a concerning one).

And for some of us we already knew that they were soulmates, and for others this was a confirmation of that. There's a lot of mixed feelings around it.

Also to add onto my ask about the reaction of clexa shippers, most of us haven't watched since 307 and even fewer have watched past S3

+++

CL shippers feelings about CL and Lxa are all valid.

They deserve to feel like JR did them dirty because he did. 

And I’m sorry but putting her in at the last minute does NOT make up for it and it also does not give them endgame. 

I don’t think of them as soulmates because, well, I think of Bellarke as soulmates. Unless I consider soulmates to be a thing that can happen with multiple people, not just “the one and only true love” which actually is what I do believe. So in that case they are. Even if not endgame. 

There should never be any doubt that they loved. 

And we should also consider the way they strung the CL community along for years afterwards. They killed Lxa and the flame about a half a dozen times. 

The CL crowing about L as endgame or true love or whatever, doesn’t seem to be about Lxa or CL to me. It’s about telling Bellarkers to go fuck themselves. It’s about declaring CL as winning the shipwars and Bellarke as nothing, which if y’all DID watch the rest of the show, you’d know is false, and JR screwed Bellarkers over just as much as he screwed CL’s over. L at least got a good death where there was resonance and emotion and she, like, got to be grieved and had a funeral and she got to come back, in reality, to save the day and even later, we got to see her and people talked about how important she was and how much she was beloved.

And Bellamy, the male lead just....

STOPPED.

His death scene lasted like 30 seconds. No one grieved. He got no extended mortality although Sheidheda was just as mortally wounded and survived. They brought people who died (emori) back to life, but created rules about why Bellamy couldn’t. It was reinforced for FOUR YEARS that Clarke loved lexa, but never once said at all outloud with Bellamy, even though the narrative reinforced again and again that she loved him, needed him, he kept her sane, etc.

JR callously and thoughtlessly killed of Lxa for drama.

JR maliciously and vindictively killed of Bellamy and then erased him, with no drama. No deathbed confession, no ceremony, no funeral, no statement of “oh but I loved him,” although that would not have changed his story, instead he reinforced again and again that he was “just” her bestfriend, after YEARS of calling him her soulmate. That was a DIRECT choice to strike at the Bellarke fandom.

He felt sorry for what he did to you guys. He gave you an edited love confession in the COL, and then a whole scene in s4 where she told her mom she loved her. And pictures and memories and references. AND HE ERASED BELLAMY COMPLETELY. 

And if people are upset about social injustice of the Dead Lesbian trope, for righteous reasons, shouldn’t they also be upset about the discarding of a MOC lead as if he wasn’t even important enough to give a decent send off? 

Your CL fandom shouldn’t be having a party about endgame CL or whatever. Y’all should be just as mad at the manipulation and baiting of this end as we are.

You got a sparkly purple Lxa. Or rather, you got a sparkly purple magic god alien dressed up in a Lxa skin. JR had Gabriel SHOOT the flame, or he could have brought back ALL the commanders on that beach, since emori was brought back from the minddrive. He COULD have given CL a real endgame, but he didn’t. 

But CLs see sparkly purple Fake Lxa and they feel like they won.

NONE of us won. He screwed us all over.

Except for Memori fans. That was shipperific. They got a good ending. They even stuck Hope and Jordan and Octavia and Levitt together totally unearned.  Oh look, love WAS okay, for THEM. 

But not for Clarke. Not for Bellamy. And NOT for lxa. 

[thecanadianowl]

Justice league Snydercut review

Wow talk about a long movie. Remember Mass Effect's 3 shit endings that were later improved (sorta) with DLCs. Well that is kinda how this movie is.

Before we start this, I just wanna say that I was very impartial throughout the whole snydercut movement. I wasn't part of it but I do see the good that they did in regards to some of their charities and with how the fandom itself has been painted in a negative light. So its good that they got what they have been demanding for quite some time. Snyder as director for me, I really am not the biggest fan of. His movies have some great cinematic moments that look amazing but the context around it is what muddles it for me.

Is it better than Whedon's JL? YES. To start I'll look at some of the things that I do like.

I do like how it was split into parts.  Gives it that miniseries/Comic book feel

Thank god they removed that stupid cringy flash landing on top of Diana's chest scene.

Darkseid looks good. I know some people have issues with it but I liked it. I mean looking at it first glance has me convinced its Darkseid. His voice isn't too bad either. Reminds me a bit of Injustice 2.

As much as I have issues with Darkseid being introduced so early I do like that he had a brief confrontation/glaredown with the League, foreshadowing a possible in person encounter and that the League needs to expand if they are going to fight against Darkseid.  

Steppenwolf's design has greatly improved and looks better than before.

Loved the scenes between Alfred and Diana.  Wish there was more of that.

I loved how the movie added Cyborg, Aquaman and Flash attempting to stop Superman from getting to Batman. I also liked how in this version,  Batman pleading to Clark's humanity telling him that world needs him and he needs to snap out of it.  Also bonus for taking out that scene of Batman on the ground groaning about how old he is getting.

Okay seeing Clark get the black suit and having the voiceovers of both his father's merge together works in terms of Clark's arc into becoming the person he was meant to be. Also like the use of Zimmerman's Ideal of Hope score wished they let it play out a little longer.  Probably my favourite moment in the film is where Superman just takes Steppenwolf's Axe like its nothing and freezes it.

Now to go into some of the more critical stuff that bugged me when watching.

For a movie that is 4 hours long, pacing issues were bound to happen. I think the first example of this can be found in the opening with the Superman scream wave (which started to get a bit hilarious when his screams could be heard every now and then) hitting all three mother boxes. they are shown individually reacting to it and it takes time, where it could have just showed them together or an compilation of each of the motherboxes waking up. I know it Snyder's thing but tone down on the slow mo. Like some instances its fine (like with bullet time or Flash's scenes) but other instances I'm just like alright I get it.

The scene involving Cyborg transferring money into that single mother's bank account. Is he gonna do this for all the people suffering just like her? or just for that one person? I mean if you can hack into the world monetary system, you can solve a lot of financial issues affecting  the majoirty and not just one person. Did I miss the scene but why did Cyborg go from helping one poor person, suggesting the potential good he can do to change the world for the better  to "Fuck the world". Seems a bit inconsistent in character. Especially since he knows who Diana is (from what he says)  and that Parademons are after the motherbox. Maybe her offering help, you should take it? idk Vic. Also the whole Auto defense system malfunction, would it not be better if this was established beforehand where we see Vic struggling to maintain his body's autonomy leading up to the Superman confrontation? Prior to that it seemed he had it under control and his biggest conflict throughout the movie seemed more to be with him coming to terms with his new body. With that being said, Cyborg's character here is much more interesting and better than it was originally. I can see why Ray Fisher is so pissed (well that and the abuse he faced).  I am glad this was improved and gave the character a lot more to do.

The movie still has the same issue as before in regards to the whole motherbox plot and how convenient it was that all three are located on earth. You would think that with the involvement of Darkseid/Steppenwolf that separating them to distinct locations across space would make it more difficult to collect them. I mean we know that the Green Lanterns exist (we saw one get chomped), you'd think that they or the guardians would take one and secure it on Oa. The pushback to this would be "well there was only one green lantern and he died, so how could they retrieve the box?" which begs my question, why send only one? I mean it has been established that Darkseid is a known conqueror of worlds, you'd think the Guardians would be smart enough to send more than one Lantern to aid Earth in their fight.  Did they not think it would be a good idea to have the corps be more involved/keep an eye on earth since it is the only planet that was able to repel Darkseid's forces?

Why is it that the best idea of security when it comes to humans is to bury it? Would it not be better in optics to look over it and know its location instead of dropping it somewhere on the off chance that someone might find it due to being  curious or the land changing/altering  making the box more easy to attain? A situation as dire/serious as this, you would think that the Amazons/Atlanteans would have been better prepped with armor/weapons for such an event. I mean you have the arrow of Artemis that shoots quite a distance to give Diana a message but not some kind of weapon that hurts/cripples Steppenwolf? Or better yet, how about the moment that the boxes started acting up after Superman's death, that Atlantis/Themiscarya would put aside any differences they had with one another and to the outside world to come together to secure the boxes?  How could Darkseid forget the name of the only planet that was able to force him to retreat? nor does he know that it harbors the anti life?

Did this movie break Aquaman's continuity? because from the dialogue between Mera and Arthur, its implied that Atlanna abandoned/left Arthur at Tom's doorsteps whereas in the movie,  we see Atlanna spend a couple of years with Tom and raising baby Arthur before she was forced to come back. You'd think Zack being a producer for the Aquaman  movie would have edited that line or made it more clear. Well that or James Wan F'ed up when making the movie.

"I've never seen a being as strong as Steppenwolf" Did Diana just forget Ares aka the god of war who killed the Greek Pantheon/Old gods and orchestrated the first World War? Hell from the looks of the flashback it seemed Ares (I'm assuming its Ares, if its Hades, my bad) was getting some good hits in on Darkseid, who is superior to Steppenwolf.  While we are on the topic of Diana, it's a bit odd that Snyder who  was a producer on WW84 where one of the biggest focuses on the movie that Patty Jenkins talked about was how Diana doesn't solve her problems with violence (even though her primary weapons in this movie are a sword and shield but okay. Then again New 52 hasn't done a good job in disproving that), yet in this movie we see her using her gauntlet smash to fucking kill the one remaining terorrist. Like sure you can argue that they were terrorists and deserve to die, but given how easy and quick it was for her to take out the previous guys, why do something that runs the risks of destroying the very building that you are in (with hostages). I mean from the look of the blast and how much debris fell from the building outside, and it was a miracle no one (but the terrorist) got hurt/killed.

Why did Steppenwolf  kidnap  them in the first place? Just use that mind extracting device you used on the Atlantean soldier to see if they know. Seems like a waste of time to collect them in one location only to interrogate them later.

Okay, I'm sorry but even in this cut I still don't like Miller's Barry Allen. He isn't as bad as he was in the theatrical cut but man does it stick out. When he is helping to escort the kidnapped civilians out, why doesn't he just grab them and transfer them to a safe distance? He even makes a comment about how slow they are going. Can I also just say how weird it is for Barry to take time saving Iris to caress her hair and look at her more creepily in slow mo? Like yeah its in slow mo but still I think your priority should be to get everyone to safety as quick as possible and check if anyone else could get hurt.  I will admit that Barry's speech as he is running so fast to reverse time at the end was really good. Tho the more I think about all the slow mo Flash scenes are good.

They still kept the "Let's use the mother box to bring back Superman plot". Why? This is a piece of tech that you don't fully understand how it works and you are going on the whims of someone you just met. Especially if they come back as a different person/mindset all together.  If Superman 's death was the reason that allowed for the Mother box to call to Steppenwolf/Darkseid, what the hell were they doing prior to Superman's arrival on earth? I mean we've seen how easy it was for Steppenwolf to attain the two boxes even if they were guarded, so why the wait ?. I get that Batman is going through an arc and trying to change from the person he was but how does go from "1% chance of absolute certainty" to "let's go on a whim and have faith" when it comes to resurrecting Superman? 

Its gonna be awkward as to how Clark will explain his sudden return from the grave around the same time Superman came back.

I was wondering when the Knightmare scene will play out. Jared leto's Joker isn't over with me, it seems way too try-hard to be edgy. Other than that yeah, not much I can say about it. Tho do we seriously need another iteration where Superman (or someone with Superman like powers) is evil?

I also love how nonchalant Bruce is about J'onn appearing in front him. However the revelation that J'onn was that army general all the time breaks so much of continuity (and just why now did you decide to show up and help and not idk the time Zod invaded and nearly  terraformed earth, HELL WHY TF DIDN'T SHOW UP TO HELP THE LEAGUE IF YOU KNEW ABOUT DARKSEID, I'M SORRY TO RAG ON BUT REALLY THIS CAMEO JUST OPENS UP SO MANY QUESTIONS, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AN "PALPATINE WAS BEHIND THIS ALL ALONG" KIND OF THING ).

In terms of getting a sequel, I am not sure if WB is going to go through with it given that their current vision seems to be a different route than the one Snyder intended so who knows. Despite my criticisms I do believe this is Snyder's best DCEU film to date and probably one of his better films. You could tell that he put in a lot to make this. The movie itself does have issues mostly due to the plot surrounding the motherbox as well as pacing. I would say it's worth the watch at least once, though I think its best to watch it in doses rather than one sitting. Ultimately this is the version that we should have gotten and I can see why so many people who were supportive of Zack wanted or vouched for him to finish it. Regardless, I think the very least I am happy for Snyder. If you like Snyder's previous stuff, you will like this one, if you don't, your perception of the film won't change significantly other than some cool bits here and there.  

#dceu #justice league #snydercut #snydercut spoilers #dc comics

[foreverandalwayscrysis]

The 100 Ask Game

I was tagged by @talistheintrovert and @prophecy-gurl, the loves of my life <3

1. What Station on the Ark would you be from? Mmm, probably Go-Sci or Alpha, since my dad was a geneticist - maybe they’d put me in Medical or something lmao.

2. What would you get arrested for on the Ark? Standing up for injustices/trying to help people who were being treated unfairly.

3. Would you take off your wristband when you landed on the ground? Yeah, I’d give it Monty.

4. What would the necklace Finn would make for you look like? (Clarke: deer/Raven: a raven duh..) Maybe a dolphin/whale or a turtle.

5. If you could resurrect any MINOR character who would it be? WELLS!!!!

6. Create a squad of 5 characters to go on missions with. Who are they? Bellamy, Clarke, Monty, Harper, and Murphy.

7. What Grounder Clan would you belong to? Either Floukru or Trishanakru.

8. What would your name be in Trigedasleng? I think they’d just change the “sha” part to a “sah” or more of a hissing “ss” sound, so it’d be Ay-sah, instead of what it is currently, Eisha (pronounced e-sha).

9. Thoughts on Finn? Some people hate him, and others love him, so I’m curious. He was a good character to have on the show and I think they wrote him well, but I definitely never loved him.

10. Be honest. How willing would you have been to take the chip without knowing all the horrible things it does? I wouldn’t have been that willing.

11. What character do you relate to most? my homegirl Clarke - we even have the dead dad category checked off!

12. What character do you like the least? Echo kom get lost. She was a grounder in a cage, and she should’ve stayed a grounder in a cage.

13. Describe your delinquent outfit. (Would you wear something like Murphy’s jacket with the spikey red shoulder patch or have a trademark like Jasper’s goggles? Be creative, yet practical) Mmm, jeans, combat boots, a full-sleeved t-shirt with either a cardigan with pockets or a jacket

14. Favorite type of mutant animal? Oooh, I LOVED the two-headed deer we saw in season 1. I wouldn’t mind more crazy forest animals.

15. What would your job be on the Ark? Medical assistant/scribe, something along those lines.

16. Would you have willingly pumped Ontari’s heart if Abby asked? Yeah, I don’t get squeamish easily (I’ve watched surgeries on YouTube aksdjlk), and if I can help Clarke in any way, I’m doing it.

17. If Lexa wasn’t Heda, but she was still alive, then who would have made the best commander? Indra by far.

18. How would you act if you ate the hallucinogenic nuts like Jasper and Monty? Honestly, I’d get super emotional.

19. How would you have dealt with Charlotte’s crime? A more John Murphy approach or Bellamy Blake approach? The Blake approach.

20. Who should have been the Chancellor, if anyone? Ideally, no one - every station/govt gets equal representation and people listen to actual problems.

21. Would you have been on Pike’s side like Bellamy or on Kane’s side? Or Clarke in Polis? Kane’s side - and maybe I’d go to look for Clarke but I’d die within a day, so.

22. Mount Weather had a lot of modern commodities. (example: Maya’s iPod) What is the one thing you would snatch while there? A tablet/phone, anything to read from or play music on tbh.

23. What would your Grounder tattoos look like? Hairstyle? War paint? No tattoos, possibly dark war paint on my face or arms, and a short-to-medium hairstyle, either a variety of braids or pinned back.

24. Favorite quote? “Your life can be more than just impossible decisions and a tragic end. You can choose to live.” - Wells Jaha

25. If all of the characters were in the Hunger Games, who would have the best shot at winning? Lincoln, Luna, Anya, Indra, Bellamy, Clarke, I can’t pick.

26. Least favorite ship? Favorite canon ship? Favorite non-canon ship? NOT INCLUDING CL OR BC OR BE 

Favorite canon ship: Marper

Favorite non-canon: Wellven, Ice Mechanic.

27. A song that should be included in the next season? If there had to be another guest star like Shawn Mendes on the show, who would you want to make a cameo? I am so behind on all music lately, it’s sad. I’d love to hear some Florence or Hozier but I really want Shawn back - he can’t just disappear!

28. What would you do if you were stuck in the bunker with Murphy for all that time? Oh gosh, um - well at least we wouldn’t go crazy from isolation alone. I’d read, sing, maybe dance around/stretch to keep from atrophying, rearrange stuff and then rearrange it again, complain about Blarke being oblivious idiots in love.

29. You’re an extra that gets killed off. How do you die? Spear! Or poisonous berries. Maybe multiple arrows.

30. A character you’d like to learn more about and get flashbacks of? MY TRUE QUEEN DIYOZA

31. A character you’d bang? Besides Bellamy? Wells.

32. Would you stay in the Bunker? Go up to Space? Or live on your own in Eden? Yeah, I’m gonna stay in Eden.

33. In the Bunker, would you follow Octavia? What would you do to pass the time underground? Unless I wanna get killed, yeah. Do the minimum to stay out of sight and her warpath. I could see myself writing diary entries I guess.

34. What crime would you commit in the Bunker that lands you in the fighting pits? Oooh - them finding my diary entries and seeing how negatively I feel towards Blodreina.

35. Up in Space, who would you bond with first? Who would be the most difficult for you to get along with? Either Monty or Harper. Echo and I will not be friends.

36. How long do you think you would last on Earth by yourself? I honestly don’t know. I’d like to think I’d make it a year.

37. When the Eligius ship lands what do you do? Ahaha, run and hide, possibly misguide them if I can do it safely.

38. Favorite Eligius character? Least favorite? Favorite: DIYOZAAA. Least and worst: McCreary.

39. Would you Spacewalk? Maaaybe? I have a fear of heights and assuming it’s lessened and/or gone by the time I’ve gotten used to space, I’d be open to the idea.

40. Would you prefer to eat Windshield Bugs, Space Algae, or Bunker Meat? Windshield Bugs, baby.

41. Would you start a war for the last spot of green on earth? What would your solution be to avoid it? No, the war wouldn’t solve anything. It’s all about compromise - everyone wants to live, and people like to stay in their communities, so we’d need to figure out a way to build cities/towns that help all different kinds of people. 

42. Would you rather dig out flesh-eating worms or stick thumb drives into bullet holes? Dig out flesh-eating worms, no doubt.

43. Are you willing to poison your sister for the Traitor Who You Love? What would you do to stop Octavia? If my sister became Octavia-levels of crazy, yeah, but I’m not a shoot-first kinda gal so I’d try to reason and logic my way into dismantling everything.

44. Would you go to sleep in cryo or stay awake like Marper? I would sleep, but it can depend on who else wants to stay awake.

45. Who are you waking up first to explore the new planet? My faves, Bellamy & Clarke, followed by Miller, Murphy, Raven (staying on the ship), Diyoza, Shaw, and Emori. And if someone needs to be the scapegoat, Echo.

This was super long but I had fun answering these questions!! Tagging a few people below: @lameblake @chase-the-windandtouch-the-sky @captaindaddykru @nvermindiseeyou @clarkgriffon @anne-shirley-blythe @hopewolves @chants-de-lune @goddess-clarke @aainiouu @loveisalwayswise @harpermacintyre @hermionegranger @fen-ha-fuck-you @frecklessbellamy

#anyone feel free to ignore me or do this #these were fun questions #ask games #random #mine #eisha rants

[vellaphoria]

ooh what are some of your injustice ideas? 👀👀

This got… long. So I put it beneath the cut :D

This is a bit about the comic and a bit about the game, so if there’s anyone who for any reason hasn’t looked much into either of them but still wants to do so and be surprised (maybe. imo plot’s pretty predictable) - spoiler warning.

Part speculation, part summary, mostly me rambling about nothing of import; aka the longest thing I’ve written that nobody will probably ever read.

Also, I use some terminology from TV tropes in this, so please bear with the strange lexicon!

tl;dr - good people making bad choices is my jam, but Injustice leaves a lot of gaps in character development that I might just have to fill with dubious, self-indulgent writing

Concept and Plot:

I’ve always been fascinated with the general clusterfuck of ‘protagonist’s journey to villain’ and ‘well-intentioned extremist,’ sorts of tropes - so the concept of Injustice really appeals to me on a storytelling level.

I think that the comic does this in a particularly interesting way through its use of the Injustice!League’s decision to stop adhering to the normal limitations of their morality. It presents a situation in which extreme actions seem reasonable but then give way to increasingly drastic measures, exploring (in my opinion) a plausible way that the current Justice League could become more like the autocratic Justice Lords seen in the JL animated series.

But I like Injustice a bit more than the straight Justice Lords concept because this version provides more in-universe moral contrast, mainly by making Batman stick stringently to his moral code - and not always for the better. With the Justice Lords concept, you see the unquestionably morally good Justice League come into contact with their authoritarian counterparts. This is well and good, but the animated series doesn’t show much of the slippery slope the League took to get to that point. To be fair, the Injustice game doesn’t do this either. But that’s why I really like the comic; watching motivational decay in action is one of my favorite things, possibly because I’m a bad person who likes watching good characters get put through the wringer and come out… not themselves.

While I’m like 90% sure that the comic is just a money-making excuse plot in order to explain why various JL members are punching each other in a fighting game, it’s also an exploration of similar-yet-contrasting moral codes, the limitations of power and responsibility, and some really, really fucked up situations.

The whole thing is extra cutting because both sides have good points. 

I do think that Clark is ultimately right: killing the Joker would save lives and, after years of keeping him alive/locked up in an easily-escapable facility, Bruce should really think about his level of culpability in the chaos and death that results every time the Joker escapes. However, Bruce also has a point (and it’s one that regime supporters like Barry do bring up, at least in the beginning): when does it stop? First, Clark kills a madman who, even only accounting for his recent atrocities, nuked an entire city by tricking Supes into murdering the love of his life (other than Bruce lmao) and making the bomb’s trigger go off when her heart stopped. Killing him in a fit of rage seems pretty understandable to me, even if the Joker’s fate should have been left to the courts to decide.

Things would have gone much differently had Clark taken a good look at what he’d just done, realized he was still reeling from his entire world being ripped away from him again, and sat down for some much-needed therapy.  

But, no. After moping in his arctic man cave for a while, Clark decides that this sort of pain is unacceptable and that no one should ever have to experience it again. Obviously the next step is using his considerable power to end a civil war so intractable that the countries of the world either cannot or will not take measures to actually stop it. That’s a little sketchier, but it’s still a good cause and still within the purview of saving lives.

But then he declares a global ceasefire. And then he bans protest and public gatherings. And then he decides he needs super soldiers to enforce said ceasefire. And then, seeing the relative efficiency of ‘peacekeeping’ in an autocracy, he starts working with Sinestro of all people.

And then Superman puts Earth behind him and within firing range because he knows the Corps won’t attack him if it would hurt civilians in the process. And then he kills a Guardian and an entire planet.

And then, and then, and then, and then eventually he’s using the criminals that the Regime is keeping locked up to murder Alfred for speaking against his methods and hiding his actions from the rest of the Regime.

Where does it stop?

According to Injustice, it doesn’t.

(As an American, this also resonates with me because I, too, am experiencing a slow slide into deeper and more obvious levels madness and fascism)

Characterization and Character Arcs:

Overall, Injustice has approximately three million characters and a lot of extraneous plot lines running around that I’m not particularly invested in. For example, I like Constantine, but I don’t really give a shite about his character arc in this.

What I do care about is the main body of the Justice League and how they adapt (or fail to adapt) to the new world order. For me, the most fun thing about Injustice is that it explores what happens when heroes go bad and the breaking points they have to reach to get there. To me, Clark is the most obvious example of this. The sheer amount of horrible things he has to go through would break anyone, and it’s honestly terrifying to see such an overpowered meta human decide that he’s the world’s judge, jury, and executioner.

But I’m a bit more interested in the other members of the League who end up following him down the slippery slope of character morality. Superman may be the ringleader and driving force of the plot, but there are also a lot of less-explored stories and moral dilemmas that formed around the League members just trying to stay afloat in his wake.

My main focuses here are the two regime leaders who end up on Batman’s side in the second game: Barry Allen and Hal Jordan. (to anyone reading this who’s familiar with my shipping preferences: shut up. I know.)

Since Barry actually ends up defecting mid-game in Injustice: Gods Among Us, it makes sense that we see signs of his moral dilemma early on. He isn’t sure about the regime. He sees the actions that other League members like Clark and Diana are taking and he’s appalled (i.e. Australia). In a Year 5 flashback (pun not intended) to the very beginning of Year 1, he tells Iris West that he’s explicitly only going along with this to try and keep Clark in check. Which… he doesn’t. Not even close.

He hangs on to almost the bitter end, but apparently his turning point is Clark murdering Billy Batson. Which, yeah, that’s horrible. But at that point in the Injustice!verse, he would have known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clark had Alfred killed because he admitted as such. 

I generally chalk that one up to discontinuity resulting from the comics being finished a long time after the game actually came out, but still. There’s a lot of shit that goes down that Barry goes-drinking-with-his-rogues Allen overlooks before he calls it quits.

I would have liked to see more of an exploration of what’s going on in his head during all this. Sure, there are a few issues dedicated solely to Barry, but I wanted to really see him coping with ending up as close-to the only sane person in the League by the time the Injustice game happens. He spends a least a few months being captured/restrained/subjected to electroshock therapy by Harley Quinn and the rest of Batman’s rebellion. What happened while he was there? Did more people than just Harley have strange, one-sided conversations with him? Being restrained like he was for that length of time would have to be hell for a speedster, and I’d be surprised if he wasn’t on the edge of losing it. He spends another, similar amount of time waiting for his leg to heal after being broken by Doomsday, during which he apparently helps Lex Luthor design an entire prison. Given that Lex was working with Batman’s rebels and Flash would have been the most sympathetic member of the Regime, I wonder if Lex ever tried to lowkey manipulate Barry into flipping sides?

Long story short, there’s a lot of lost time and I spent a good deal of the Injustice comic wondering what the hell Barry was still doing with these nut jobs. Given that Clark was 100% /not/ telling the rest of the Regime what he was up to at any given point, it’s not unreasonable to assume that Barry was simply not aware of some of the Regime’s worse activities. But there are things he was absolutely aware of and his compliance in the later years of the Regime doesn’t come with the same excuse as, say, having been manipulated by Sinestro to wear one of his Corps’ rings to save someone yourself and your on-again-off-again love interest from falling to your deaths courtesy of the Guardians and your own stupidity.

Ladies, gentlemen, and individuals of indeterminate gender: Hal Jordan. 

To me, one of the more interesting plot lines is his journey from his normal brave, if headstrong, ‘greatest green lantern’ characterization to the yellow ring-wielding coward who both (in the game) tries to fight Barry to stop him from defecting but also immediately gives his ring up when confronted by the Good!Superman who comes through the inter-reality portal. This happens in the space of like ten in-game cutscenes.  

Like, dude. What are you doing?

Though that applies to a lot of what Hal does in the comics. He does not start as, by any means, the all-loving hero that Superman was. Hal Jordan is a dick. This is true in every universe. But it also takes conviction and a pretty rock-solid belief in doing the right thing for someone to wear a Green Lantern ring.

I thought that the way that Hal’s split in loyalties between the Corps and the Justice League was portrayed adequately, and, as the most obvious and vocal opponent to Sinestro’s influence over Clark, I felt that the way Hal was manipulated into thinking Sinestro had had a change of heart was well executed. As was the cold way he started treating Sinestro after Kilowog’s murder and after the his growing suspicion that Sinestro was complicit in allowing Zsasz to murder Alfred. Though I would have liked more exploration of what the hell had to be going on in his head while he was forced to work with the guy he had gotten kicked out of the Corps for… basically doing to Korugar what the Regime ends up doing to Earth.

I would’ve also liked to see Hal getting at least a little mad at Clark for killing Ollie, and a more in-depth look at the way that wearing a yellow ring non-stop affected his psyche.

But, when it comes to DC, if you want something done the way you want to see it, you have to do it yourself.

What I’d Read/Write Fic about:

I’m seriously considering committing to a short Halbarry series within the Injustice universe. There’s a lot of unexplored ground. Since Iris basically leaves Barry early in the Regime days and Hal’s situation with Carol can be interpreted ambiguously after the first conflict between the Corps and the Regime, I think it would be both fun and heartbreaking to write a scenario in which Hal and Barry do end up getting together… but while the Regime is ongoing. Preferably before Barry gets captured by Batman’s rebels and Hal becomes a Yellow Lantern. So I’d take all the cute UST potential they have and give it a resolution that gets promptly trampled all over by highly questionable life choices. Have Barry watch as Hal gets progressively more unstable with the Sinestro Corps’ ring’s influence (not to mention Sinestro’s influence). I really want to write a sort of Sinestro vs. Barry dialogue after Hal bridges the rift with Sinestro in the second Annual. That would be… explosive.

.

Also, Tim fucking Drake. Injustice did him dirty by killing him off like that in the interquel comic, and I want Revenge. So, clearly the only option is to use my favorite dc retconning tool and have him resurrected via Lazarus Pit. If Injustice can legitimately turn Dick into the next Deadman, I can do whatever the hell I want.

.

The Absolute Power ending of Injustice 2. It’s 100% probably already been done, but there is so much messed up Superbat potential inherent in Clark refusing to kill Bruce and instead fusing him with Braniac’s ship. 

So damn creepy.

.

The Absolute Justice ending. There is a lot of potential for happy endings. Show me Bruce leaving the new League with Hal and Barry and having them train the new kids. Show me Dinah beating a post-redemption Hal within an inch of his life and then splitting an inadvisable amount of whiskey for old times’ sake. Show me Bruce breaking through to a Lazarus-crazy Tim and being Batman and Robin again because Dick’s dead, Jason’s not talking to him, and he disowned Damian. Actually, fuck it. Have Bruce and Damian make up. Maybe Jason too. Can we find a way to ret-con Dick being dead? Because that’d be nice.

Only the first of these things is even vaguely canon, but goddamnit the rest of them should be too.

#jagn answers #injustice #dc #actually now that I think of it #where the hell were cass and stephanie? #because I'm pretty sure I didn't see either of them #if anyone knows #please tell me

[chadnevett]

Who is Superman?

[From my 2011 Blogathon, a six-part series of posts making up a meditation on Superman in the previous decade...]

Earlier this year, I reread It's a Bird... by Steven T. Seagle and Teddy Kristiansen for the first time since it first came out. A Vertigo graphic novel, it's a partially autobiographic exploration of Superman by Seagle after his fictional counterpart is offered one of the Superman comics by his editor at DC. There's also a lot of family/personal stuff thrown in, but what I want to focus on is the Superman stuff. Seagle offers so many differing views and approaches and takes on the character in this story that it seems like the natural starting place to begin with. That so many are divorced from traditional views of the character, breaking him down to his components and their symbolic value is of particular interest to me.

Seagle first approaches Superman as a comic book character. He's the star of a comic that he read once with his brother while waiting in the hospital for reasons that become clearer later. Then, he's a character (or a title, I suppose) that he's offered to write. That these two points are where he begins is important, because, before all else, Superman is a fictional comic book superhero. He may be everything else people try to put on him, but that's where it begins. Before his role as a Christ stand-in or a film character or an image on a pillowcase, he's the figure in a comic book. He's not real, he's dispossible, he's just ink and paper. That's where he begins and, ultimately, where he ends. I'm not trying to be dismissal or lessen the character's import, by the way.

And he's a character that fictional Seagle doesn't want to write. The rest of the story is him struggling with what Superman is and what he means as his editor, his girlfriend, anyone who knows about the offer, insists he should take. He says that he doesn't relate to Superman, a problem that I sometimes share.

In breaking Superman down, Seagle offers different views. Take the costume: he gives us a short story about a teenager who wears a Superman costume to school on Halloween and, for the first time, he genuinely feels, well, super because of how people look at him. The next day, he's just his boring self again. A week later, he returns to school in the costume and is laughed at, ridiculed, labelled 'weird' and sent home. People talk about the iconic power of Superman's costume and his chest symbol, but does it hold any value when someone else is wearing those things? If you put on the costume, you're not super, you're not Superman -- and, yet, that's the thing so closely identified with him than anything else. Is it ultimately an empty symbol?

Later, in examining the colours of the costume, Seagle breaks down the various meanings, how the primary colours come from the desire to pop and the simplicities of printing at the time of his creation. The sequence is rather stunning visually as Kristiansen uses the same pose but changes the colours. We see Superman brought down to just blue or the red, yellow, and blue switched around. That those versions of the costume don't look right is interesting. Is it because those colours work best this way or is it simply that we're used to Superman as is? Looking at the colours, we see rage, cowardice, and depression. There are other meanings, but I like those ones best in my scorning, mocking way.

What does the costume of Superman mean exactly? What does any costume mean? Other interpretations of the character won't bother with that entirely aside from Joe Casey's final year on Adventures of Superman where a visit to Heroville results in the soldiers that accompanied him wearing superhero costumes to walk among the populace and Superman telling them to wear their colours proud. The costume is so tied to the idea of a superhero and Superman's to him. It's not the key to his character, but it's a start...

What exactly is it about Superman that keeps people like me away? The only times I bother with the character are when a writer I already likes writes something featuring the character. I've mentioned that I can't relate to the character and that I find his lack of a struggle with heroism a turn-off. But, there are others who relate to the character incredibly. Mark Waid has often spoke of his deeply personal relationship to the character.

The costume isn't honestly an issue for me. But, it is a form of protection, a distancing mechanism. His symbol on his chest is a shield. That he has two identities, one Superman, one Clark Kent, makes Superman himself distant. We could relate to Clark kent, because he's a human from Kansas that spends much of his time pining over a woman who doesn't love him. Superman is the fantasy alter-ego that has no problems and no real challenges. His fights against crime are just things that occupy his time it seems. Except, here's the problem: Superman is the reality and Clark Kent is the fantasy. It's not like the Peter Parker/Spider-Man relationship where he's Peter first and Spider-Man is an affectation. Superman is Clark Kent is Superman. How does one relate to that?

Grant Morrison and others have placed upon Superman the idea of a modern myth, a modern god in a way. I can see where they would get that, but it's never felt right to me. Superman is 'more than human,' but in such narrow ways like physical strength and compassion. Yet, his faults are so much less than ours. He doesn't line up to traditional myths in that way. Gods were 'more than human' in every aspect, good and bad. They did everything bigger and better, including being jerks and fucking things up. They were brash, prideful, quick to anger... then again, were they skewed too far in the other direction? Superman and his benevolent nature is the opposite of that. He fights for us, not against us, as was often the case. But, that still makes him distant and hard to relate to.

When Brian Azzarello wrote the character, he took Clark Kent out of the equation. In For Tomorrow, there was an event called the Vanishing where a sizable chunk of Earth's population disappeared. It was random. One of those people was Lois Lane and, since then, it doesn't appear that Superman is Clark Kent anymore. In fact, when we finally see where the people disappeared to, the first person we see is Clark. He's a robot, but the meaning is clear: he disappeared that day too. And Azzarello's Superman is much closer to the gods and figures of myth. He retains his compassion and thoughtfulness, but also adds in a questioning and almost selfish rashness. He gets involved in the affairs of a state, alienates the Justice League, and even threatens to destroy the planet. None of these things seem within his 'character' if you pay attention to what a lot of people said about the story. And, yet, it was Superman.

Besides Batman, I'm not sure there's a superhero that's so open to interpretation like that. If that's the case, what is the core of Superman? Does it come down to him following a few simple rules? He's an Alien from Krypton, he landed in Kansas, he's Clark Kent (or was at some point), he's stronger and faster than any human, can jump high/fly, wears an outfit, fights injustice as he sees it (could be in line with laws or not), and loves Lois Lane. Is there anything else that's consistent to the character, anything essential? After all, you could argue that Azzarello got it wrong with his Superman who threatened to destroy Earth when it attacked him using elemental monsters, but... that's a Superman story. Just like the rest, it was ink and paper, and, as we've established, Superman is just a comic book character ultimately. If a comic book says he did it, he did it. Does he actually have a core character?

If he doesn't, shouldn't he be the easiest character to relate to? He's so empty, strung together from the barest of pieces of information. Look at the guidelines I set out for what Superman is at his most basic and... is there anywhere you can't go with him? Then why is he so locked into one singular image?

The Superman I grew up with was a human one. He was still an alien from Krypton, of course, but there was an emphasis on the human elements of the character. After all, he did grow up here with his powers kicking in as a teenager. That basically puts him on the same level as Marvel's mutants. The longer he's Superman, the less human he would be, yes. His powers grant him a different vantage point -- and, more importantly, so does how other people treat him. The more he's treated different, like a god, the more he would begin to see himself that way even if he didn't want to. Our self-image is shaped by how others perceive us and why would Superman be any different?

It's that outside perception of what Superman is and what he should be that locks him in so much. We look at his powers and his differences and make him different. We look at him and see the potential for a mythic figure, so he's that, too. We make him a character that's impossible to relate to and then complain that we can't relate to him!

In It's a Bird..., there's a short bit about Superman as a teen where he chooses to walk all of the way into town to see a movie, knowing that he will miss part of it, rather than fly. He knows that flying would mean exposing himself and would change how others perceive him. He would no longer be the Kent boy, someone they've known for his entire life; he would be a freak, an alien, an other. It's something so obvious, so built into what he is and who we are. Of course we don't relate to Superman -- he's the other, he's the alien! He's the benevolent outsider who protects us, but he's still an outsider. He will never be 'one of us,' not entirely.

Grant Morrison embraced that idea to a degree in All-Star Superman, treating Superman as someone that is outside of humanity and that being a good thing. In that story, Superman doesn't try to belong or fit in, near the end of his career and comfortable in his role as protector. I do like Morrison's version of the character. In concept at least. There is something very exciting and lovely about a god-like figure that loves us and wants us to love one another and is here to help us see that. SuperJesus. He's positioned above us while still enough on our level to love us. It doesn't entirely work for me always, though. It's an argument that requires us to resolve the paradox of him being better than us and no better than us. He's superior and, yet, not. It's a sort of false modesty that I find grating and patronising, honestly. It almost puts Superman in a position of owner to us, his lovable pets without wanting to recognise that.

We don't see Clark much, only a few times, and he's a bumbling, slightly overweight man that people sort of humour and look down on. A bit of a goof. Lots of people have discussed the depiction of Clark and what that says about humanity, about how Superman supposedly views us. In a sense, Clark seems to me to be a test. An example of humanity at a possibly lower point and a way for Superman to see how people treat that sort of person. Clark keeps him humble in a way. Lex Luthor hates Superman because Superman is better than him; he scorns Clark because he's obviously inferior. The Clark we see in All-Star Superman, based upon the Silver Age depiction of the character rather than other modern interpretations, is the balancing act that makes Superman's position of above-and-yet-not work. Superman is above us, Clark Kent is below us (at least from our perspective), so it works out to a balance.

Grant Morrison used Clark Kent to balance out Superman's superiority, so, when Brian Azzarello took Clark away, what exactly was left? I keep coming back to Superman's fight with the elementals that acted on behalf of Mother Earth. They attacked him to get him to leave... exactly why isn't clear since they basically admit that humanity is just the latest infestation. But, his response is that he would kill everything, burn off the atmosphere, and then physically break up the planet is shocking. We assume it's a bluff, but, even as a bluff, that's harsher than Superman usually is. Without his connections to humanity, he drifts further away from those roots and more towards a Superbeing that is not held back by limitations of human morality or personal affection for humanity. Take away Clark and, slowly, Superman loses the man.

Azzarello's use of Father Leone illustrates this, him becoming Superman's new human connection with Lois and Clark gone. After seeing how far he was moving away from humanity, he begins to reconnect with it through this priest. It's interesting that the person he looks to as his new connection to humanity is a religious figure. It's not simply about reconnecting with humanity, it's about struggling to avoid thinking of himself as the supreme being, the god of Earth in a sense. A priest will be a reminder of faith in something bigger than Superman -- again, a humbling experience. For all that people didn't like Azzarello's interpretation of Superman, it's one that's remarkably in line with Morrison's. He simply presents the argument in another fashion. Instead of a straight forward presentation of 'this is Superman and this is what he's about,' he shows us a Superman that's removed from that and his struggle to regain what he lost. Azzarello stripped Superman of everything but his power and position and watched what would happen, how the character would go too far and try to retreat.

If Clark is his primary connection to humanity, a way to embody it, what is Lois? When Lois disappears in For Tomorrow, Clark goes as well. Lois is the woman he loves and, slowly, becomes his secondary connection to humanity in conjunction with his parents. She comes to embody the things in humanity that he wants. She's compassionate, strong, self-assured... she's almost a mirror of Superman. Is she Superman in the form of a human woman? Is that why Clark is so drawn to her...? Is it really a case of him loving himself? The classic idea of the love triangle is that Clark loves Lois, Lois loves Superman, and Superman loves Clark. Superman loves Clark because he's his window into humanity, Lois loves Superman because he's something more than humanity, and Clark loves Lois because... because why exactly?

I've never entirely understood the role of Lois Lane. Why her? For the ease of stories, she fills a specific role, because it's simpler to have Superman/Clark fixate on one person. Spider-Man has largely operated the same way, shifting from Gwen Stacey to Mary Jane Watson with a few minor possibilities in there. Superman has Lana Lang and Wonder Woman (along with some others) to fill those minor roles. But, ignoring the practicalities of one love interest, what is it about Lois specifically?

The idea that she's a human that's reached the potential Superman is an example of seems right somehow. She's not perfect and can be a little rude; still, there's a sense that she's rounded enough in all areas that she stands as the pinnacle of human achievement. Okay, that doesn't sound right. She hasn't reached the apex of human potential. She's not a mirror of Superman. So, what is she?

In All-Star Superman, she's the woman he loves. No explanation is needed. I can appreciate and understand that. Ask me why I love my girlfriend and I'll give you some basic reasons, some descriptions of her personality and behaviour, and none of it will cover it. Why does Superman/Clark love Lois? Because he does. It's that simple. At least in the mythic sense. In myths, no explanations are needed. Things simply are.

The role of Lois in Superman's world is something that Steven T. Seagle doesn't address in It's a Bird.... He explores different elements of Superman and what they mean, like the costume, like power, like justice... but not love or Lois. It's an odd omission when you think about it. But, it does implicitly argue for her expendability. Is Lois as essential as I made her out to be? She doesn't factor into Seagle's extensive exploration of the character. Hell, the past two years or so of Superman comics have had the two characters separated. First, Superman was on New Krypton and, then, he took his walk across America. In the upcoming relaunch, Lois is dating someone else and they were never married. She's still a love interest, an object of desire, but not much else. Is that all she is, even when she's been a central character? Does she even exist on her own or a way that isn't there to reflect Superman?

In The Death of Superman, he presence makes Superman's sacrifice that much more. She is something he sacrifices himself for, representing the whole of humanity. In Joe Casey's final year on Adventures of Superman, their marriage is something he struggles with a little. In one issue, the two celebrate Valentine's Day by finally coming together and staying in bed (no sex shown, just sleep). The run ends with an issue that's purposefully vague about their future. In many ways, Casey seems to be arguining for the disolution of their marriage, that Superman needs to be alone and un attached, while also presenting the argument that, like every married couple, the two simply have some problems. Either way, the relationship is not a completely solid one, not one that's unbreakable.

The marriage of Lois and Clark has been a problem to solve since it happened. Superman is often written into stories that demand a freedom that doesn't work entirely with a wife. How would she react to her husband disappearing off planet for a week? How does one live with that uncertainty? In contrast to the marriage of Peter and Mary Jane, the marriage of Lois and Clark seems to trap Superman, grounding him further than most would want him. They prefer a Superman that soars above such trivial things, rebuffing Lois at every turn, and allowing Clark to pine over her.

I'm not entirely sure what Lois's place is in Superman's life.

My favourite Superman is Joe Casey's Superman. His Superman speaks back to the idea of virtue I mentioned in my second Blogathon post. He could use his massive strength to hit things, to fight violence with violence, and he doesn't. He doesn't take the easy way out and simply punch things back. He uses his brain, he finds non-violent solutions, and he saves the world without throwing a single punch. My favourite Superman is a pacifist Superman.

In Adventures of Superman #616, Superman says the most revolutionary words ever put into his mouth: "No violence. I won't resort to that. I'm a pacifist, Dr. Welbourne." For me, that's when Superman changed and everyone else's version was somehow lacking. This was a smart, forward-thinking concept, a place to take the character that felt completely in-line with everything that guys like Grant Morrison talk about, but putting it into direct action. Of course Superman would be a pacifist! If he's here to set an example of how to be better, of how to rise above our petty basic urges, and move into the future as enlightened, advanced beings, why would he always hit stuff? We've known violence is primative for a long time.

Seagle offers a similar view in a section on 'power' that shows that Superman is just another in a long line of 'might makes right.' He enforces his concept of 'justice' and 'morality' through violence and his superior strength. It doesn't matter if he's fighting on our side, his methods reveal him as a primative creature. If anything, Azzarello's version of the character is a logical extension of that argument. And, for all of Morrison's arguments and depictions of Superman as a loving protector, All-Star Superman still ends with him beating Lex Luthor by punching him out.

I've long wondered why no one else has followed Casey's example. For an entire year (and a little bit before that even), he had Superman not throw a single punch. He managed to defeat any enemies that came his way and save the world/Metropolis/whatever. Hell, as Casey pointed out, he thought it was his explicit statement of Superman's pacifism that went too far; meaning, if he didn't say it, would anyone have noticed? If it's possible to have Superman be a pacifist without any serious disruptions, why doesn't everyone write him that way? Why not have the character live up to his potential and example?

The idea that Superman says he's a pacifist is going too far is key here. You can only change the character so much. Funnily enough, Casey's final year on Adventures of Superman reminded us how much the character has changed when he comes face to face with what is essentially the original Golden Age Superman. A strongman in tights that fights against corrupt authority, a reminder that the modern boom of heroes that do that is really another example of "Superman did it!" Superman has changed over the years and will change again. But, what makes pacifism too much of a change? Where is the line of how much you can alter the character? People said Azzarello went too far, or that Frank Miller simply mocks the character and that's not really Superman. I've heard some reactions to Casey's pacifist Superman that were the same. But, if it falls within the broad criteria that make up the character, how is it not Superman? If it's not Superman, who is it?

To me, Casey's pacifist Superman is more Superman than any version of the character since his original inception. It's a character more in sync with my interests and worldview. He still fights for truth and justice, he still wears the costume, he still has amazing powers -- all he does is use them differently. Add in some of his fighting corruption past and you've got the making of a superhero I'd read about every month.

But, that's not how others perceive the character. They want him to have big fights with larger than life adversaries. They want Lex Luthor to be a mad scientist instead of a businessman. They want Lois and Clark unmarried. They want, they want, they want...

Who is Superman? I'll leave that to Tim Callahan: "Superman is the essence of man, all the power anyone could wish, but still burdened by the responsibility to help others and the need to find someone to connect with. He IS easy to relate to, because he is a stylized version of all of us."

Superman is whoever you want him to be.

#comics #steven t seagle #joe casey #brian azzarello #grant morrison #graphicontent #my older stuff was better

[ywhiterain]

@anotheralix wrote a post that can be summed up as “how about we ditch the double standards surrounding how we talk about female and male protagonists.” She even admit she does this herself with Clarke Griffin (100) and Elena Gilbert (The Vampire Diaries). It’s not a particularity nuanced post - but it wasn’t meant to be. It was a vent. A vent, in particular, how women are judged differently than men.

This is not a shocking rant. This is a self evident perspective shared by many women across time in different cultures. Look, I could get into the science and cite different articles and meta-analysis that back up the idea women are held to higher standards than men. But not everything is about meeting high standards when creating an argument. Sometimes you want to make short rant on your tumblr about sexism and move on.

But, see, @candyumberella responds to this post. Not a problem in itself. But how and what she says reveals that her issue is not with creating inter sectional spaces for women to talk about feminism. No, I think she hates that female fans sometimes really love female leads.

I’m going to take apart some of her arguments under the cut.

“I think it’s pretty telling that whenever people get uncomfortable with seeing a female character (espically the most privilaged white female character in a ‘verse whose narrative is based on and constructed around her privliage) criticized in any way, they knee-jerk respond with, "You wouldn’t do this with a white man!”

Let’s unpack this. There are two claims in here that I disagree with: female leads are constructed around her privilege and being critical of the knee-jerk response. I’ll with the second first, because it’s easier to address. Yes. Women, particularly women who have been influenced by feminist thought, tend to get frustrated when women are held to a higher standard than men. It happens. It’s annoying. And I believe it’s understandable. The fact that @candyumbrella doesn’t acknowledge that female heroines are held to higher standards is a glaring omission. If she took into account how misogyny and sexism hurts all women, her arguments about how women are treated in fandom would fall apart. I mean, even more so than pointing out the existence of The Golden Girls and its large fandom does.

The second part is that her claim, espically the most privilaged white female character in a 'verse whose narrative is based on and constructed around her privliage is not backed by any evidence at all. Now, @anotheralix doesn’t give powerful evidence herself, but that’s because it was a short vent about sexism. @Candyumberlla takes issues with this vent because of a weird ass Interpretation of All TV Based On One Sitcom. If you’re going to take issue with someone complaining about sexism, and how this post complaining about sexism is a problematic trend in fandom as a whole, you need some convincing arguments. Otherwise you look like a sexist apologist.

But here, I’m going to argue against her claim by pointing to Buffy. White female lead - skinny and blond to boot! But the premise of the worldview of Buffy isn’t that she’s the most privileged character in her world. She spends a good portion of it struggling against the Watchers Council (aka patriarchy) in order to use her own power on her own terms. Buffy being pretty and tiny and girly is the fucking point - because society sees women who look like her as empty shells. Buffy being the undisputed heroine of her own story is and was an attack on that worldview.

Buffy didn’t do great about race. It’s treatment of Kendra Young has not aged well, to put it politely. It’s peek manufactured whiteness. As for queer issues, while Willow/Tara was groundbreaking, but there’s as much to critique as there is celebrate. Fans of Buffy do this all the fucking time. There is nuance to be had and Buffy’s got plenty of academic and fannish work exploring that nuance. It’s failures and it’s successes.

But

It’s not about the injustice of misogyny so much as people wanting their female fave to not be criticized and using her gender as a catch-all reason why she shouldn’t be.

That’s a pretty unfair statement. Loving and being fannish about female characters can be an exercise in frustration in fandom. I don’t know how many times I went in the tags for Elena Gilbert only to see fans calling her a two-faced and manipulative in very gendered ways. Slut. Bitch. Whore. I’m glad a dude is beating her up and putting her in her place. Speak true to that ungrateful bitch, male character I like! This exists in fandom. It puts a lot of people on guard.

Critiquing a character like Elena is not as easy as doing one like Klaus. Because there is baggage there. Misogyny is a thing. It informs how women are framed and treated in the text. It informs audience expectation and reaction. Elena being white didn’t stop her from ending up with her rapist.

So actually, I see plenty of people accusing male characters of making everything about themselves–usually when they want to deflect from criticism directed against their One Special White Girl and do so by perpetuating the lie that ONLY White Men are the REAL Enemy, We Are All Allies Against Them, blah blah.

Because, shockingly, men and women are treated differently in both canon and fandom. I’ve seen @candyumberlla spend more time talking shit about Clarke, Elena, and Donna (Suits) than Oliver (Arrow), Angel (Angel), or Sam or Dean (Supernatural). Even Ted, the privileged white dude who informs all of her meta these days, is not treated with such distaste. She is gleeful about her interpretation of Clarke (she’s being humiliated and dethroned!) She gushes about the Fall of Elena and the Rise of Caroline. She might mock, say, Stefan Salvatore, but she doesn’t the same use belittling and angry language.

Misogyny is informing her meta. Because misogyny is a threat. It’s real. Her attack on female characters is built on centuries of female oppression.

Also:  –usually when they want to deflect from criticism directed against their One Special White Girl

Women and girls can’t just be tired as hell of white male dominance in their world? Critiques against male dominance in media are About Protecting That White Women. 

MOST privileged woman in a ‘verse appropriating and parasitizing those LESS privileged and LESS institutionally elevated than she–so she’s not the victim in this scenario, she’s the oppressor.

Prove it. When and how did Clarke, Elena, Veronica, Buffy, Rey, or any other white female characters target more vulnerable women. Hard mode: look their stories in context of a male dominated society with white dudes being the ones who generally created their stories. Remember internalized misogyny is not just those Bad Female Fans Who Like The Wrong White Female Leads and how much female creators in Hollywood and TV have to balance to just get women to talk to each other without it being about a dude. Honest mode: take into account how the leads have both built up and torn down the women in their lives. Put the narrative into a cultural and historical context.

so this parasitic stanning impulse is just white male worship transmuted in a different form that ~feels more like ~feminism and thus more morally acceptable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Tell me more about how Clexa fans just love Finn. Or Xena/Gabe fans just thirsting for that dick. Bias is a thing. It influences how we think, feel, and react to things. There is no story that doesn’t fail on some level when it comes to systems of oppression.

But people finding personal power, meaning, or joy in female lead stories doesn’t mean they just really want the dick. Korra/Asami fans don’t tend think too much of Mako. Buffy/Faith shippers may have an opinion about Angel and Spike, but they’re generally more interested in the charged relationship between Faith and Buffy. Sailor Moon fandom does have a good chunk of het, but lesbian content and focus on friendship between women is one of the reasons it’s still beloved by many people.

Or, hell, maybe actually allow for the idea that maybe a het shipper is more invested in the female half than the male half and it’s not due to her status as a guy who was killed off and the fandom as a whole cheered. 

#filed under: what is meta? #feminism #animorphs is about jake getting Cassie #ted structure monkey magic

[dalekofchaos]

What I’d change about the DCEU

My DCEU change list! However, I will not just be changing how the current movies change, Since this is my own version of the DCEU I will be putting the big individual movies before so it actually feels like world building instead of mashing everything together until they fit.

My other DC changes

Arkhamverse

Burtonverse Changes

Nolanverse Changes

DCTV Changes

Man Of Steel

Keep Krypton as it is, however, ensure that  Lara-El actually shows emotion knowing that Jor-El has died and her only son has been sent away to a far away world as her own planet is about to die along with her

Keep the flashbacks similar, his mom helps him with controlling his abilities, but that’s how it starts, then we see Clark with the cape on, then saving the kids, then restraining himself and then the tornado(more on that later) but after the first flashback scene rather than him as a drifter he awakes as a reporter at the Daily Planet and the oil rig scene is a story he works on and he’s a green horn as a part of the story and he saves the crew. We have Clark Kent. Superman is the mask Clark Kent puts on.  Clark Kent is Superman, not Superman is Clark Kent. We see Superman saving people and smiling to reassure the people he’s saving that he is there for them and instills hope in the people of Smallville and Metrtopolis.

Jonathan Kent isn’t a complete asshole.   I understand that Jonathan wanted Clark to keep his powers a secret because he didn’t want him exposed and taken away, but Jonathan Kent is supposed to inspire Clark and to instill in him good morals and beliefs that make Clark the hero we all know him to be. He doesn’t tell him that maybe he should have let the kids died, he actually is supportive and assures that Clark is doing the right thing. More inspirational stuff like  “You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is. “ And “You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark; because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he’s… He’s gonna change the world.” And Jonathan does not die for stupid reasons, Clark saves Jonathan. If Clark saved Jonathan it would prove to him that the world is ready

The Phantom Zone look like it is in Injustice because it ACTUALLY looks like a hellish prison of eternal torment, instead of dildo ships being frozen

Jimmy Olson is in the movie and is a main character with Lois and Perry and he isn’t pointlessly killed off in the beginning of the sequel

The Jor-El AI in the fortress of Solitude would explain to Clark what Kryptonite is and warn him of the dangers of it

Zod’s plan to revive the Kryptonians remains the same, but not terraforming, it made absolute no sense whatsoever.  Earth's current environiment grants them super powers. I know Zod mentions the pain of acclimation, but that seems trivial in the face of invulnerability, super strength and laser eyes. Plus considering Zod’s crew were bred for war, it seems dumb to just keep them powerless. But I would add instead of destruction porn via generic doomsday device, classic Zod’s bid for domination would take effect he wouldn’t view humans as equals so he would want to take over earth and take it for his people. 

The same thing happens, they use Clark’s ship to trigger the Phantom Zone(only Dr Hamilton doesn’t die) 

Clark would not kill Zod. Clark would instead incapacitate Zod and place him in a special prison. Together Clark and Dr Hamilton build a special prison to hold Zod. Made with the Red Sun technology from Zod's ship and the Kryptonite from the world engine.

Superman is hopeful and optimistic. Superman is the most human superhero of them all. He’s kind, he’s decent, he does good whenever he can and generally wants to help people and make their lives better. He’s the champion of the human race that adopted a strange visitor from another planet. He CAN’T be hopeless. He CAN’T be the brooder. He’s supposed to be the hero to hope to be. The one who is the ideal of other heroes. The one who never gives up on us, no matter how far we fall.  Superman is an idealistic character. He’s the kind, loving person from the comics and the animated universe.  He’s kind, he’s decent, he does good whenever he can and generally wants to help people and make their lives better. He’s the champion of the human race that adopted a strange visitor from another planet. Superman saves people. It’s not a decision he comes to through trauma and failure. It’s just who he is. He’s a good person

The Batman. The Batman is not out yet, but it should be the second movie of the DCEU, instead of Frank Miller worshiping garbage...I mean Batman V Superman

The biggest mistake of the DCEU is it is terrible at world building. It just forces everything to stick until it’s watchable. We did not earn Batman V Superman or Justice League. Phase 1 should be Man Of Steel, The Batman, World’s Finest, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, Green Lantern Corps and Martian Manhunter. 

The Batman would be about Batman and Joker. It’s a Batman who has been for 20 years. Explains all the villains, his relationship with Gordon, show that Dick became Nightwing, Barbara is Oracle and Jason is Robin. Jason dies in this movie Joker kills Jason and Batman beats him with an inch of his life. This is the start of Bruce’s extreme justice to the criminals. 

Batman V Superman:Dawn Of Justice or as I would re-title it World’s FInest

The Death of The Wayne’s is a mugging gone wrong and there’s a struggle for the pearls. It is presented as what it’s meant to be. A mugging gone wrong. Show Joe Chill grabbing Martha’s pearls, Thomas struggling to defend Martha and Joe kills Thomas and then Martha. Thomas’ dying words being the same from Batman Begins. “Bruce, don’t be afraid”  It was a nice moment, and it ties into Bruce's conflict with Clark (given how most of his anger towards Clark is born of fear).

The Bat symbol looks like it does in the Arkhamverse. Stop the overworship of Frank Miller and let the Bat symbol look like a Bat and not look like Dark Knight Returns

Lex Luthor is played by Terry O’Quinn, or Bryan Cranston. 

No Doomsday, instead of Doomsday it’s AMAZO, save Doomsday for a future Superman movie and give us AMAZO for the reason to bring the league together.

Lex Luthor uses the Kryptonian attacks as a campaign against Superman

Lex is not a whiny and annoying little know it all brat who keeps bringing up his father, he is a genius and he knows it, he doesn’t need to constantly flaunt it, and he isn’t a mix of Joker and Riddler, this is Lex Luthor! All Eisenberg’s Lex was...just annoying. Lex Luthor is cunning, he’s a genius, a criminal mastermind and will ignore all ethical boundries until his goals are met. When Luthor is in the room, he owns it. Every word that comes out of his mouth is meticulously planned and he is a master manipulator. The reason why he is such a brilliant Superman villain is because even though he has no physical powers, he can always beat the Man Of Steel on intellect alone. Hears why DCAU Luthor will always surpass the DCEu Luthor “do you know how much power I'd have to give upto be President? That's right, conspiracy buff. I spent 75 million dollars on a fake Presidential campaign, all just to tick Superman off."  But instead of this dark, brooding, cunning and intimidating Luthor, we just got an annoyance. He is basically pulling everyone’s strings and when the players realize it, they’re too late, just like DCAU Lex.

Jimmy and Mercy aren’t pointlessly killed off

Batman doesn’t kill, he is more extreme like branding criminals, but he doesn’t kill or use guns

Superman does not constantly doubt himself and brood throughout the entire movie, he is heroic and he actually smiles to reassure the people he saves will be alright(how do you expect someone you’re trying to save will trust you if you frown and brood while saving them?)

Perry White isn’t an incompetent moron for the entire movie. He lets Clark pursue the Batman, he doesn’t constantly tell him to do a sports piece, he has Lombardi(he was in Man of Steel) for that

This is not BVS, it’s The World’s Finest. They fight at first but Bruce realizes he has been used by Lex and they unite to expose and stop him but are too late as AMAZO attacks

Before the fight with AMAZO,  Bruce confides in Clark about Jason.  Bruce realizes that a lot of his hatred for Superman is because he blames himself for Jason's death, and since he blames Superman for the deaths of those killed in the Metropolis fight, he was projecting. He realizes this and stops.  It would have been HEARTBREAKING to see. By the end of the fight, Bruce is screaming "YOU FAILED!", and it's pretty obvious he's screaming at himself.

The three beat AMAZO and Superman lives and they work together to unite the Justice League

Cast Gemma Areton as Wonder Woman and don’t cast that fucking zionist racist ableist rape apologist garbage Gal Gadot

Suicide Squad

More Captain Boomerang, less Rick Flag 

Harley Quinn looks like a jester and uses her mallet. Harley’s look was okay...but just didn’t feel like Harley. If anything either have it be the classic look we got in the flashbacks, her Assault On Arkham look, Arkham City concept art or the Brian Azzarello look  and make her feel like Harley, and not like how they turned Harley into Lollipop Chainsaw.

More friendship between the whole squad(not just Harley and Deadshot, Deadshot and Flag) Deadshot and Boomerang is pretty much Brotp, Harley and Croc have a friendship and Katana is a loner

Enchantress is saved for the sequel.

The Joker is the villain.  Replace Leto as The Joker with Joe Giligun or Willam Dafoe and for the love of god scrap David Ayer’s god awful Drug lord of Instagram inspiration. This is the Joker, not Scarface. The Joker is not a gangster or a pimp, The Joker is a force of nature, the anarchy of Gotham, symbolizing that life is the joke and death is the punchline. But basically Joker is the villain and Joker decides to take a holiday from Gotham. He steals a chemical weapon and plans to unleash it. Task Force X is assembled. Harley and Croc have a reason to be on Task Force X because of their history with The Joker. The flashbacks would basically be the same but the scene where Batman is chasing Joker and Harley, Joker leaves Harley to die to save himself, but like in the comic Mad Love while Harley is in prison she gets a flower with a rose saying “get well soon. Love J” Also make it clear that Joker and Harley is an abusive relationship, its not that black and white we all know that but having it in would be better than the fanfic we actually got and better than making Joker’s motivation being to see Harley. It’s a complex relationship and I just felt like we got Joker and Harley watered down. Pretty much have it end with Joker being defeated because of Harley and show that she’s free of him but still show she’s a villain but at the end we see a rose like in Mad Love with a note from J and we see Harley uncertain but a smile at her last scene.

Wonder Woman

Gemma Areton plays Diana and Lynda Carter plays Hippolyta 

Scrap all mention of Zeus and the possibility that Diana got her shitty New 52 origin of Diana being another Zeus dick joke. Diana was sculpted by Hippolyta, Athena and Hera. It would make a whole lot more sense to have it be Athena considering that Ares and Athena are rivals in Greek Mythology. 

Do more with Doctor Poison. Let’s say that Steve has a reason to steal her research outside of duty. Let’s say Dr Poison made a prototype that killed the majority of Steve’s team and he escapes with her research. That would have given us an emotional stake for Steve and a reason for Dr Poison to exist beyond her weapon as she would be the villain for Steve Trevor and Ares would be Diana’s Villain.

Only thing I would change about Ares is that  I'd still have Ares reveal, but I would not have Ares controlling the Germans and Allies. I'd go by this particular Lucifer quote for Ares "Why do they blame me for all their little failings? They use my name as if I spent my entire day sitting on their shoulders, forcing them to commit acts they would otherwise find repulsive. 'The Devil made me do it.' I have never made any one of them do anything. Never. They live their own tiny lives. I do not live their lives for them." humans waged war of their own will, Ares just gained power because of the war

Justice League

No awful Whedon reshoots

No Whedon bullshit.  No Barry falling into Diana's clevage, no awful CGI to cover Henry’s mustache,  and no "Did Steve Trevor tell you that? and no Lois Lane is “thirsty” grow the fuck up you piece of shit.

Martian Manhunter instead of Cyborg. I love Cyborg, but I feel like it is wasted potential to not have Cyborg appear in a Teen Titans movie. I really think it’s a mistake to make Cyborg one of the Justice League founders in the movies. It should be The  Martian Manhunter because J'onn NEEDS to be one of the founders and Cyborg works best with The Teen Titans. I feel it was a mistake for Cyborg to become a founder instead of J’onn. But if you have to have Cyborg in the movie how about actually make a costume or use practical effects so it’s not all bad CGI.

Make the goddamn costume for Steppenwolf or use practical effects. Don’t be fucking lazy and just use CGI. Designing a costume is not that fucking hard.

Make Aquaman a hero for the ocean, fishing villages,  Eskimo tribes and show Arthur fighting oil companies and less of a surfer dude who spouts one liners

No Mother Boxes. Just let Steppenwolf and Parademons  invade Earth on their own, and have his reason to prepare the Earth for Darkseid’s arrival.

Let Henry Cavill to keep his mustache for  Clark’s return. There is no point in  using horrible CGI to cover it up. Let his return be like the comics. in BVS the soil was rising, so his resurrection did not ned the mother box. After returning, he returns with facial hair and long hair.  And he resurrects with no rage to attack the heroes or anyone else. But the does return to  Lois and Martha. and his return to the heroes is like this

After Steppenwolf is defeated, Lois tells Clark he should shave and we see a scene like this 

and the movie ends the same way

#DC #DCEU #My Changes #Man Of Steel #Batman V Superman Dawn Of Justice #Suicide Squad #Wonder Woman 2017

[kinetic-elaboration]

April 28: More on 4x06

I took an ill-advised, ill-fated nap earlier today and woke up thinking about the mob in 4x06 and how that story line was also very shallowly rendered, so that the real point, and the real stakes involved, were obscured. I’m not going to write it all up now, or possibly ever, but basically I was thinking about how:

The real threat of the mob, from the point of view of the Arkadians, is to the stability of Arkadia itself, not to Ilian as a person because he’s literally a stranger to them, and I really wish someone had pointed this out explicitly. Someone like Monty, perhaps, who’s never given a fuck about Grounders and is infinitely pragmatic and thus would be a great vessel for this message. (I’m still super confused as to what Monty’s motivation in 4x06 was. Don’t tell me he actually cared on a personal level for Ilian’s safety and don’t tell me he’s like against killing or whatever because those are both laughable propositions.)

Kane’s power is incredibly unstable and so is the whole fabric of Arkadian society along with it: he wasn’t popularly elected; he’s often out of Arkadia; his main avatar in the camp is Clarke, who, besides also being not popularly elected, also has almost zero visible leadership experience from the point of view of most of the camp; there is no council or other governmental structure and of course no legal system, and no indication of what sort of law governs.

Basically, Arkadia is in much the same place as the dropship camp was in the early episodes of S1 and in this sense is the comparison between the mob and Murphy’s almost-execution apt--but again I would have liked Monty to make that clear because I think the big difference between the events, that Murphy was innocent and Ilian was not, is otherwise too glaring. Both societies have the appearance of stability but nothing underneath; they’re held together by fear and oncoming crisis (the fear of the Grounders in S1, the oncoming radiation in S4) and people follow whoever is speaking the loudest because they’re afraid and because a power vacuum will never stand very long without someone filling it. As long as nothing happens to disrupt the routine, the working toward the goal that holds the people together and out of anarchy, everything is fine. But when the system is challenged in any way--for example, when someone violates the social order in some obvious way--it becomes obvious that there is no underlying structure to the society. (By which I mean roughly: delineated rules, punishments for breaking the rules, a method of enforcement, a system of determining guilt/punishment, and people with authority to oversee the process.)

Kane is a bad leader in 4x06 and the more I think about it, the more I lose respect for him. What was he planning to do with Ilian? His initial reaction is obviously to protect this person, but does he do that because he’s suddenly a pacifist who abhors violence of any kind? Or because he actually doesn’t think Ilian deserves death? Or because he fears the mob? I guess I’d have to watch it again but all I remember is Kane threatening to kill anyone who touches Ilian, then putting him in medical with a guard, and then like just ignoring the problem. If he cares about protecting Ilian as a person or on principle, I am very confused as to why. (Because I still maintain, unpopular opinion I guess, that Ilian deserved whatever punishment Arkadia would choose to give him given that he literally set their whole community on freaking fire.) If he fears the mob, he did a supremely bad job of combating it because all he did was contain it. He never addressed the concerns at the core of it. He never grappled with the CAUSE.

People need to have a sense that justice will be done. They need to feel that rules exist and are applied evenly and fairly across the board. Not only the judicial system but the whole state is undermined when this isn’t the case; instability seeps into the very core of the system and that is very scary. Again, I’ve thought about this a lot, this is something Supremely Interesting to me, what fairness means, how the community perceives fairness, and what the consequences of a distrust in the justice system are. To let Ilian off, or to even appear to do so, to prioritize him over justice itself, IS wrong. I’m not saying he needed to be executed. I’m saying Kane needed to show that Arkadia CARES about his crime because that’s what it was. This is especially true in a society like Arkadia’s, where everyone grew up on the Ark and saw loved ones punished much more harshly for much less egregious crimes (as Miller Sr. points out). Part of being just is applying the same rules to people in like circumstances and it’s completely understandable and even, imo, right, for these people to see one set of rules applied to them and another applied to this other person, this outsider, who is being treated with more compassion for lighting the last piece of the Ark on fire than other people have been treated for such horrendous acts as stealing medicine for their kid or having a baby.

Basically what I’m saying is for Kane to just protect Ilian without ever acknowledging what he’d done was both unjust AND dangerous and that if he doesn’t care about the first, or if he wants to wave it away with ‘oh that was a different time, oh we can be better people, oh but Ilian has all his cute little reasons’ whatever, he should at least care about the way his actions are perceived by the community and the very real threat to his very tenuous power that would come to fruition if the people’s sense of injustice is ignored. Again, I’m not suggesting he should have shot Ilian himself. I’m suggesting he impose real order, not stop-gap order, which means addressing the cause of the mob and not just its outward manifestation.

Side note: Even though Monty goes after Jaha, I think this has to come from Kane, because Jaha has long given up political power and it’s Kane who actually holds the title of Chancellor. I know that title is pretty much meaningless. But the illusion of meaning behind the title allows order to rule instead of anarchy so Kane can’t let either the title or the appearance of power slip away from him.

...Never mind I did write it. That was basically it.

#s4 reactions #the 100 #the 100 meta #ish #whatever #my writing #mine #the year 2017 #2017: fandom thoughts #2017: the 100 s4 #i think i continue to think about this story because i still can't fathom why anyone gives a fuck about ilian #or where all the fucking sympathy for him came from like ??????? #he literally destroyed the protagonist society's home?? #whatever whatever i'm not mad i'm chill

[shawnjacksonsbs]

“Just not there yet” and that’s enough, for now, to keep it at the minimum.  3-17-19

“When I say it’s you I like, I’m talking about that part of you that knows that life is far more than anything you can ever see or hear or touch. That deep part of you that allows you to stand for those things without which humankind cannot survive. Love that conquers hate, peace that rises triumphant over war, and justice that proves more powerful than greed.” - Fred Rogers To start, or maybe, it's in conclusion, a little misplaced in the note taking department this week, as I had to struggle to make audio notes while driving (because that's a lot of my days lately), so deciphering them meant not a lot of copy and paste this time. It was some work, but here it is; I feel like free market capitalism works better with smaller populations, but as that population grows capitalism loses its humanity and starts to fall apart. My example is billionaire "Clark Couldcare" is more apt to feed or help little starving "Timmy Bornpoor", if he can actually see him in his society, and more apt to help those more closely related to them, where it's harder to ignore the struggles of those in your community. A larger population, like what we have here the U.S., make it damn near impossible to even hear the cries of the little Timmy Bornpoors and their struggles had, or injustice perpetrated on, from poverty to racial equality those cries that are heard can easily be ignored if you can look around and justify "No such struggle here anywhere because I can't see it, therefore it must be exaggerated at best". New generations of young people are on the way, and those days of people only giving a shit about themselves is going to come to an end more quickly than people realize. Terms like progressive liberal and/or socialists are coming with these young people because they've been watching us, and our predecessors fuck shit up. They don't lack the humanity and compassion our, and previous generations, thought was the way to pull the country up by its bootstraps. They see that that only benefits a small, and very limited, part of the population. I had planned on sharing a lot of definitions and different things I have learned to give a little insight into why I feel like this, and why I believe it makes sense, but instead I will only share these two; So·ci·o·ec·o·nom·ic : Relating to or concerned with the interaction of social and economic factors. Universal basic income (UBI) : A model for providing all citizens of a country or other geographic area with a given sum of money, regardless of their income, resources or employment status. The purpose of the UBI is to prevent or reduce poverty and increase equality among citizens. Now, I feel like most of my explanation for the "why" it will work, is wasted on a lot of people because they first need a full understanding of these two words; em·pa·thy : the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. and com·pas·sion : sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others. I believe far too many people, even the ones that know what the words mean, lack the ability to use them. If everyone invoked them, man, how far could we go? The skies wouldn't even be the limit. They are not super, or extraordinary abilities either. That's why its so sad. It's mostly about educating myself in areas where I have limited knowledge. Things that interest me, like the economy and the hows and whats and whys. That's the main reason I was going to share any of this, and my theory of how being human is what the economy needs and how I feel it would benefit the country, and how it is absolutely all connected. Most of my research doesn't lean left or right, not like some of my opinions seem to do. It's more general definitions and such, although I have read some articles, and watched some things that definitely lean more left, as much of the stuff I value probably does, not all of it, but certainly a lot. I had planned on sharing several definitions with you guys and out of all of the ideologies that I've tried to familiarize myself with the one that I believe best fits what I think and feel is probably a form of Democratic Socialism, with some form of a U.B.I. (Universal Basic Income). You can research that on your own if you'd like. I would like to mention that I wasn't completely sold on the idea until I watched an interview by Joe Rogan. He was talking with Andrew Yang and the platform he's using to run for President. Although I don't think he's going to get enough momentum to actually be elected president, his idea/ideas are pretty sound and he has plans for action that a lot of politicians lack. I know I shared the interview on my Facebook page, but you can also look it up on YouTube if you want.   But. . . I'm not going to write about any more of that today than what I've already shared. I suppose I'll save my philosophical socio-economic term paper for later, plus I'm still growing in that area anyway. I keep coming 'round to the fact that I can't seem to reconcile with some of the more cold and callous opinions of people close to me. It stays on my heart so much as of late, that more than a few times I've thought, and even decided, that I was done with it. Done with it all, social media, done writing this blog, just done with the selfishness that makes up a lot of my outer, outer circle. Every life has ups and downs, but the absolute lowest revolving points currently in my life are the discussions I have with people who lack compassion for other people, and the people I know in real life who are very open about being bigots and racists. Those are hard to take, but its those who are naively racist, or judgementally prejudice. They just can't see how they are, and it bothers me in the deepest parts of my heart that they are like that. But. . .what am I to do? Right? Wrong! "Some people just aren't there yet." I find myself saying this quite a bit lately. Granted some of them, probably even most of them, are never going to get there. And since I can't know that for sure, I will try harder to be more civil with them when I interact, and communicate with those "unfortunates" who lack the ability to see, and feel with a human understanding as it were, the similarities instead of the differences found in each other, every other. Its the ones who think "what I said or did doesn't make me racist, because look at my black friends" etc. I realized during a conversation with someone the other day that I used to be one of those people "who just weren't there yet". I'm here now though, so all hope is not lost on them. It happened so quickly too. Like I almost completely faded out of the conversation when the realization hit me that some people just aren't there yet. It put a mend on my heart, even if only for long enough to be right here, right now. . . Seeing all the hate in this country, and where I believe it mostly stems from. and trying to not let it consume me to the point of constant insanity can be tough. Sometimes I wish I could turn the "feels" off, but I am so grateful the universe never saw fit to that to me. lol I am trying to provide myself an outlet, and maybe refuge to those seeking out anything relatable, but I'm starting to feel like all the hate that is in some hearts, although it may vary slightly, seems to manifest itself easier than love for a lot of people. It sucks. It hurts my heart like you would not believe. I feel like we need way more Fred Rogers wannabes in this world, and a lot less Donald Trumps. And saying it's easier to relate to Trump than with Mr. Rogers, is essentially just showing, well, to be honest, a lazy side because it takes a little more work to get to where you can feel the love like that. It's just easier to keep hold if your hate, even it's a small amount. Believe me, I know.  I can only relate because I used to be one of those. And before any of you freak out, I'm not saying that Trump is directly responsible. Because he obviously is not. What I am saying is that when you have such a huge public platform in which people with true hate in their hearts, find your topics relatable, it's a recipe for disaster. How come no one can see that a lot of these are a direct causality? A terrorist shooter in New Zealand, says he relates with what Trump stands for. C'mon. Let's say 100 people looked up to you, for leadership. We'll say 85 of them were regular law-abiding people and they may have some small inconsequential prejudices but they never let them surface. Now lets say, 15 hold very strong beliefs in some ignorant hate-based ideologies, such as those involving racism, bigotry etc. Now whether or not you stepped into this role, wouldn't you feel slightly responsible for the actions, if one or more of the 15 started acting out aggressively towards any of the other 85, like assaulting and killing, especially if they do it in relation to you or something you said? Even if they are wrong, and none of it relates with you or your ideals, wouldn't you, at the very least publicly denounce them? We have an acting president that is in direct opposition of my push for kindness, when he publicly belittles other Americans, or other human beings for that matter. Even the mission to help civilize, which I have consigned to help with, albeit it is more localized, is definitely taking hits from his supporters all the time. You aren't allowed to tell me that my blog, and everything it stands for, which currently is the expression of care and gratitude, the push for kindness, and a mission to civilize, is good and the reasoning is sound and acceptable and that I should keep writing, but then turn right around and believe I shouldn't speak out about who and what I feel to be the biggest threats to those same damn ideals! Can you see how that just isn't going to work for me? My blending of politics, which hasn't always seemed, or been inherent at the time absolutely cannot be left out. Everything in our current political system, to include discussions on social media, SCREAM hate. Therefore I will continue to share my objective, in here and everywhere. Be kind and don't be a douche bag, especially in an open public forum. Once I found my way to this side of life though, it's better livin' to be sure, although it does open your eyes to just how much work is out there to be done. When I first started taking notes early in the week for this entry, I was debating shutting it all down, my facebook, the blog all of it. I had all but decided. The people in my social media circle, by and large, are more saddening than uplifting with some limited exceptions. But there is enough nonsense that makes me wonder whether my push for kindness, my mission for civility was even worth it still. That is until I started writing. There's nothing like airing everything in here for the world to see, because I almost always find my own light by the end of each of my journal journeys, as it were. What would Fred Rogers say if I caved and gave in? How would my grandpa Raines feel about me giving up? Man, what is true in my heart, isn't enough if it stays inside and not all fights have to happen, but a lot of them do. You may not want to adhere to all of the same principles that I do in my life, and that's ok (kinda). But I'll be damned if I am going to be made to feel some kind of negative way about my positives either. I can't be done, not now anyway. My fight is nowhere near through. Although, I'll put this part here as a gentle reminder to slow down on posting shit just to stir up shit, and try to refocus on what it is I truly want from all of this in the end. It's not incessant arguing, especially without finding common ground anywhere. I also have to remember that not everyone is "here" yet and that some never will be. Then just continue to move forward. Because that forward progress is what we are striving for anyways. I suppose that's enough for today. Sorry by the way. I'm pretty sure I changed directions 2 or 3 times in the middle of this one. lol Keep sharing the love and laughter with the world around you, and please remember that being kind and civilized is the epitome of being human. It is what separates us from wild animals and the fact that we can feel and share compassion like we do is far more important than knowledge of what it is alone. Until next week; “How sad it is that we give up on people who are just like us.” - Fred Rogers

[fixations-and-infatuations]

feel free to skip, just wanted to do this for fun:

1. “Duet” from the Flash or “Mayhem of the Music Meister” from Batman the Brave and the Bold?

I haven’t caught up to that episode of Flash yet, but I also really love most of the songs from “Mayhem of the Music Meister”

2. Do you like the arrow verse? If so, what’s your favorite show?

I used to! I haven’t had the chance to keep up, but back than my favorite show was definitely Flash. I haven’t seen Black Lightning yet though, and I’ve heard it’s THE BEST amazing.

3. First comic read? 

I think “Red Hood and the Outlaws.” I got into comics from more external sources, like shows and video games, and just caught up through Wikipedia and YouTube.

4. What introduced you to the DC universe? Was it a show, comic or movie?

Oh wow, it was either Justice League or Teen Titans. Those are the shows that got me into superheroes in general. 

5. Favorite character?

Definitely Tim Drake / Red Robin, for too many reasons than I can list here, but mainly just his sense of determination and I also maybe relate to him.

6. Favorite canon ship?

Uhhhhh, probably either Dick/Babs or Dick/Kori.

7. Favorite non-canon ship?

Definitely Bruce/Clark, although I also just love their platonic friendship.

8. Pre-N52 or N52?

I didn’t read much of Pre-52 but from what I know of it, I probably would have preferred it.  

9. Rebirth or N52?

I actually am really enjoying Rebirth right now! Only complaints are the absence of Connor Kent (which I can sort of forgive because I love Jon) but mainly the ending of the BatCat wedding which was frankly ridiculous and annoying.

10. “Death in the Family” or “Death of Superman?”

“Death in the Family,” I am definitely a Batfamily fan before any other DC character.

11. Favorite live action movie?

Wonder Woman.  

12. Favorite animated movie?

Honestly! The Death of Superman (the most recent DCAU movie) is so good! Everyone should try it.

13. DCEU or DCAU?

Ummm, as of RIGHT NOW, DCAU. But I have a feeling in a year or two, DCEU (now Worlds of DC which is much better).

14. Favorite member of the trinity?

Bruce Wayne / Batman.

15. Dark trinity or trinity?

Trinity.

16. Outsiders or Titans?

Titans, all the way.

17. Teen Titans or Young Just Us?

Teen Titans.

18. Favorite animated show?

Definitely Young Justice!  

19. Favorite superhero family?

Two words: Bat. Family.

20. Young Justice (show) or Teen Titans (show)?

Wow, this one is hard. I think Young Justice solely because of the number of favorite characters. Both shows are really spectacular and I feel so blessed to be getting more Young Justice and possibly more Teen Titans.

21. Do you watch Teen Titans Go?

Sometimes, to listen to something in the background. It’s nothing in comparison to the original, but it’s a cute satirical show.

22. Favorite Robin?

Tim Drake, the one who chose to become Robin.

23. So you prefer Superman and Wonder Woman, Batman and Wonder Woman, Steve Trevor and Wonder Woman or does it even matter?

I just hate the idea of Clark/Diana. Anyone else paired with her is great, I just have an knee jerk reaction to not like SuperWonder sorry.  

24. If you had total control, what would you change?

I would make Barbara Oracle again. I hate that the N52 made her Batgirl again just to have a reboot of some kind.

25. Batgirl or Oracle?

For Barbara? Always Oracle. I enjoyed her time as Batgirl, but I think she’s a much stronger character as Oracle.

26. Who’s your favorite Batgirl?

Wow, Cassandra Cain closely followed by Stephanie Brown.

27. Batgirl and the Birds of Prey or Red Hood and the Outlaws?

Uh, probably Red Hood and the Outlaws. I love Jason’s friendships with Kori, Roy, Artemis and Bizarro.

28. Favorite comic run?

Marcus To’s “Red Robin.”

29. Favorite comic artist?

Wow, um, there’s Kevin Wada, Adam Hughes, Marcus To, Dexter Soy...

30. Favorite comic writer?

Don’t read enough comics to have one.

31. Do you like the Joker?

As a villain, sure. As a person, no. As a couple with Bruce Wayne, NO.

32. Who do you think is the most overused or overrated characters?

I don’t really think anyone is that overrated, DC has a great track record when it comes to their characters (classic and new). I really don’t think there’s any one character I dislike (as a character, not a person, because fuck the Joker).

33. Batman: TAS or Superman: TAS?

Batman: TAS is one of the best television shows ever, even compared to live action. It gave so much depth to every character (Harley Quinn, Mr. Freeze, etc.)

34. Legion of Superheros or Batman Beyond?

Batman Beyond (THE SHOW) was the best, I still love my boy Terry. The comic verse of Batman Beyond is literally the worst.

36. Justice League or Justice League Unlimited?

Love both equally.

37. The Batman or Beware the Bat?

Both were good, but I preferred The Batman a bit more.

38. Who do you think is the most overlooked or underused character?

Timothy. Jackson. Drake. Wayne. There are several others but I’m biased.

39. Do you watch Gotham?

Have to catch up!

40. Do you like Marvel?

...I like Marvel characters. I hate what the MCU has become and the characterization of characters (I could rant for a while). Also not a fan of Marvel comics, especially after their stunt with Hydra Cap.

41. Jon Kent or Damian Wayne?

Damian Wayne.

42. Renee Montoya or Vic Sage?

Renee Montoya. 

43. Kate Kane and Renee Montoya or Apollo and Midnighter?

God. Uh, Kate Kane and Renee Montoya, by a slight margin.

44. Barry Allen or Wally West?

Barry Allen.

45. Kara Zor-El, Stephanie Brown or Cassie Sandsmark?

Can’t pick and don’t want to. I love all of my girls with all of my heart. I will say that I’m most like Stephanie Brown.

46. Kord Industries, Wayne Tech or Lex Corp?

Wayne Tech, but Kord Industries is pretty good too.

47. If you could have any character’s powers who’s would you have?

Zatanna. An underrated character, especially her power set. Very powerful.

48. Favorite villain?

God, I really love all of them. Maybe Poison Ivy? Especially with her latest run.

49. “DC Bombshells,” “Injustice” or “Kingdom Come?”

Did not like “Kingdom Come.” Both “Bombshells” and “Injustice” are amazing, and I wish a lot of both of their canon became actual canon.

50. Injustice or Arkham series?

Another toughie. I think Arkham, just because of the Batfamily in the latest one.

51. Justice League or League of Assassins? 

Justice League, obviously.

52. Are you excited about the upcoming Titans show? What about Young Justice?

Very excited for both! I am not picky with my mediums, and as long as no major changes are made to canon cough Dick Grayson being the dead Robin in Worlds of DC than I’m happy. Besides, I like to stay optimistic until I personally try something.

#dc #dc comics #world of dc #dcau #long post #feel free to ignore lmao #just bored