Advice From A Fanboy: Justice League

[SonicWaffle]

I love this idea that people keep recommending his comics to me as the one or two examples where he deviates from his usual self, as if to say "Look, he's not boring in this one, I promise!" I read his stuff for awhile, found him a terminally boring character with a massive white knight complex, and washed my hands of it. In a similar situation, wouldn't you do the same? So either the character was massively retooled to be actually fun to read while I wasn't watching, or there were a couple of instances where the narrative at work required he be something else entirely, which means I shouldn't have to worry that he's gotten exciting, as these are minor deviations. From what you're describing, though, I'm not sensing much change from when I left him, so I'm not too worried.

Different perspectives, I guess. He's always more fun in team-up books because A) it's more about how his goodie-two-shoes persona clashes with guys like Batman or Green Lantern and B) heroes tend to band together to take on the biggest threats, which nine times out of ten means stuff that can kick Superman around the schoolyard like a football.

There's less a question of him being an all-powerful god figure when he's fighting stuff at his power level or higher, or just absolutely fucktons of things which are less powerful than him but have numbers on their side.

The bit about magic being his weakness is something I've read, but had kind of forgotten, and that's part of the issue. Here is a Superhero that just gets a free "I'm the Protector of everything!" card, not because he can be, but because that's the only mentality he could possibly have. With his near-invulnerability and massive "only I can save everyone" egotism, he has to be the valiant protector.

I'm going to recommend you another comic at this point. If you ever get the chance, read Kingdom Come. It's pretty much about what happens when, over the years, Superman loses that mentality and withdraws from the public eye. It was a backlash against the 90's-era "dark & gritty" heroes - as Superman's loved ones die, and the heroes around him become more and more violent, he starts to feel like he doesn't fit in. He becomes bitter and withdraws from humanity entirely. When he returns, he's forced to adopt a darker path more similar to Batman's methods, which inevitably ends in disaster because other heroes take their lead from him. In becoming less than the "valiant protector" you describe, he ceases to be the symbol he is, and without that symbol the world becomes a much darker place.

The whole take is actually very interesting, being more about the role of Superman in the DC than anything else. Yes, lots of people can complain that his personality is boring or that he's too powerful, but the miniseries serves to underscore than in the continuity as a whole his primary purpose is to be Superman. I doubt it will change your mind on finding him a boring character, but it might be food for thought as to why the DC editors don't change him.

Oh, and don't let too much of my sarcasm about Aquaman get your undergarments of choice into a tighter twist.

Oh, it's not you per se, I'm just quite knee-jerk about this stuff. I have a friend who is a big comic book fan, a serious collector, who reads or has read just about every book going. We argue all the time, though, because he can't seem to form an original thought about any of it, instead parroting whatever the internet tells him is fashionable to say.

"Aquauman is shit! All he does is talk to fish!"
"Iron Man is a total alcoholic, he's drunk all the time!"
"Superman is boring, he's just a one-note boy scout!"
"Ant Man is always beating up his wife!"

It really gets on my tits, because he actually reads these books and on every one of these points he ought to know better, but he still makes the same stupid jokes as every other moron with access to Reddit. So when I see people making the same sort of statements, it tends to send me into argumentative mode

Honestly, the only way I'm seeing this be actually good, and not just an Avengers mimic, is if they focus on what having these disproportionately powerful individuals coming together means for the rest of the planet, and that having them together means more and more powerful things rise to try and stop them, so you have certain villains show up for the explicit purpose of pointing out how the world has changed, and how much more danger it's in now more than ever, despite the way the heroes are present. Justice League versus the people they fight to save? That would be fun. As it sits, however, it kind of sounds like Dragon Ball Z, where a bunch of powerful lunatics stomp about screaming rocks into sand and punching mountain ranges into caverns. While Batman sulks in the corner.

I've read quite a lot of JLA books, and it's usually extremely unlikely for any of their fights to be a walkover. As I said to someone above, they tend to be physically overmatched even with dudes like Superman or Green Lantern on their side, so there tends to be a much higher reliance on tactics and strategy than just punching things. That's a movie I'd find interesting - Batman taking control, keeping his eye on everything and trying to utilise the others' powers where they'll be most useful. Avengers did something similar, but without quite so much actual thought behind it; it was basically just Cap telling all the others what to hit. They solved a big problem (one which generally makes a bigger appearance in JLA stories) by having one big battle in a small area, and evacuating all the civilians beforehand rather than several battles at once and guys like Flash being tasked with getting the civvies clear.

I agree with you that if they ape Avengers, and just make it a straight-up brawl against weaker enemies, it'll be stupid. They need to make it a proper JLA movie, and that means the characters actually have to think and use their strengths to best advantage.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I'm going to recommend you another comic at this point. If you ever get the chance, read Kingdom Come. It's pretty much about what happens when, over the years, Superman loses that mentality and withdraws from the public eye. It was a backlash against the 90's-era "dark & gritty" heroes - as Superman's loved ones die, and the heroes around him become more and more violent, he starts to feel like he doesn't fit in. He becomes bitter and withdraws from humanity entirely. When he returns, he's forced to adopt a darker path more similar to Batman's methods, which inevitably ends in disaster because other heroes take their lead from him. In becoming less than the "valiant protector" you describe, he ceases to be the symbol he is, and without that symbol the world becomes a much darker place.

The whole take is actually very interesting, being more about the role of Superman in the DC than anything else. Yes, lots of people can complain that his personality is boring or that he's too powerful, but the miniseries serves to underscore than in the continuity as a whole his primary purpose is to be Superman. I doubt it will change your mind on finding him a boring character, but it might be food for thought as to why the DC editors don't change him.

---

I've read quite a lot of JLA books, and it's usually extremely unlikely for any of their fights to be a walkover. As I said to someone above, they tend to be physically overmatched even with dudes like Superman or Green Lantern on their side, so there tends to be a much higher reliance on tactics and strategy than just punching things. That's a movie I'd find interesting - Batman taking control, keeping his eye on everything and trying to utilise the others' powers where they'll be most useful. Avengers did something similar, but without quite so much actual thought behind it; it was basically just Cap telling all the others what to hit. They solved a big problem (one which generally makes a bigger appearance in JLA stories) by having one big battle in a small area, and evacuating all the civilians beforehand rather than several battles at once and guys like Flash being tasked with getting the civvies clear.

I agree with you that if they ape Avengers, and just make it a straight-up brawl against weaker enemies, it'll be stupid. They need to make it a proper JLA movie, and that means the characters actually have to think and use their strengths to best advantage.

Actually, Kingdom Come is on my list of ones to read, but I never remember to look for it when I'm shopping around. I'll get around to it one of these days. Probably. As to everything else, I look forward to seeing which parts they muck up, but I'm still saving most of my excite supplies for Avengers 2.

 

[DiMono]

Correction: Robin is John Blake's first name, but he doesn't like it so he goes by his middle name John instead.

 

[Nghtgnt]

Someone else might have mentioned these already, but here's my two cents of advice for WB:

1. Have Bruce Timm as one of the producers. Even without being the driving force behind the movie he understands the DCU and will be able to help whomever ends up writing and directing it to not screw it up horribly.

2. If Amanda Waller is in the move, get CCH Pounder to play her.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I still want my Aquaman and Wonderwoman teamup movie. They are the characters that play the best off of each other with amazing similarities and compatable stories.

I've been reading New52 Aquaman, and let me tell you something, a better team up would be Wonder Woman and Mera (Aquaman's wife), that woman knows how to wreck people's shit like a pro!