Damien Wayne is the first and only Robin to have superpowers like flight and invincibility. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? He has since lost these powers but for the time he had them, did it hurt his demeanor as an assassin, did it hurt his accessibility and how kids relate to him? Comparison to other superpowered kids might be prudent.
On one hand, giving Damien superpowers remove the Batman's family's biggest characteristic that they are the superheroes without superpower(that was the whole point of the Batman when he was first created. The creator wanted someone like Super-Man, but with gadgets instead of super powers). But at the same time, this gives interesting twist to the character. What happens when a superhero without superpower suddenly gains that privilege? Will it corrupt him? Will it drive him to the extreme measure? In the end it all boils down to whether the writer can handle this or not. – idleric9 years ago
I think that it is important to note that him having superpowers was a temporary side effect from his contact with the Chaos Shard. Damian lost the superpowers after Batman tricked him into exhausting the powers in a staged event by the Justice League in Batman and Robin #40. By the end of the issues, Damian's powers were completely gone. – jnicklo9 years ago
Yes and I acknowledged him losing them but I'm asking how he affected the Robin image with them, before audiences knew he would lose them. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
Which Robin, from Dick Grayson to Damien Wayne, contributed more, appeared more, had more impact both in the story and to audiences? Which Robin is more well liked? Which one is more skilled, makes a better hero in his own right?
This looks like it could be an interesting article. Curious as to how you intend to rate popularity though--are you going to look at actual polling numbers from somewhere? – Winter9 years ago
It would be interesting to incorporate how the characters in the stories actually feel regarding this. For example: There is something Batman says from Batman: Hush, I can't find the exact quote. But basically, Batman says that Dick Grayson was destined for greater things and to be his own man, and that's probably why he outgrew Robin (and became badass Nightwing). He said that Jason was too tormented and conflicted and that's probably why he didn't work out as Robin. But he says Tim Drake has been great as Robin. He's a brilliant mind and a self-taught detective (he managed to deduce who Batman and the original Robin really are). He seems to have stuck to the role much more - and to greater success - than any other (even in later incarnations where he's "Red Robin"). – BradShankar9 years ago
That's a good point, so then one could argue Tim Drake is a etter Robin, at least to Batman, but what of Damien Wayne? And if we look at the Batman multiverse where the canon and continuity can be shaky depending what comic direction we go, what's the more widely held opinion? – SpectreWriter9 years ago
This is an interesting topic, but ultimately probably a moot point? The answer would quite simply be that there is no right answer. Dick Grayson was Robin the longest, but his tenure was before the Final Crises, so he's limited by his time period. Jason Todd quite frankly got the shaft, as DC's killing of him in Death in the Family really wasn't justified. But he was and still is an interesting character nonetheless (when written well that is). Tim Drake is more modern, and held the role for a decent number of years, not to mention did a good job in the role. But even he didn't hold the title as long as Dick did. Damian Wayne of course hasn't been Robin for that long either, so it's impossible to tell how he will develop and where his tenure will go. An interesting topic, but I'm not really sure what it can accomplish when the answer is going to be completely subjective? – MIKAILARUSHING9 years ago
Heroes like Superman (especially prime) and the Hulk are just invincible. They cannot be beaten because they gradually get endlessly stronger. Does this hurt their genre? Does it ruin the thrill of watching them fight because everyone knows that no matter what, that hero will win? If it's possible to beat any of these heroes, who could do it and why hasn't it been done yet?
The invincibility does hurt the genre, because it makes stories too predictable. It severely limits the routes stories can take. For example, the only real way to put Superman into danger, is to a) give him a Kryptonite, b) take his power away. Both were done too much in the past, and people pretty much know what is going to happen with each story. There is no thrill to it. However, these super heroes' positions in pop culture are too solid, and it makes it difficult to shake the status quo. The character who can defeat the invincible character must be invincible too, but stronger as well. But what is the limit of such invincibility? There is only so much you can do before the display of strength becomes utterly ridiculous. For example, Akira Toriyama said in interview the greatest display of strength he could express in Dragon Ball was destroying a planet. But what if a new character has be stronger than that? How is anyone going to depict that and make the audience "understand" that? Invincibility in a hero may sound ideal, but in a long run it will be a trouble for creators. – idleric9 years ago
Hence why I dislike the Hulk. This of all topics needs expanding on. – SpectreWriter9 years ago
I definitely think this hurts the genre. However, the right artist could make this invincibility a flaw. They fight and always win, and perhaps they become tired of their schtick as their audience has, and try to change, but cannot due to their invincibility... – Kathleen Lassiter9 years ago
Superman cannot just be hurt by Kryptonite. So long as a character is within his weight class, they can hurt him. If you want to argue that's still too invulnerable, fine, but the fact that Mongul, Darkseid, Zod, Brainiac, etc can all injure him hurts the argument that there's no dramatic tension. – Winter9 years ago
The Hulk's invincibility works to the storytelling potential of the character, in my opinion. Joss Whedon explored this brilliantly in Marvel's "The Avengers." The idea that a man knows he is, for all intents and purpose, really a murdering monster, but can't do anything about it is really compelling.
He'd want nothing more than for someone else to be able to put him down and end his - and other people's - misery. But the Hulk can't be stopped.
He also can't even kill himself, either, as he said. He's also very unpredictable. The comics have explored that because of his power, he's at once both a great asset but also a loose cannon. Many stories have shown that after the Hulk helped the Avengers defeat a threat, they had to turn their efforts towards stopping him when he went rampant. Knowing that there's this very powerful being out there - which people like Loki have actually exploited - also doesn't help Banner's conscience. He's a very tormented person. – BradShankar9 years ago
I think the "invincibility" of characters like the Hulk and Superman, does hurt the genre. While both feature "weaknesses", the Hulk's human form, and Superman's susceptibility to kryptonite/magic. However, they often overcome these shortcomings. Superman has been "defeated" several times, he sometimes implies that this is due to him showing physical restraint. The Hulk simply gets stronger and stronger. Unfortunately, I think this makes him an uninteresting character. – Jiraiyan9 years ago
Y: The Last man is another good example, as well the comic book series Saga. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
Their certainly are possibilities here. Etrigan maybe? – Joseph Manduke IV9 years ago
I think Klarion the Witch Boy would be interesting. It would feature a kid antihero and we haven't seen much of that. Or Neil Gaiman's Sandman would be an excellent HBO adaptation, although it has plans to become film presently. I believe an Archie TV show was discussed at some point as well. – Cagney9 years ago
I think it's due time for a Blüdhaven/ Nightwing show for the CW.
Or a great Sin City-like film adaptation of Sandman. – G Anderson Lake9 years ago
Comics are a treasure trove of stories for potential adaptation. All of the above seem good suggestions, and Image Comics' Chew would make a great cop show. Absolutely bizarre, highly entertaining. – IRBurnett9 years ago
Some work has been written on Marvel's Civil War and how it can correlated to deontology and utilitarianism, through Captain America and Iron Man. The role of Peter Parker has however been largely downplayed, even though he is perhaps the seminal character of the comic series. To what current might be he associated, if any? And what can that mean for the message of the work as whole?
I think you are right by pointing our spider-man as being a seminal character and one with great philosophical force. I also think that it would be interesting to pay attention to the African Anansi stories that could be a potential inspiration for Spider-man. He is a pretty philosophically involved character – DClarke9 years ago
I would say that would be the one case, but even then, Marvel has taken steps back and reduced Peter Parker to being the teenage archetype that lead to his creation despite that he's grown out of that for decades. Best emphasized in One More Day that took place after Civil War. – Ryan Walsh9 years ago
It is not a new idea to have talking animals as characters in literature. Animal Farm is probably the most famous example but there have been more than just this. With the rise of comics/graphic novels we see emotionally stirring and intricate portraits of humanity being played out. The events of Maus, Squarriors and others are undeniably political, emotional and social. Why would an author and artist use animals as the main subject of their works when most of the time the plot/meaning of the work revolves around human experience? Is this a way to distance readers from the action so they focus on the main plot points or is this a way to make readers pay closer attention?
During the past couple years, Comic Book writers for both Marvel and DC have tried to make their characters more accessible to minority audiences, such as members of the LGBTQ community. In doing so, some writers have changed the sexuality of existing characters; while others have invented new characters. Discuss the pros and cons of both sides and suggest your own solution to this ongoing issue in comics.
I believe that there was at least one gender-swapped universe in the DC universe. The only con that I (personally) can think of is that it messes with tradition and if they were to do something like a gender swap then the entirety of a universe would make more sense than just a couple of characters. Another slightly pedantic con would be what to call these "new" heroes: Batman to Batwoman and vice versa would be incredibly confusing for example.
As for inventing new character that are part of the LGBT community, this should be the way to go. Every community and social circle needs role models and even if some don't agree with it, times are changing, it is happening and it is good that it is.
Sidenote: Could also mention the recent legalisation of same sex marriage in the US. – Jamie9 years ago
I don't think it's okay to gender or race swap a character, because like Jamie said it messes with tradition. Sure, minorities might get a new role model but who are the ones who dedicate themselves to going to see movie adaptations of comic books in the first place? The die hard fans who read them, those who are going for the tradition. I'm not one of those people but I know some who are, and when my friend found out they were making the Human Torch black and adopted in their next movie, he was really upset. Not only does it messes with who the entire character was (him and his sister being biologically related, blonde, white, and blue eyes) it takes away the role model other non-minorities used to love (no matter how many they may already have to choose from). Rather than change certain popular characters to fit into a more racially diverse world, why don't the production companies just choose to make entire movies focused on the minority heroes they already have? I'd love to see a live action movie of Cyborg from DC, he was my favourite. That being said, the Human Torch is a much more drastic change than Nick Fury was, because in that instance they chose a character I didn't know beforehand. Maybe it's a balance of how integrated their race is with the character's identity and how well known they already are to casual fans? – Slaidey9 years ago
I don't think they should. I'd love to see some more LGBQT characters, but I think changing the sexuality of preexisting characters can make some fans feel alienated. The point is to make people feel like there are heroes that relate the their personal struggles, and changing that narrative can take away from someone who related to the previous character as they were. Instead I think it would be more effective to make new characters. It would feel more genuine and add more layers to the comic universe as a whole. – SomeOtherAmazon9 years ago
Berkeley Breathed has announced that he is picking up the adventures of Milo, Opus, and the rest. This is a good opportunity to do a Bloom County retrospective, and possibly muse a little on dangers of an artist returning to a creative well. Older fans will compare the new work to the previous; new fans will not have the base to draw from and will need the work to be fresh and compelling before they'll be drawn into it.
Could go in Arts or Writing categories, either, depending on the focus.
