What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.

The Multiverse and Other Wackass Silver Age Concepts Back In Mainstream DC Universe

Maximus Rex
Maximus Rex Pulchritudo in Conspectu RegisThe EmpreyanMembers Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited March 2011 in Quite Comical
Yea bro. The Man of Steel reboot is the only continuity I acknowledge. 🤬 Birthright and Secret origin with their silver age pandering.

I didn't want to jack the "Knowledge Thread," and felt as if this was a good enough of a topic to have it's thread. Back in the 80's when DC consolidated into one defined universe, it was a step into the right direction The massive company retcon was needed to clear up some 🤬 and basically get rid of some out and out back ideas. One of those being, the 🤬 Multiverse.

Silver Age Verison of characters, Good Idea. Parellel Earths VERY BAD 🤬 IDEA. From it's inception the Multiverse was never a good 🤬 idea. So to bring it back would only expound on bad idea concepts. The JSA living on Earth-1, get the 🤬 out of here.

Knives, I hear you that Silver Age pandering 🤬 . Certain things about the silver were wack and let's face it, some of those ideas were geared towards the comic book buying demographic of that time, young boys between the ages of 7-13. This is why Kryto doesn't work for me. I'm in my thirties, I know for the mere fact that I buy comic books, I have to suspend belief, but I draw the line at a dog with super powers. Young boys find dogs with superpowers cool, not men in their 30's.

There was a reason in the retcon Byrne didn't include some things. For example multiple survivors of Krypton, (who says that all immensely powerful beings, had to be from Kryton, why can't they be from somewhere else.) My do we need the color spectrum of krytonite? Do we really need for Clark to have been Superboy? How is Lex and Clark growing up together, a better plot device, than Lex being older than Clark, and feeling threatened and offended by Supes statis as the number man in Metropolis? I under that Geoff Johns looked up to Richard Donner and interned and worked for him. I understand that Superman and Superman II was Johns favorite movies, but did we really need movie elements inserted into the comic?

I think Christopher Reeves was the best Superman, but I don't need for Superman to look like Christopher Reeves. I don't the fact the S shield, just so happened to be the symbol for the House of El. I don't the those 🤬 crystals that can do everything 🤬 thing, and I damn sure don't like the at Ice Palace, er excuse me The Fortress of Solitude.

For one thing it's some absolutely ridiculous 🤬 . I mean it's Supes "secret," not so secret base. It just screams, "Hey Lex, Brainiac, Zod, Doomsday, Parasite, Metallo. Here I am. Come attack me. Plus the muthafucka looks cold, inhospitable, and uninviting. The Batcave has more charm and warmth.

I was sad to see Byrne's verison of Superman go. It was like Johns & Co, were saying to "🤬 you," to dude. I mean what was the purpose of have The Crisis," if all they were going to do was bring it back. The thing is will we have to go through in another 25 years if DC decides to have one universe. I sincerely hope not.


  • Knives Amilli
    Knives Amilli Members Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2011
    I've already harped on how i hate the "Lex and Clark grew up in Smallville" thing...so some other concepts that've returned to DC that I hate are (and not all of them are Silver Age):

    Making Clark Superboy again-Granted they've danced around it by saying he was only "Superboy" when he was in the 30th century with the Legion, but it takes a lot of relatability away from an already difficult to relate to character. Once again, going back to me preferring the Byrne reboot, I always preferred the notion that Clark grew up normally and then after learning of his origins, first saw the world before deciding to be a superhero (🤬 isn't that would most of us would do?). Having Clark be Superboy pretty much means he was pretty much a 🤬 pro at being a Superhero by the time he became Superman.

    Plus it (again) shoehorns the Legion into the Superman mythos, and as it is I already hate how no one in the DCU can't take a 🤬 without it being connected to Superman in some way. The Legion is one of those franchises that (if ever given a good enough creative team, and an overall vision) can be on its own, it doesn't need to linger in Superman's shadow.

    killing Pa Kent
    -🤬 this is getting old. Ever since Richard Donner had Pa die in the Superman movies, every other writers lives out their 🤬 fantasies by killing off Pa every so often. He died in the movie, damn near died when Clark died, was thought to be dead during Our Worlds at War, Morrison killed him off in All Star Superman, and Johns killed him off a couple years back after Brainiacs attack.

    Why it 🤬 me off is that Superman is the anti-angst guy; in his more prominent modern iterations (pre crisis both parents were dead), he's never needed angst to be a superhero or to learn the valuable lesson of "you can't save everyone". And usually when writers want to stress the "you can't save everyone" point, they usually have Clark fail to save some previously unknown character or have him come face to face with a global issue like war or famine.

    Killing Pa Kent (outside of All Star Supes) just seems pointless and takes away from one of the more unique aspects of Superman (how many superheroes do you know off that have both parents alive and are on good terms with them?). The only good that could come off it is Martha Kent in a more prominent role (women dont have much visibility or importance in comics, especially to prominent male characters) and much hasn't really been done with that.

    The 52 and making New Earth the center of the multiverse-"Hey guys y'know that whole concept of infinite alternate Earths that was really prominent twenty five years ago? Well we're bringing it back (even thou it was never really gone) but because we think its REALLY CONFUSING to readers, we're going to limit the number to 52 (which kind of undermines the whole "infinite Earths" point/really the whole point of introducing alternate universes)"-Pretty much explains why i hate the 52 Earths concept. If your bringing back in the multiverse (which really doens't even have to be explained, its comics for gods sake) go all out. Don't be a 🤬 and think your doing readers a service by limiting the number. Cuz really pre crisis DCU wasn't really confusing, it was just IMO, from an editorial standpoint, harder to maintain and streamline, harder to keep cohesive. And a shared universe was becoming the popular thing.

    And by making New Earth" the one world that can't be destroyed, lest the whole multiverse be destroyed?" Great job DC, you've just made any and all stories that don't take place on New Earth of no importance whatsoever. This is one of the many concepts marvel does so much better than DC. IN 616 Marvel, Earth is considered a primitive backwater planet with walking genetic atrocities running rampant. The only credit to the planets existence is Reed Richards and extraterrestrial opinion of him isnt that high since he claims that Galactus is a necessary force in the Universe. This concept is why Annihilation worked so well; after all if Annihilus was running through Herald level heroes and advances societies like the Kree and Skrull, what hope would Earth have?

    Ive actually got a whole list of 🤬 tthat DC does that i hate, but this will suffice for now....