Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The King Watch/Flash Gordon/Phantom/Mandrake MEGATHREAD!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G'day,

    I think good stories and interesting characters are what's important not race or gender. I have no problem with having multi racial heroes or various genders but I no time with gender swapped major characters which are usually done for "diversity" reasons. What I want to see is new characters , male, female, black, yellow or what ever who are heroes in their own right, not part of someone elses legacy.

    ta

    Ralph


    Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
    Diversity isn't BS. Whether the next Phantom should be non-caucasian or not, diversity is a very good thing that's finally no longer being neglected.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
      I think good stories and interesting characters are what's important not race or gender.
      They aren't mutually exclusive.

      What I want to see is new characters , male, female, black, yellow or what ever who are heroes in their own right, not part of someone elses legacy.
      But if we're going to have legacy characters in the first place, then there's no innate reason they have to be white/male/etc.

      Comment


      • G'day,

        Well if they originally were that way you usually do. Superman is a white male. So is Batman. Now I'm happy to accept gender swapped spin offs ie supergirl, batwoman , DE's Lady Zorro etc but they are separate characters in their own right.

        ta

        Ralph

        Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
        They aren't mutually exclusive.



        But if we're going to have legacy characters in the first place, then there's no innate reason they have to be white/male/etc.

        Comment


        • I want legacy characters who are either directly related family members, or "officially designated" heirs to the legacy by the original character that established the legacy. That last can be a partner, colleague, or friend of the original character. "I was always a big fan" is not a good reason for a legacy character. Discovering that your great uncle (whom you never knew) used to be a superhero in the Golden Age, and then deciding to take up the mantle yourself is a poor reason too.

          Essentially, the validity of a legacy claim, in my opinion, is dependent on two interrelated factors: how close a blood relation the heir is, and how well they personally knew the character whose legacy they are carrying on. One can trump the other, as in the case of a son or daughter discovering the father he/she never knew; or a protege or sidekick completely unrelated but personally trained by the original hero. The weaker one factor is, the stronger a claim the other factor must be. A distantly-related relative who never personally knew the original hero is a poor legacy choice. A character unrelated by blood who didn't personally know the hero is the worst. There can be an intermediary baton-passing, as it were, as in the case where a hero's protege becomes the new heir to the legacy, and then passes it in turn to his or her son or daughter (or vice versa... the original hero's son or daughter then passing the legacy to their protege). By the rules I've established to define it, Damian Wayne has a potentially stronger claim to Batman's legacy than Dick Grayson does... but we must also factor in such things as Damian's relative youth and inexperience, against Dick Grayson's more extensive training and direct sanction from Batman to carry on his legacy. Obviously, the free choice of any character under consideration to inherit a legacy plays a role as well, but free choice only becomes a factor if the other conditions are met first.

          Obviously, there are a number of characters extant that don't fit these parameters -- some of whom have been in existence a long time. However, I still believe that the closer the legacy character fits that description, the better a character it is, in terms of justifying their existence in story terms. The ones that stray from it, their existence can only be put down to purely commercially exploitative motives on the part of the publishers.
          Last edited by pulphero; 02-07-2015, 04:50 AM.

          Comment


          • On another note ... what did people think of Jungle Jim?

            Comment


            • G'day,

              I liked it. It was a complete departure frtom the original character which generally I don't like but the story worked.
              I also like the new Flash Gordon story.

              Ralph



              Originally posted by jsf View Post
              On another note ... what did people think of Jungle Jim?

              Comment


              • G'day,

                I think you need to go to first cause. What made the Batman? It was the traumatic experience of his parents death. Which psychology made him the Batman. Remember Bruce Wayne sees himself as Batman first, Bruce Wayne is the put on personality. He is rather disturbed. I regard that as a completely unique situation that only applies to Bruce. The oath, the blessing, he took on his parents grave only applies to him.The other characters , Dick Grayson, Damien really can't be Batman. Now he can certainly pass on his wealth and gadgets down to them. Thats his legacy, but I don't think he can pass the mask.

                Contrast that with the Phantom. The blessing goes from one generation to another.

                ta

                Ralph

                Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                I want legacy characters who are either directly related family members, or "officially designated" heirs to the legacy by the original character that established the legacy. That last can be a partner, colleague, or friend of the original character. "I was always a big fan" is not a good reason for a legacy character. Discovering that your great uncle (whom you never knew) used to be a superhero in the Golden Age, and then deciding to take up the mantle yourself is a poor reason too.

                Essentially, the validity of a legacy claim, in my opinion, is dependent on two interrelated factors: how close a blood relation the heir is, and how well they personally knew the character whose legacy they are carrying on. One can trump the other, as in the case of a son or daughter discovering the father he/she never knew; or a protege or sidekick completely unrelated but personally trained by the original hero. The weaker one factor is, the stronger a claim the other factor must be. A distantly-related relative who never personally knew the original hero is a poor legacy choice. A character unrelated by blood who didn't personally know the hero is the worst. There can be an intermediary baton-passing, as it were, as in the case where a hero's protege becomes the new heir to the legacy, and then passes it in turn to his or her son or daughter (or vice versa... the original hero's son or daughter then passing the legacy to their protege). By the rules I've established to define it, Damian Wayne has a potentially stronger claim to Batman's legacy than Dick Grayson does... but we must also factor in such things as Damian's relative youth and inexperience, against Dick Grayson's more extensive training and direct sanction from Batman to carry on his legacy. Obviously, the free choice of any character under consideration to inherit a legacy plays a role as well, but free choice only becomes a factor if the other conditions are met first.

                Obviously, there are a number of characters extant that don't fit these parameters -- some of whom have been in existence a long time. However, I still believe that the closer the legacy character fits that description, the better a character it is, in terms of justifying their existence in story terms. The ones that stray from it, their existence can only be put down to purely commercially exploitative motives on the part of the publishers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                  G'day,

                  I think you need to go to first cause. What made the Batman? It was the traumatic experience of his parents death. Which psychology made him the Batman. Remember Bruce Wayne sees himself as Batman first, Bruce Wayne is the put on personality. He is rather disturbed. I regard that as a completely unique situation that only applies to Bruce. The oath, the blessing, he took on his parents grave only applies to him.The other characters , Dick Grayson...
                  How is Dick Grayson not EXACTLY like Bruce Wayne in that regard? He witnesses his parents' death due to criminals (doesn't matter that he's only informed later by Bruce that they were killed by Boss Zucco, and it doesn't matter that it was "made to look like an accident" instead of shot point blank, and the killer's face seen). Dick also takes an oath (the exact same one that Bruce took, since he's the one who is witness to it).
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Bruce and Dick take an Oath.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.6 KB
ID:	48959
                  Why exactly does Bruce do this? Because the circumstances, though different in detail, are essentially the same, and Dick reminds Bruce of HIS younger self. He wants to help Dick Grayson see the criminals who killed his parents (and all criminals) pay, by allowing Dick to assist him in his personal war, and make it a shared one, because they both feel the same thing. Although Bruce had to go to great lengths and use his wealth to travel the world for a number of years seeking training for his war on crime, he's switching roles here, because the student has now become the master. Dick Grayson doesn't have the advantage of personal wealth, so Batman will pass his skills on to his protege directly by training him personally. What is there about this that is not to get? If Bruce is "disturbed" where Dick is not, it's because his mission festered in his mind for years, instead of Dick Grayson's being able to take immediate action to pay back the criminals (Boss Zucco's gang) who killed his parents. In this respect, he has Bruce at a disadvantage, because it will be years yet before Batman catches up with his parents' killers.

                  I'm not sure what this "blessing" you speak of in regards to Bruce Wayne is. Unless you think he consulted a Ouija board for advice, he's entirely motivated by his own thoughts. He receives blessing from no one. Dick Grayson DOES receive a "blessing" from Bruce Wayne, the blessing of being able to catch his parents' killers.
                  Last edited by pulphero; 02-07-2015, 04:39 PM.

                  Comment


                  • G'day,

                    That may apply to Dick Grayson but not to Damien. Its that oath not the blood that makes the Batman. Frankly I think storywise its much matter Dick stays his own man as Nightwing. Regarding the blessing, a blessing is the opposite of a curse. I regard the oath Batman (and the Phantom for that matter) took to be a spiritual one that set them on their path. Think of it as God, the Divine, the Universe or what ever your belief bonding you to your path of Justice.

                    ta

                    Ralph

                    Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                    How is Dick Grayson not EXACTLY like Bruce Wayne in that regard? He witnesses his parents' death due to criminals (doesn't matter that he's only informed later by Bruce that they were killed by Boss Zucco, and it doesn't matter that it was "made to look like an accident" instead of shot point blank, and the killer's face seen). Dick also takes an oath (the exact same one that Bruce took, since he's the one who is witness to it).
                    [ATTACH]982[/ATTACH]
                    Why exactly does Bruce do this? Because the circumstances, though different in detail, are essentially the same, and Dick reminds Bruce of HIS younger self. He wants to help Dick Grayson see the criminals who killed his parents (and all criminals) pay, by allowing Dick to assist him in his personal war, and make it a shared one, because they both feel the same thing. Although Bruce had to go to great lengths and use his wealth to travel the world for a number of years seeking training for his war on crime, he's switching roles here, because the student has now become the master. Dick Grayson doesn't have the advantage of personal wealth, so Batman will pass his skills on to his protege directly by training him personally. What is there about this that is not to get? If Bruce is "disturbed" where Dick is not, it's because his mission festered in his mind for years, instead of Dick Grayson's being able to take immediate action to pay back the criminals (Boss Zucco's gang) who killed his parents. In this respect, he has Bruce at a disadvantage, because it will be years yet before Batman catches up with his parents' killers.

                    I'm not sure what this "blessing" you speak of in regards to Bruce Wayne is. Unless you think he consulted a Ouija board for advice, he's entirely motivated by his own thoughts. He receives blessing from no one. Dick Grayson DOES receive a "blessing" from Bruce Wayne, the blessing of being able to catch his parents' killers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                      Think of it as God, the Divine, the Universe or what ever your belief bonding you to your path of Justice.
                      I like to think of it as the Phantom Stranger making a bet with the Spectre over who was right.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	bbbspectreps.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	18.7 KB
ID:	48960

                      "The Oath" is a personal one, so it can only be passed on in legacy through contagion, like a virus. That requires a personal baton-passing.

                      Regarding Damien, well, that's exactly what his story is about, isn't it? "The Journey". Unlike Dick Grayson, finding that path is not intuitive and associational. It's a difficult reorientation for Damien because of how he was raised by Talia. He's not there yet.
                      Last edited by pulphero; 02-08-2015, 01:20 AM.

                      Comment


                      • G'day,

                        What did people think of Jungle Jim? I thought the story was good in itself but had little do do with the original character. What is he now? Some sort of were-monkey? Bring back the safari suit and pith hat I say.

                        ta

                        Ralph

                        Originally posted by jsf View Post
                        On another note ... what did people think of Jungle Jim?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
                          Bring back the safari suit and pith hat I say.
                          Wouldn't that one be really old by now? Perhaps the new one is descended from the old one.

                          Comment


                          • Just heard about Kugor and Reklo, and therefore this book is moving very quickly from "get when I can because I like what I saw of this version from the Christmas one-shot, plus it's by Paul Tobin" to "seek this out much sooner depending on my finances"! This is awesome!

                            Comment


                            • Looking at the May solicitations, I was disappointed that King's Watch was not doing anything big. Didn't they say that the mini-series would lead into something happening in the King's Watch universe in May?

                              Comment


                              • At the moment I think that dynamite is trying to do too much at the same time, and as a result some character's will get hurt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X