this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
24 points (87.5% liked)
DCcomics
265 readers
1 users here now
A place for anything DC related whether that be the comics, movies, television shows, cartoons, etc.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
DC talks down their a-list characters while Marvel promotes their c and d list characters.
Well yeah, but thats because the main DC characters.... kinda suck. They were created back at the dawn of superhero stories, so they're not exactly complex or nuanced characters because they didn't need to be! They were the ones that everyone else measured complexity and nuance from! But DC is too scared to do something novel with them (because yeah, dont reimagine cultural icons, that never ends well) or to put their B-list characters (you know, the ones that haven't been stagnating as cultural landmarks for 80 years) as the leading characters in a major feature, because they've got nowhere near the name recognition of the leaguers. It's a damn shame, because they could revive so many of the experimental stories they've done over the years, but instead we get the drywall spackle blockflusters DC is known for these days.
I dunno, Superman (1938) and Batman (1939) are both older than Wonder Woman (1941).
Her big problem is that even though she's been around for 83 years, she doesn't really have any iconic villains or storylines.
I think the best they could do would be to try to adapt Spirit of Truth:
https://www.dc.com/graphic-novels/wonder-woman-spirit-of-truth
Yeah, most people don't even know what WW's name is, let alone her villains or classic plots. Though my initial comment was more to the tragedy of DC just sitting and recycling classic storylines because they've safe than a specific comment about WW.
The Marvel's main characters are newer, but they are outdated today too. The difference is that Marvel kept recreating them.
My impression is that Marvel people are just more rebellious and iconoclastic.