Character Interpretations that piss you off

Is that the one by Willis?

Owait, I found it, lol!

Something tells me this guy would still shit on the current Starfire that actually takes a lot of influence from the TT version of her.

Is that guy on the bottom corner supposed to be George Perez? He does know that George Perez wrote her as sexually liberated because that was part of the Tamaranian culture? That and wasn't Perez kind of a feminist? I mean he wrote the Wonder Woman comic after Crisis on Infinite Earths?

I like cartoon and comic version tough I felt that particular run felt kind of dull. Like its focused more on quirky daily life rather than super hero stuff. Though I like Conner's work and it was nice to see Terra again.

Gosh, how dare they ruin characters like that? It's like they're TRYING to make girls hate comics!

I made it more accurate.

All Hank Pym ever focuses on is that he slapped his wife once.

Which, again, wasn't even "him" technically.

But oh no. this one contextless panel means it was just him being a dick.

Hank Pym's accidentally backhanded his wife (while his mind was messed up) will never be forgotten…just like how no one ever shut up about that one time a psychopath stuffed Kyle Rayner's dead girlfriend into a refrigerator.

No-one ever calls out Peter for giving MJ the Pym Hand.

I think it's suppose to be Didio.

On topic

Oh right…I remember that one time when Snyder fucked up Mr. Freeze's motivation by making Nora not be Victor's wife. It was fucking stupid.

I forgot about that one. Anyone who argues that is retarded

...

I don't know why Snyder gets praised by normies.

By extension
The reason Batman and the Gotham Police didn't go around killing these guys in the old comics was because they were just deranged petty criminals who wanted to get rich quick. In this setting, Batman's no-kill policy makes sense because his villains are just colorful troublemakers who could some day recover from their psychosis or overwhelming greed. When you make them all into unfeeling serial killers you destroy the logic behind Batman's no-kill policy. This is why the popular thought with normalfags after seeing a Batman movie is "Batman is a shitty hero because he doesn't kill these irredeemable mass murderers." This leads to demands for a setting where Batman does kill (which would make for a very short series since every villain would die after their first appearance and never come back).

To make sure Batman's no-kill policy makes sense, you have to keep his villains close to their original incarnations, as in: people who are involved in organized crime but who also avoid doing anything that would give them a death sentence when they inevitably get caught.

Also
Is it so hard to believe that someone would become a hero just to help people these days?

tbf, that one is justified. A little.

TTG

...

And here's another arguement…if Batman can't kill..why the fuck nobody else does it? Take the law..they fucking know the Joker will escape Arkham and kill again, why not just execute the fucker or better yet, shut down Arkham and open another asylum outside of Gotham?

He turned into a mare and fucked a horse, okay? Odin rides around Valhalla on the the eight-legged freak off-spring at least every Sunday so Loki will never live it down.

And fixing the TTG thing should only compound the point that original TT Starfire is superior Starfire.

Wouldn't that be more 'he turned into a mare and a horse fucked him'?

Perhaps he forced himself onto the horse.

Loki confirmed for brony.

… is gay.

Because he made that one movie about Gerald Butler in a banana hammock with the meme they use on 9gag

Yeah I think he became a girl once or twice in the Edda, don't remember quite well.

...

Adding to what others have already said:
Gotham-related comics are just a mess at this point.

Didn't DC publish teen titans comics that were just like cartoon at one point? Why couldn't she do her research and pick that one up?

the girl was biologically and legally ok for the green lantern dick

I have been looking at too much Shadman, because it just looks to me like Power Girl is getting railed through a glory hole.

I'd just like to see some women get broken arms, ribs or legs like male heroes ocasuonally do. And when they do get hurt to not have the villains immediately jump to wanting their Dickson sucked purely for shock value.

I HATE this cliché. Someone that unhinged would never have anyone work with them and if they were forced it would only take one moment alone… or hell even in front of everyone to just put a bullet in him and nobody in his group would complain.

Agree with both of those. The second one especially. It just doesn't make much sense unless the leader can't be harmed by normal means.

...

Horses can't give affirmative consent, all they say is nay

...

They did back in 2008, three years before Red Hood and the Outlaws came out. You'd have to go digging around in the back issue bins for that shit, if you were even aware such a difference even existed.

The problem is that mainstream comics are completely impenetrable to casuals and the people working on them have lost all connection to reality. For example, if DC was trying to capitalize on the Teen Titans, why would they go with an interpretation out of the 80s/early 90s, instead of with the late 90s/2000s when Teen Titans was it's most successful and would appeal to a wider audience? That's the stupid shit that's going on in comics all the time.

...

>>>/mlp/
>>>/pone/
>>>/trash/

This comic isn't inherently wrong since that version of starfire was shit anyway
The relationships were pretty cheap

>>>/butthurt/

>The Joker is the poor man's Hannibal Lecter
The novelty wore off a long time ago, and it's done nothing but contribute to Batman's weaker aspects to the point that it's a bad sign when a writer wants to write another fucking Joker story.

Because the NTT days still hold a lot of sway among actual comic fans. And the cartoon's interpretation of the team is irreconcilable with the comics for various reasons, so it's dumb to maintain a facade of appealing to fans of a cartoon that stopped airing years ago.

New 52 was a mistake. Red Hood and the Outlaws was among the very big mistakes in the line up.

...

Those fans are over forty years old, and are part of the reason the comics industry takes fucking heart disease as a serious risk to it's sales. Anyone younger probably read "Young Justice" in the nineties.

My point is that nobody would've cared if they tried to make an all-audience book to hook-in the viewers from the cartoon, but their failure to even attempt it was ignorant and short-sighted in an industry in desperate need of new readership to keep it afloat. It also further illustrates that the New 52 was a scam to get old readers buying more books than attempting to get new readers like they claimed.

Also, I'd be careful saying it's "dumb to maintain a facade of appealing to fans of a cartoon that stopped airing years ago" when DC is still trying to milk fans of the DCAU for everything they got.

This isn't halfchan, we don't get triggered at the sight of a cartoon pony.

Is it too hard do show in an adaptation or new comic super villains coming before super heroes? I'm tired of the whole "Heroes are the cause Villains exist!"

Yeah, basically Joker as mass murderer doesn't make any damn sense anymore. I mean, in-universe he's the most prolific mass murderer ever, but he's not immortal or some shit like that, right? Anybody who says "but the cops can't just shoot him" has no fucking idea how the criminal justice system works.

It's at least excusable in some of the movies since he's usually making his first appearance there instead of already having a body count in the thousands.

My favorite version of the Joker is someone who sometimes commits murder, but not that often. And if he does, it's never out of anger, only because he thinks it'd be really funny.

Those people are saying that there would have to be ONE cop somewhere on the force who would say "Fuck it, I'll happily go to jail for putting this guy in the ground."

...

SCOTT Snyder, not Zack.

What a surprise.

Daily reminder that the first enemy president of Spider Jerusalem was an analogy of Clinton and nobody realizes it.

Poison Ivy being a lesbian who likes to scissor Harley pisses me off.

Her liking any human is wildly out-of-character.

To add to yours.

...

...

When did this happen?

Quiet, faggot.

WEll, being born every year sounds like a pretty nice power if you ask me. You'll be inmortal.

That reminds me of the years' allegories from Sinfest, may it rip in peace.

Why you had to talk about the unspeakable?

...

the beast?

Yeah. Or that's what I think.

Batman Rebirth is somehow worse than New 52 Batman. HOW?!

That's the best way to go though! Fuck that normal human stuff.

...

The Batbooks fell apart when Bruce Wayne: Murderer hit. It's been an absolute train wreck since then.

except that batman villains embody mental illnesses
Riddler is an inferiority complex (being a murderer by default does piss me off)
Harley is stockholm syndrome

Yeah but writers often forget that and ruin the characters completely. That's OP's point.

Batman is just another one of those popular with normies purely on idea alone sort of heroes. His comics are mostly trash. What a shame.

I thought Riddler had OCD though?

OCD would be Mad Hatter, if anyone.
Riddler considers Batman and detectives rivals and wants to best them, by creating a puzzle they can't solve. That would be his way to prove his superiority.

OCD, probably narcissistic and an autist as well.

As for OP's question, I don't like Superman being a nearly emotionless flying brick who doesn't do much but punch things and have his eyes glow red with heat vision when he's ~liek rlly p**sed of w/ lex lther omg~. I'm glad the new run is showing him actually thinking about problems, and being Clark as well.

I'm also really not keen on Captain Carrot being used as an occasional comic relief character when Grant Morrison (or whoever) feels like jerking off to his 'obscure' knowledge. Sure, the Zoo Crew are meant to be funny, but kind of not consciously. They're animal funnies, the hilarity comes from the situation and internal logic.

I keep thinking of Riddler's portrayal in Arkham Night. It pissed me off so much since he's a textbook autistic redditor. Shit he might as well have a fedora.

Is that Dobson's artwork?

Well he did go completely insane from Batman solving his "riddles" so he had to fall hard onto a really low level.

To be fair, why dress up as a bat if you're going to be a vigilante? Before you say it's a comic, please understand that this is from a normalfag's perspective.

Female characters getting badly beaten up during a fight's 100% satisfactory. The cheap "rape for shock value" crap is kind of subjective (unless you're into Mark Millar - Garth Ennis sort of stories, or, god forbid, that horrendously edgy Black Cat story written by Kevin Smith. Though, you probably have completely shit tastes altogether if seeing shock value's all you enjoy).

I'd really like an antagonist that conserves his lackeys instead. That'd be a nice change for once.

THIS. SOMEONE GETS IT.

The only fucking thing in the Marvel universe that's allowed to be genderfluid are the Skrulls.

...

Because criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot you retard.

Right? Alan Davis spent twenty issues of Excalibur making it explicit in the script and art that Kurt was retraining with weights and martial arts, changing his fighting style to be more aggressive, to step up as the leader of Excalibur, giving him a new costume, having him lead the Technet briefly, having the other characters comment on how he's bulked up, how good he looks, having him plough through a crowd of feral Warpies like Chuck Norris, and then the next art team he's back to being Gollum.

Also frustrating in that that particular run of Excalibur was pretty much an exercise in Alan Davis making plot out of plotholes, fixing previous bad writing and bad characterisations, wrapping up danging plotlines Chris Clairmont left lying around, and continuing ideas going back to his work on the old Marvel U.K. Captain Britain.
Then BLAM, they let monkeys jack off over everything, just like ClanDestine.

...

None of Batman's rogue's gallery seem superstitious, most of them aren't really cowardly either

Maybe Bruce needed another decade or so studying the minds of criminals

...

Do you seriously not get the joke?

Listen, I'm cool with the Joker occasionally offing somebody, like a bad joke that's in poor taste and winds up going too far to be funny, but having him slaughter half of Gotham every time he gets loose just serves to make Batman look incompetent and utterly decimates his no kill rule having any validation whatsoever.

At least Dark Knight Rises showed us something closer to the comics character than Schumacher Bane. Honestly, how many of you even remembered he was in that movie?

He was my favorite part of that movie
I was eight

It's him often being written that way that makes people who don't read his other stories reason to think he's overpowered or a mary sue.

Yep.

...

Him not caring about Batman's identity makes sense depending on the specific iteration of him, but he would definitely at least use that information to fuck with Bruce if he had it. The main Joker thing I hate is

Okay so I am new to this but who is Bane in the comics? Why does he wear the mask? Is it to do with his life? like is it what is keeping him alive?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_(comics)
Read mother fucker.

The main points are that he's a leader in his own criminal empire, not a second in command. He's also really really smart. He was created as someone who could actually best Batman, both physically and intellectually.

So wait if I took his mask off he would die???

It would be extremely painful…

Four Jews.

You're a big guy.

That was part of her original persona to be honest. The problem comes when they try to give her a character of her own, which is hard because she was created to interact with the Joker.

That's definitely part of her character, but describing her as just a textbook abused girlfriend severely undermines her actual character.

I kind of like it when she's The Joker's personal Frankenstein, that she's funnier and arguably a more effective criminal than him, and that drives him nuts.

Like you wouldn't go balls deep into Purple Smart if given the opportunity.

I hate what has been done to Batman and his associated characters.

She got a couple of spotlight episodes in BTAS with little to no Joker involvement and they were pretty good.

How are you today friend?

Is that how she's portrayed in this show? Because I've never seen her portrayed as anything other than a Femme Fatal.

Comic source? Isley is allowed to like humans too so long as they like plants. Pam is horny for plant tentacles sure but that doesn't mean ONLY plants will do it for her.

Haven't seen it. Just hung up on the stupidity of Harly and Ivy being heroes.

Heh.
I'm a botanist, I want her to find me and rape me now

Their issue is trying to keep the Harlequinn schtick. If they want her to be her own character (which shouldn't really be done unless you have a damn good story in mind, because she's much more effective as how explains her), then they'd have to reinvent her. Like Batgirl becoming Oracle.
If she was really over the Joker, she'd totally drop her Harlequinn thing. That was only for him. I'd say play more on what she was before Joker– a gymnast who whored her way to a psychology degree in order to make quick bucks. Make her a scam-artist and a liar.

I'm going to say pretty much any character as they are handled by Bendis or Millar. One makes the majority of them boring as fuck or act like fratboys, the other just makes them complete assholes. Bendis's shit on Civil War 2 just portrays all the major Marvel heroes as petty and incompetent, not a one of them feels like a functioning adult.

Who thought it was a good idea? What kind of author would be willing to put his name on a book with writing like that? Is Bendis just trying to see how much he can get away with?

Bends used to write good comic. They weren't fantastic, but they were good. Marvel's standards had slipped so much, that everyone jacked off on his ability to write "amazing comics." The reputation never left, and now Bendis can get way with fucking anything ever because he's the "good writer" at marvel,

See, that's the thing. If the Joker is as bad as he's made out to be in the more recent comics, nobody would ever, EVER be sent to jail for killing him, under any circumstances whatsoever.

(see the case of Ken McElroy if you don't think this is possible)
But wait, what if there's some morally upstanding witness that can't lie!
But wait again, maybe the jury is made up of the twelve most law-and-order American citizens that ever lived!

That's why the whole thing bugs me so much. Any cop with an ounce of sense would know all of this. Apparently in comics, they're actually near-human androids that can't go against their programming.

...

That Superman always has to end up with Lois Lane. Especially in incarnations where she's a colossal self-centered bitch and makes him look like a spineless pussy.

One of the things I actually liked about the New 52 is that DC at least TRIED to put Superman with someone else. It failed abysmally due to shitty writing, but Rebirth is failing just as hard with Superman as a dad shtick which already got boring the few times they tried it in the Pre-Flashpoint universe.

I'd ask why the hell no-one's tried Maxima, but then I remember they resurrected her for the New 52 as an annoying lesbian.

OK, I overstated. Her liking Harley is wildly out of character. I wouldn't mind if she was scissoring some sort of nature acitivist, but that's not really what's going on.

Kill yourself. Superdad is one of the best things about rebirth.

What the fuck is wrong with you

Maybe they're afraid it'd attract attention from some other costumed freak. Like that BTAS episode, "the man who killed batman".

Why so out of character? Sure Harley isn't much of a hippie, but then neither is Batman. They're both criminal freaks, they often hang out in Arkham, and every other week Harley crashes at Ivy's place when Joker gets meaner than usual and Ivy gets to have her "men" rant.

I just realized Ivy might keep Harley around just to have someone to complain about men to.

Ivy thinks both men and women are pathetic, at least she used to in the old comics.

I think Ivy letting Harley hang out at her place to begin with is shit, because the only reason DC started that anyway is because hurrr progressive lezbiunz.

I agree that it doesn't really make sense, but I liked the idea behind it. Every other supervillain hates the other, so it was fun to see two that were hanging out as friends. Turning them into lesbians ruined it though.

If they'd just remained friends I'd probably be OK with it, but I loathe it with a passion now.

I get annoyed that every character always ends up sleeping with other characters, and I mean in any type of medium. Shows, Comics, whatever. It needs to stop.

That's very true. The majority of relationships in real life are platonic, but in most mediums such relationships are either few or non-existant.

Paul Dini started it because he wanted his sweet OC to fuck the hottest Batman villain. You can't pin this one on SJWs.

That's not really true, though. Penguin, for example, generally gets along with most other rogues, except for the Joker, but Joker doesn't get along with anyone.

HarleyxIvy is bad specifically because it changed key aspects of Ivy's pre-B:TAS characterization to make it stick. And now look what decades of that shit has done to Ivy's character.

I think me and you might have differing opinions on what the current problems with Ivy's character is. Also, as for Penguin, he doesn't like any of the other Rogues. He's just a business man. He know excluding them is bad for business. Joker just happens to be crazy enough that including him can be even worse for business.

Wasn't it mainly Bruce Timm wanting sexy lesbians?
He wasn't wrong either.

You're about two decades too late to be complaining about super-powered Poison Ivy. That doesn't really affect her personality at all, it just gives her more tools to play with, whilst her being carpet muncher buddies with Harley has affected her character to such a major extent that she is now basically Harley's fluffy BFF/rabid feminista instead of being a proper femme fatale supervillainess.

I think the issue's more with inept writers. I think you could pretty easily make her both. It should just be played as her being a natural flirt that many femme fatales are.

The problem lies with running with Timm and Dini making them friends and vaguely implied lesbians for the sex appeal, and changing them to being straight-up gay for each other and Harley ditching the Joker to suck face with Ivy.

Fuck no, why shackle Ivy to being a fluffy, harmless BFF to a character that DC is desperately trying to turn into their version of Deadpool?

No, just kill it, kill that fucking cancer with fire and start over.

I think you could reconcile her pre-B:TAS character with her current one, but it'd mean breaking them up and having Ivy be solo with an occasional issue where she teams up with Harley.

You're missing my point, fag.
The dumbass shit that spawned from BTAS is exactly that: shit. But BTAS had good ideas, and there's nothing wrong with Ivy and Harley being friends. It's when they go SJW and the writing turns to shit like in the comics not made by Timm that there's an issue.
Having Ivy be sexy and flirt with Harley in the same way she'd flirt with anyone else, and even partially use her to her own advantage like the Joker does, would benefit both their characters.

No, I'm getting it exactly, fag.

Except it basically turns Ivy into Harley's fluffy BFF, which is exactly what happened in B:TAS. And what is wrecking her character now.

It would benefit absolutely no-one, would be pointless, and the only usage for it is fap fodder.

If you like to jack it to lesbians, just say so.

Shit, I forgot to tag.

Kate Leth fucking up Hellcat so bad.

Pretty sure Beast was supposed to be Nixon. Smiley, on the other hand, feels like a mix of Obama and Clinton.

I thought it was that Beast and Smiler were the better parts of Nixon, maybe Bush Sr. just pure pragmatism and self-interest but ultimately, just a bit of a wanker. Smiler was Kennedy and Clinton, you're meant to feel sort of happy (if you're of the same mind as Warren Ellis or Spider Jerusalem) that they got in, until you realise that the slick, brilliant and charming thing is just cover for a Machiavellian corrupt arsehole who would do anything for power.

So..your favorite version of the Joker would've been the Animated series version and the Bronze Age version?

Wasn't that explained that the Flora-Kinetic Ivy was just a plant construct created by the real Ivy and she's now currently living with Alec Holland? I think it was in Batman Adventures issue 16.

Well, Spider Jerusalem is a fictionalized version of Hunter S Thompson (and some other Gonzo journalists)
He was extremly critical of both Nixon and Clinton, So that is why they are them
Also, the Smiler is not the better part of anyone, he is just an empty husk.

...

This is frankly the problem in building a setting's superhero before his opposition, or even the setting itself. In the earlier, more whimsical days, we just wanted to see the heroes do cool things and everything else was an excuse to that end. But as people became more compelled, they tried panning it out, only to find the limitations of that setting.

Cape heroes aren't given a satisfying end because they always want to be brough back. They can never make any real and lasting change. This is grand in more lighthearted settings, but the more serious you take it, the more monotonous this cycle feels. That's why it's best to follow stories that do have a better designed loop for closure.

That's mostly only a problem with corporate-owned characters. There are many creator-owned superheroes, and a few of the more obscure company-owned ones, who had a closed, satisfying arc that was planned out from the beginning.
Like The Nazz, Niteside & The Rock, Gilgamesh II, Walt Simonson's Manhunter, Steve Gerber's Foolkiller, Matt Wagner's Grendel, The Crow, Frank Miller's Ronin, Zenith, Miracleman, Watchmen, V For Vendetta, and Shadowhawk.

...

>youtu.be/G97-iY-FfQ4

You managed to say 6 things that make sense, and then turn around to say 2 imbecilic things.

Bitch, Shang Chi is Marvel's Fist Of The North Star. He took on Ben Grimm, Man-Thing…

How is Judge Dredd supposed to be written?

A fascist stormtrooper who just happens to fight crime that can only be stopped by a fascist stormtrooper.

...

What did we do to deserve that man?

Source? The new film was made on the premise that JD would never take his helmet off.

Like clinton.

...

well now I know whom to cast as Robin in a Teen Titans movie.

...

You! You cheeky bastard!

About that…

What…?

She is

I KNOW AND I HATE IT

God damnit

Actually, it was pretty much just pic related.

Fucking casuals talking about comics.

That's basically the short answer. The long one involves DC being told to stop having Batman gun people down, and the introduction of robin.

Casual still being casual.

To start with, Batman never gunned anyone down. He gunned down vampires and giant monster-men, and it's iffy you'd consider those human. That's it. That's the only people he used his gun on. Two stories, Detective Comics #31 in 1939 and Batman #1 in 1940 (though the story, "The Giants of Hugo Strange" was originally going to be published in Detective Comics #38, and was advertised in Detective Comics #37, but it got pushed out for Robin).

The only thing that comes close to "DC being told to stop having Batman gun people down" was the request of the New York World's Fair committee. They wanted Batman stop killing,as the character was going to appear in New York World's Fair #2, but by that time (July 1940), that aspect of the character had been long phased out.

Also, the Comics Code was based on DC's own internal code that they long had in place well before 1954.

Educate yourself next time, you disgusting, filthy, casual.

...

Nah, your mind just hasn't seen the truth behind those 2 things. It's OK, you'll come around eventually.

To be fair, it sorta worked right up until Grant Morrison had her shack up with Cyclops in Nu-X-Men for no fucking reason, because she still did evil shit behind people's backs before then. Post-Morrison she turned into a generic snarky bitch with a heart of gold, which is a shallow understanding of the character at best, and a complete bastardization at worst. And it's been downhill ever since.

And don't forget Batman being the only one who sees through his bullshit, instead of being first in line as his second-in-command.

Freeze's BTAS origins was basically cribbed from Cryonic Man and doesn't work very well long-term before it just turns into endless whining about "MUH NORAAAA!", which was basically the case pre-Flashpoint, so I can sorta see why DC tried to change it. The better solution would've been to ditch Nora altogether though, not turn Freeze into a creepy weirdo.

...

Man, how did I forget that…

Although to be honest, I actually prefer Karla Sofen's Ms. Marvel outfit.

This mindset is kind of my problem with all modern comic writers.

They all want to leave their mark, they all want to change things, they call it "character growth" but that shit doesn't work for ongoing characters with no planned in.

Character arcs work for novels and films because there's a starting point, a journey and an end. Comic book characters are like Greek myths. The character's major changes and character growth should occur in their origin story and after that remain largely static. Now, a really stupid person would throw a fit and call me an idiot at this point, but let me explain.

When you want to hear a story about Hercules, you don't want to hear a story about a weak mortal *named* Hercules, that feels like a dissatisfying bait and switch. A pathetic way for the writer to try to use someone else's character to tell *their* story no one wants to fucking hear.

I don't care about your divorce, or your love of socialism, or how you discovered the joys of transgender sex. Make new characters to tell those stories, and if they don't suck I'll read them.

See, with these mythic characters they should remain static while their adventure is constantly changing. That's the secret. Think of all the great, best-accepted story arcs for various super hero characters, can't 90% of them be described as either "X teams up with Y" "X goes to Z" or "X fights A"?

See, if the character changes and can be reinterpreted and has no static, fixed state then what difference do those team-ups make? What does it matter where they go? If they're different in each story, then there's no anchor, no reason for people to have any interest or attachment or find the premise interesting. Remember the story where Wolverine went to Japan? Do you think anyone would have given a shit if Wolverine had no set personality, past or abilities? If he could be a really tall, short-lived black woman with super speed or something just as easily as he could be the Logan we're familiar with, then who cares if Wolverine goes to Japan? Who's Wolverine? Then it's just "some character goes to Japan" which in itself means nothing.

If they want a different story with a different character with a different personality they should just *create* a new fucking character, but most of the people left in the comics industry are narcissistic dweebs who don't want to create, because they wouldn't retain the rights to the characters, so they'd rather alter other people's work.

I remember when people were complaining about Batman killing people in BvS, a few people kept repeating "but Batman killed people in the old comics so it's fine!" But if your post is true then it's even more bullshit.

The thing is changing interpretations are unavoidable when you have a revolving door of talent handling these characters. Obviously there should be limits, but at the same time publishers and editors have to at least entertain the illusion of change to attract talent and readers.

This train of thought can be just as bad as "change for the sake of change". It's how we end up with most of the shit we bitch about here.

Noble, but naive in a market where originality doesn't guarantee success

Emma Frost one is especially annoying, because she can easily be written as a person who still does what she always did but now just for a different cause. She could be a Machiavelian femme fatale that uses her skills for good and about friction that causes between her and other X-Men. Instead of that, she just became a bitchy Jean Grey stand in in Cyclop's Life.

Well lately all originality has been poured into how to be as awful as possible in ways that have never been seen before. Bad for sales. Good for shitposting.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

admittedly he was only pretending to shoot a man

...

...

more interesting than just being female deadpool

Are you talking about the current version where he is basically Tony Stark? I mean he did grow up into a man, he can't stay a broke college kid forever.

Even if Batman had been a mass murderer at some point, that's not the version of the character we've known for the past several decades. That's the Batman people wanted to see, and even when somebody posts those two/three panels out of context where he murders people, it's not like it was a very common occurrence. He broke a neck, shot a couple people, and strangled a guy? I think that's about the extent of it. He wasn't running over a dozen goons with his Batmobile and blowing up flamethrowers to kill a room full of bad guys or anything like that.

Harley Quinn's whole shtick is that she's supposed to be the Joker's abused girlfriend. Somebody he keeps around to fuck with and use, just like everyone else. She was created specifically to play off of the Joker and turning her into anything else usually fucks her character up. You can have her heal and grow into a normal functioning person again, but that's about the extent of it, you shouldn't turn her into DC's Deadpool.

A no nonsense, skull cracking tough but fair honest cop in a cold sociopathic oppressive city where every other cop is dirty and criminals have access to heavy weaponry.
Dredd isn't a bad guy in fact he's easily the most noble judge but he isn't nice and he isn't there to be your friend he's there to do justice.

...

My post is true. I can assure you it's true. I have read the eleven stories before the appearance of Robin several times. I've read them specifically because people kept saying Batman killed people in the old comics and I wanted to find out for myself.

So yes, it's bullshit. It's complete bullshit. It's the first thing you learn when you become a neckbeard oldfag in comics. What most casuals believe about comics, especially when it comes to Batman, is nothing but bullshit.

Sounds like somebody read Trouble.

Eh. I mean, she's supposed to be his abused girlfriend/sidekick, but I think there's more to her than that. Most interpretations forget just how fucked up Harley is by herself. She's not a good person. She was never a good person. The reason why the Joker latched onto her was because he saw that.
She slept with her professors to get her degree and only went to Arkham as part of a get-rich-quick scheme by preying on people via self help books. That isn't murder-tier, but she's a scummy person and a liar already. The Joker just brought out the worst in her.

People forget her origin story beyond the whole seduction thing: that she broke him out of Arkham Asylum. And not by some sneaky shit, either. She literally busted in no problem and popped into his cell in her new Harlequinn outfit and a gun and told him that she's busting him out. That's not something that can be done with ease. She's also the one that nearly killed Batman after Joker failed time and time again– but Joker wouldn't allow it because HE wanted to be the one to kill him. In her original portrayals she was legitimately a threat, even if she wasn't quite as much of a threat as some of the other characters, because she did have a good head for scheming and manipulation.
So there's a problem when Harley's interpreted as just some weak little abused girlfriend. As far as I've heard, that's how the Arkham games portray her, where she's basically no threat at all. That's as much a problem as the 'strong lesbian who don't need no man' interpretation.

What about the gangster he punched into a vat of acid?

In first two games, Harley is a ditz when she is around Joker, but when he is taken away from her, Harley goes crazy and becomes a serious threat. One of the DLCs revolves around her capturing and attempting to kill Batman and you are playing as Robin trying to save him.

But then you also have crap like this.

First, that doesn't disprove my original statement that Batman didn't shoot anyone.

Second, that's not intentional but accidental. Batman didn't intend to punch that guy into that acid, but merely to protect himself and others. Stryker was clearly armed and intent to potentially maim or kill. Batman couldn't have known that Stryker's fat ass would be heavy enough to break the guard-rail, or that the facility he was in might not have been up to OSHA compliance.

Third, of the people that were killed in the early Batman stories (not counting vampires or monster men), I consider there were only two that Batman intentionally killed. First was a guard on the Dirigible of Doom who Batman switched costumes with, resulting in said guard's death by disintegration, and the Cossack Mikhal by breaking his neck. That's it. The rest were clearly unintentional.

Like fuck he didn't. Batman has a genius-level intellect, perfect situational awareness, and is a master of hand-to-hand combat. He knew the railing was there, he calculated the impact of his punch on the guy's body. Batman knew that was a killing blow.

Fighting in real life isn't like that fucking Sherlock Holmes movie, user.

I totally remember that time Batman was in real life. Not talking about the guy who got hit by that car though, that was sad.

We're talking about comic books, Mr. Oldfag, sir, not real life.

I like Slutfire. You a faggot?

Yes.

I'm not saying Batman is in real life. The point I'm trying to make is that fights aren't like that scene and unless Batman's thought process is stated explicitly, there's no reason think that he thought that far ahead.

That's after she and a gang of goons break into Batman's lair and he has to spend a lengthy period of time disarming their bombs and beating them all up before getting to Harley herself. She shouldn't be able to go toe to toe with Batman, he should be able to manhandle her like a busy dad would an overreacting child because she's not really meant to be physically imposing.

See, that's the problem with those interpretations.
She's a master at gymnastics and is certainly more threatening than the game treats her. She's not just a dumb girl who has stupid tricks and is quickly neutralized into just having to try and beat her fists on Batman's back.

but isn't that the original version of starfire

As much as it makes me wretch…..It isn't.

Starfire was never a slut. And even outside SJWs, the New 52 Interpretation of her character was awful.

Like they remade a whole bunch of neat characters "Sexy" for no reason in the process destroying their personalities.

...

Only if you're looking at it from the perspective of her own culture. Her people were basically bonobos.

Didn't willingly marry someone but still loved Di- I meant Richard?

Twice

Bruce Timm has a way with expressions. I think sometimes he gets lazy with the typical 'sexy sultry girl' kind of deal, but when he tries, he can truly be a god among men. That's preaching to the choir, though. I don't think there's a single person on Holla Forums I've heard complain about him. Even when people bitch about Harley, they pin it on Paul Dini and leave Bruce Timm out of it.

Either you're not showing the best material or your overrating him

Depends on what you like.
Is this more to your interest, user?

Did Timm ever did some with Big Barda?

google is your friend

The old turtle meme comes to mind.

Lets be honest, if those men knew with absolute certainty what the future held in store , the Nazis would never have wanted for men, tanks or guns.

Thats the cold hearted truth. Base the comics off the toons, its better for sales.

Dont belive me it what gets more exposure?

Check out Rule 34 to see what inspires people. Its the animated versions, 9 billion times out of ten.

Except it wasnt dumbed down.

If anything, it was smartened up.

Imagine Black Green Lantern done right.

Thats is funny as shit. I wanna see that drawn.

Sfm.

John Stewart was well-written back in the 80s and 90s. Mosaic was a pretty great series.