Extraneous arm straps, bandoleer, ragged half-cape (with hood!), goggles with extra lenses, knee pads, pant legs that are belted on in cross belts (front and back), arm guards, arm bandages, gun attached to one arm guard,corset, kerchief.
You name it, she’s got it.
If her wiki article didn’t say that she was introduced in 2010 I’d blame all the ridiculous bits on the 90s.
So I’m working on drawings, and I’ve just gotten to my Amethyst set. So far I have New 52 Amaya and Amy:
The question is, should I draw 1980s Amethyst? I really like the New 52 version, and generally I’ve just been drawing what I want to represent a single character (incarnations of Donna, Selina’s costume, etc), but the New 52 Amethyst is so different I don’t know what to do.
I don’t really know much about Gemworld, so I’m open to opinions!?
why would I ever want to read about a bunch of heroes that are never ever going to be happy?
fuck that shit
For some really petty reason like “Well we already know they’re gay. What more do you want???”
It’s not like DC has made a habit out of making huge media events out of characters’ sexuality and then never talking about it again, right?
…And it’s just kind of infuriating me that DC editorial’s justification for their mess of a “reboot”
(because come on this was really about the wish fulfillment of a bunch of 45-year-old men’s inner 10-year-olds)is that the DC universe was too confusing and had too many characters,…
Ununnilium and I have discussed this, and I wanted to throw it out there because I think that your theory about the reboot is part of a bigger story. This is a little complicated, and it involves starting with Watchmen (doesn’t everything?) …
I completely agree. There are a lot of things that were going on that brought the reboot to fruition.
My point about “inner ten-year-old wish fulfillment” has a lot more to do with the characters chosen to hit the spotlight than the actual plots — like bringing Barry back as the “iconic” Flash, even though Wally held the title for over 20 years, There Is Only One Batgirl and Her Name Is Barbara but There Are Still Four Robins, etc.
It’s funny with DC and Marvel, because I find that as comic companies, they originally came from very different places in terms of the stories they were telling.
For me, it boils down to these two points:
- DC is larger than life/optimism
- Marvel is human conflict/pessimism
And I know that that is a lot of watering down a lot of different points and characters and decades of things that have happened.
Even if you take Batman, who has ridiculously dark origins and fights in the night — he’s still a very larger-than-life character who builds his name on being a borderline urban legend, and then goes out of his way in his personal life to try to help all of these children who need the kind of direction and looking after he was forced to find for himself (Robins and Batgirls — especially taking Cass and Steph on board there).
The founding family of Marvel (as it exists today), on the other hand, is the Fantastic Four — an actual family unit, who have actual problems. And that was so new and crazy in the 1960s and people ate it up, setting the stage for more characters like that, more outcasts (X-Men), more complex family situations (Spider-Man), more arrogant snobs (Tony Stark). They fight crime, yes, but they also fight each other a lot of the time, even if it’s not in a physical sense all the time.
Because Timely/Marvel Comics spent a lot of time and effort going to the trouble of creating flawed characters, instead of adding flaws as they went, Marvel, to me, kind of has a more naturally pessimistic vibe than DC.
And that is also fine, because those are stories that deserve to be told. I don’t mind a little angst in my comics. What I do mind, and don’t understand, is why both major companies have come to the conclusion that the only good story is a grimdark story.
But that’s what we’re left with. Nearly all characters with a sense of humor and a bounce in their step have been sidelined, and the characters we’re left with have had their personalities rewritten so severely that in some cases, they’re barely even a shell of who they used to be. And that’s a damn shame :/
Well, that’s the funny thing about Marvel, right?
They’re coming out of the grimdark era or at least exploring it in interesting ways.
For the coming-out part, you have books like Captain Marvel and (I think it is) Uncanny X-Men. In the former case, you have someone who has accepted the full mantle of her father figure and is doing her best to live up to his reputation. Meanwhile, in Uncanny X-Men, the X-Men from the past have been brought to present, necessarily injecting their optimism into the current setting.
On the exploring side of things, you have Superior Spider-Man. Superior Spider-Man takes the “hero as morally ambiguous” to its fullest extent and, arguably, could be seen as a deconstruction of it. I say this because Otto crosses lines that heroes cross — and more besides — but he makes it wrong somehow.
I mean, they could still stand to lighten up some, but I think that they’re improving.
I think the main thing here is that the original thing Marvel did to differentiate themselves from DC was to focus on characters’ inner lives. And in the ’60s, that was necessarily a bit more pessimistic, since it meant that - gasp! - they weren’t perfect. Nowadays, though, it’s almost the opposite - characters are assumed to be fucked-up, and delving into their inner lives means getting into their surprisingly positive and happy and loving aspects.
Yeah, we’ve kind of gotten a swap of style from the two companies, but that’s not really a good thing. I love that Marvel is exploring their characters more fully and making them real, whole people, but I’m not really a fan of DC’s new phase of thinking that all people want to read about is conflict. Because it isn’t. :/
I’m really wondering when DC will realize that grimdark and “sexy” =/= good storytelling again. Because I can’t wait to read those stories.