No Happy Marriages for DC Heroes

[MarlaDesat]

No Happy Marriages for DC Heroes

DC Comics Editor-in-Chief Bob Harras isn't interested in stable relationships for The New 52.

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue - but not for you, DC heroes. Bob Harras and Bobbie Chase, Editorial Director for DC, were panelists yesterday at New York Comic Con. The panel, "DC Comics 101: Essentials", covered upcoming comics and deals from DC, according to the Con Away From Con [http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2013/10/09/nycc-2013-dc-comics-101-essentials] coverage from DC Comics. A question and answer session followed the panel, and Bleeding Cool correspondent Hannah Means-Shannon reports the following quote from Harras:

Q: Is it true that no characters in the new 52 can get married now?
Bob Harras: The new 52, we want surprises. We want things to happen that may be unexpected with romances, relationships. What we ask in general is that we don't want any of our characters rushing into stable relationships. The only character we have married is Buddy Baker, Animal Man, and that was part and parcel of the character.


DC Comics has received a lot of backlash lately over editorial choices. Editorial decisions prohibited showing the wedding of Batwoman, Kate Kane, to her girlfriend Maggie Sawyer at the last minute. Those changes led to the decision by Harley Quinn naked and suicidal [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127492-Lesbian-Marriage-Too-Tough-For-Batwoman-Authors-Leave] has also been widespread.

The New 52 is the 2011 relaunch of the entire line of DC Comics monthly superhero titles. All existing titles were cancelled, and 52 new series were launched.

Source: Bleeding Cool [http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/10/10/geoff-johns-on-dc-relationships-what-we-ask-in-general-is-that-we-dont-want-any-of-our-characters-rushing-into-stable-relationships/]

Permalink

 

[Vivi22]

I'll never understand this belief some people in comics seem to have that characters getting married is synonymous with being in a stable relationship, or that being married means an end to relationship drama.

Why does it seem like they either have a lack of imagination or an unwillingness to attempt to deal with something which happens in real life all the time with some degree of maturity and respect?

 

[teebeeohh]

i remember this one, apparently it was impossible to make a man who shoots spiderwebs out of his wrists interesting because he was married. this is so stupid.

 

[Charli]

...Ugh I just... no actually I'm aborting my reaction to this. These guys have no idea what they're doing. I dislike every little thing they say. DC gets no more monay from me since 6 months ago now. Yes not even for movies.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

After all the backlash and widespread panning against almost every aspect of the New 52, to now publicly announce your intent to make all marriages unstable - seemingly regardless of context or whether it makes sense for said characters - leaves me with but one conclusion: this gonna be good. >

I can now see why people, including some DC staff by the looks of things, don't like Bob Harras. He seems to have a similar mentality to the stereotypical 90's comic book writer, in that he prefers to make characters depressed, angry, miserable, brooding, and / or angsty even when it's unnecessary or doesn't make sense, as if any form of happiness inherently makes for bad storytelling or something. While I don't read comics myself (though Linkara and MLP have encouraged me to try them - I bought my first comic, MLP #8 by the looks of it, about a month ago. We'll see if that sparks further interest ), I do know enough about good storytelling to know that context is everything and that no one trope can work in all situations. The fact that you have only one married character isn't something to brag about, nor is making everything gritty for the mere sake if it or out of a misguided sense of "Rule of Cool" a good form of storytelling.

 

[Anachronism]

DC editorial is, by all accounts, pretty terrible these days. The amount of interference with the stories creators want to tell is pretty appalling. The Batwoman fiasco isn't the half of it, even if it is probably the most noteworthy and the stupidest decision on DC's part. There was a really good article [http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-batwoman-harley-quinn-dan-didio-editorial/] over at Comics Alliance discussing DC's current woes which sums it up pretty well, in my mind. I mean, Andy Diggle quit over editorial interference before his first issue of Action Comics was even published. What does that tell you?

This whole "no marriage" thing seems to stem from the same unfortunate mindset that gifted us with One More Day: that people who read superhero comics can't identify with a character in a stable relationship. Thanks for the massive implied insult there, guys.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

To be fair I can't realistically (relativity) imagine superhero romances/marriages to be stable ones anyway. So the ones that were stable were the more unbelievable.

 

[Basement Cat]

Bob Harras and Bobbie Chase were Marvel assistant editors in the 80's then senior editors in the 90's.

When he became Marvel's Editor-in-Chief Harras became notorious for micro-managing writers. He drove four or five big name writers away from the X-Men books in the late 90's because of micro-managing: The X-Men were Marvel's cash cow and the management was afraid that anything too original would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

I doubt that Bob Harras realizes that by announcing the termination of any "permanent" relationships in the DC universe, including making marriage a taboo, DC completely undercuts the potential for romantic tension to build up in stories because readers know the superheroes/superheroines won't end stay with their romantic "flavor of the month".

And the Harley Quinn naked/suicidal thing is low brow. Tacky, DC, reaaaaallly tacky. -_-

 

[Ishigami]

I still think the suicidal Harley Quinn idea was hilarious in its concept in a weir sort of way (similar to these suicide bunnies) and blown way out of proportion just for a ?scandals? sake.

As for this: Seems like a cop out for bad writing. Put in some relationship angst and we have something akin to a character arc?
I don?t know and then there is this:

Never mind that when you do that all the fucking time, it stops being unexpected.

So yea does not sound very promising? then again I don?t even read that stuff? so go ahead!

 

[Erttheking]

You know this is really starting to sound like the "true art is angsty" mindset. Hey D.C.! Dark stories are not automatically deep!

 

[james.sponge]

As much as I love comic books from Europe South America and Asia I could never get into American comics (with the exception of few graphic novels as they are sometimes called) I hate those silly outfits, silly names and silly issues. And this whole debacle just confirms my reservations.

 

[TheSYLOH]

"The new 52, we want surprises. We want things to happen that may be unexpected with romances, relationships"
Never mind that when you do that all the fucking time, it stops being unexpected.

Also, telling people how well something is going to go beforehand tends to remove great amounts of suspense from a story.

Personally though I've never liked most of DCs work, closest was Sandman (not that i didn't like it, I LOVED IT, but that it's not really DC comics per se).

Aside from MLP the last comic I read that I kinda liked was Marvel 1602 or Atomic Robo, personally don't see much interesting comics coming out these days.

 

[Vinterdraken]

This is old news really. But its still pretty dumb. Things can still be exciting and suprising with marriages. Ive whined for a long time now about how DC needs to understand that we like our super heroes and on occasion we want to see people we like have good things happen to them. It doesnt all have to be doom, gloom and one night stands.