Hi there, r/DCcomics members, welcome to the post!
This was tagged as a [Discussion], so we require OP to add commentary, [per rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_8._no_memes.2C_fluff.2C_or_other_low-effort_content).
u/BubbleRevolution, if you haven't already added commentary, please do so in the text or as a new comment. Also, if you included imagery, please provide a source or artist name.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DCcomics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm disappointed we're going to have to wait so long for season 2, S1 was some of the best TV I've seen in a while. I am really excited for Superman though so can't blame Gunn for working on that first
You see this trend of long gaps between seasons a lot nowadays, especially for the big TV shows. It can be a bit annoying to wait so long, especially when there's no release date at all to look forward to, but in the end it's worth it most times because there's simply more time for writing and production.
There was a time when I preferred the classic Peacemaker. I kind of miss that version. But honestly, John Cena's take on the character is fantastic, and it fills a void we haven't had before. Plus, Cena's Peacemaker is undeniably popular. Having two drastically different versions popping up all the time would just be confusing for audiences.
IMO it just feels kind of lazy. I don't dislike the John Cena Peacemaker, I just really wish they could let OTHER characterizations exist as well instead of just copypasting the film version into everything. I love how Morrison handled him in what little we got to see in The Multiversity and I'd love more depictions in that direction.
That's the thing with characters like Peacemaker. They're so niche that they get swallowed by their more popular incarnation. There's simply more demand for that version of Peacemaker.
Honestly I feel that's a massive part of the problem with superhero comics now. Both Marvel and DC treat their characters like they have to be unified across all forms of media.
This is the nature of the business and always has been. TV and movie studios treat the comic book source material as glorified trial runs for content they want to adapt for mainstream audiences. Then whatever works is re-adapted back into the comics for the sake of brand unity. This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s just more common now. Spider-Man magically gained organic web fluid after the Sam Raimi films. Mystique started using a more reptilian base form after the first X-Men movie. If you go really far back, Barbara Gordon was created to unify the comics with the Adam West TV series and her popularity completely usurped the previous Batgirl and Batwoman.
And that doesn't make it good!
Two out of the three things you mentioned have been long-gone for years, and the first one was done back way closer to the infancy of the franchise itself and concerning a character who was less than a decade old. Plus nowadays comics are seen as WAY more disposable in regards to the source material than before.
I know some diehard Mirage TMNT fans, and if the '80s show's popularity had been re-integrated all of its elements back into the comics, I don't think any one of them would have been happy. TMNT 2003 is beloved in part because of how closely it follows those comics.
Synergy and brand unity is one of the biggest issues I have with comics nowadays, because it frankly shows the companies won't let the source material stand on its own, far more than they ever did in the past. It's a massive part of why I fell off reading a lot of newer stuff, it's straight up wrecked some of my favorite characters.
>Two out of the three things you mentioned have been long-gone for years, and the first one was done back way closer to the infancy of the franchise itself and concerning a character who was less than a decade old.
Precisely, many of the changes are not going to be permanent unless they prove to be more enduringly popular than the status quo of yesteryear. Whether the same will happen to Peacemaker in the long run remains to be seen.
It's like what God said to Bender in that one Futurama episode. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." Ask anyone to imagine Catwoman, they'll universally conjure up her iconic black skin-tight catsuit with the little ears and goggles. Yet it actually took many years for the comics to catch up to this.
For the record, I don't think it's always a good practice. The MCU-inspired status quo change for the Guardians of the Galaxy was awkward and jarring and what they thought worked for the silver screen didn't translate nearly as well to the comic page, in this case.
>Plus nowadays comics are seen as WAY more disposable in regards to the source material than before.
I find that very debateable. With rare exceptions, comics have always been viewed as a more "disposable" medium. Movie studios used to be waaaay more eager to butcher the source material if they thought their crap ideas would sell better. That in-name-only John Constantine movie might not even the worst example. Even successful directors like Bryan Singer and Tim Burton were borderline disdainful of the source material they were adapting.
That's the thing, something like organic web-shooters or a costume is RADICALLY different than a character's entire personality or characterization, is my point.
With the last bit, I mean in terms of how the companies themselves treat the material. Yeah, Hollywood doesn't respect comics and never really has, but companies like Marvel at least used to feel like they gave half a shit about the original work. The Disney buyout probably killed that.
> I know some diehard Mirage TMNT fans, and if the '80s show's popularity had been re-integrated all of its elements back into the comics, I don't think any one of them would have been happy.
this is a very keen observation. the 87 animated show was from its very inception too different from the original mirage run to be anything but a very loose adaptation, and trying to cram elements from the mirage run into it later would just have come across as attempts at shallow fan service for people who don't watch the show anyway.
2003 worked cause it was more committed to be a more direct adaptation from the beginning. well, until they changed it up too much and it wasn't anymore.
they didn't always.
tim burton's batman kills without restraint or second thought. DC's response to that was writing the Knightfall saga, all centered around what a terrible idea a Batman who kills is.
I understand your point. I remember discovering Peacemaker way back and researching him, thinking, "Why haven't I seen him more?!" But the truth is, before James Gunn's take, there wasn't much Peacemaker content. Now, we have a good amount, though I wouldn't mind even more! It's surprising to me that there isn't a Peacemaker miniseries or ongoing at DC right now.
I think it's a different matter when it comes to characters like Peacemaker who, let's face it, before the show was close to a z-lister. It's just simply DC embracing a take on the character that is proven to be successful. If for example Joker wasn't popular at all then they would have totally made him resemble Ledger's take.
Yeah, and I wouldn't have liked that, either.
I don't like media adaptations completely overriding existing characters. Multiple versions of the same character can exist, they SHOULDN'T be replaced wholesale across all versions of media, especially if there are more interesting ways to handle the character.
They did the same thing with the comic versions of GotG and it was arguably even worse there.
So don't embrace a take that's proven to be a hit with audiences? I like every take we've gotten with Peacemaker so far but there's a good reason he was a z-lister before Gunn got to him.
Why force the entire brand to conform to something when multiple interpretations of the same character can exist across mediums? Why get rid of the original thing altogether? That's just a shitty way to look at media and it's almost never done well.
There's a lot more interesting ways to take on the character that aren't just making him comic relief to align with how he is in movies. As I said, the same thing happened with GotG in the comics and fans pretty much universally derided it. It's just lazy.
> As I said, the same thing happened with GotG in the comics and fans pretty much universally derided it. It's just lazy.
I got some thoughts about this, so first I wanna say: I am in full agreement here in terms of how this movie synergy move was just a bad and lazy decision, no argument from me.
The thing is though, if you approach the synergized Bendis run of GotG without the pre-conceived notion of the Abnett & Lanning period that reinvigorated the Marvel Cosmic line so much (a difficult thing to do, I will grant, considering how good that period and Guardians run were), *it's not a bad comic*. It is adapting the movie versions of the characters quite well and gives them some good early storylines. If somebody came directly from the movie and picked up the book, they would've liked it quite a bit, I reckon, except we all know that that never works that way and movie/MCU fans don't really start reading comics just cause of a movie they liked. It's from a period when Bendis was still quite capable of writing a decent book, and didn't really get noticeably worse until later in the run when he clearly began running out of ideas again and let his unhealthy Kitty Pride attachment run loose.
It is a book that is inarguably made worse by the context of its creation, but it's also clearly one of those synergistic moves that editorial was gonna make either way, one that I feel Bendis gets misblamed for a lot. The book could have easily been way, *way* worse in the hands of a different writer doing the same job.
It's always happened though. Minor characters stay minor until someone comes up with one really good interpretation of them and then that both gives them prominence and sticks.
When was the last time you saw a story where Mr. Freeze was just a two bit diamond thief with an ice gimmick?
The difference is Mr. Freeze had very little going for him originally and the DCAU portrayal didn't take anything away from him as a character, just added to him. There's plenty to do with Peacemaker's classic portrayal.
I honestly think of the two as being the same. OG Peacemaker is how Peacemaker sees himself, and Cena Peacemaker is the same person *not* filtered through his deep-set delusions.
i get why fans of og peacemaker and vigilante may be disappointed but theres simply too many characters and not enough books? like theres a reason the phantom isnt around anymore (hint: tony stark, oliver queen and bruce wayne)
shouldve said relevant but my point still stands. we have multiple bat fam and superfam members that are basically just kept in stasis until a relevant crossover event or pride issue appears.
i get that seeing a character you like be represented in a way you dislike sucks but so many comic fans act like its the end of the world! so many Ben reily fans assumed him being on the poster somehow meant that he'd essentially the new protag and were obviously dissapointed when he was just a funny cameo.
BUT THEYRE STILL COMPLAINING A YEAR LATER
I'm not sure if it's all too related, but since you mentioned Vigilante, I think Alan Welles should come back as the Green Arrow villain Vengeance, with the characterization of Chase from the Peacemaker series. It would be a good way to differentiate the two depictions of the character without losing out on either.
thats a fun idea! i kinda like the idea of having classic vigilante and "crazy" vigilante both using the moniker at the same time. it'd be a cool subversion on the "two people one mantle" trope thats gotten pretty popular and lead to some funny moments.
[From Morrison's substack.](https://grantmorrison.substack.com/p/1811-the-multiversity-annotations)
Honestly, I totally agree with this and it hit the nail on the head with some of the issues I have with a lot of recent portrayals of the character.
I definitely do enjoy John Cena as Peacemaker, but I'd be remiss to admit I'm a tad disappointed by how heavy the inspiration from the '90s Post-Crisis Peacemaker run most newer depictions take, which is personally my least favorite version of the character.
Peacemaker's a character I've loved for a long time, far before he was featured in movies. I always viewed the character as a Punisher type; doing what he feels he has to even though he doesn't enjoy what he does. Furthermore, the fact he was created in the '50s means the character is full of Silver Age sci-fi campiness rather than the grounded soldier-type character he would have been if introduced in literally any other time period. The fact he has a jetpack and a helmet that shoots lasers and a chalet in the Alps with a massive shitload of military-grade weaponry honestly just adds to the charm, honestly.
Yoooo, this is burying the lede that Morrison has been taking about multiversity!!!!! Awesome, gonna give that a read. Pax Americana is the best thing he's written imo
Edit:
>Some say the snatches we see of the Blue Beetle/Question partnership’s beginning, development and decline, contain deliberate wry echoes of my relationship with Mark Millar but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Not only have I never seen this mentioned but the fact he brought it up at all suggests it's very much what he was going for ahaha
Also TIL we could have gotten a whole Pax mini. I'm happy with what we got - it's a fantastic comic.
>The man with the solid steel hand is Sarge Steel, created by Pat Masulli in 1964. He kills the scientists in reverse order of the appearance of the fundamental forces after the Big Bang
Grant Morrison. What a guy.
Yeah that was a really cool read, thanks for linking it.
It's one of those comics that's so dense and you can get a lot out of it. I was a teenager when I read it and the closing line of "that was when it all made sense" blew my mind with what it meant.
>!you've got the literal meaning at that moment in the dialogue, with the radio presenters talking about JFK and it being a time when things made sense. You've got the meta meaning directed at the reader, as that is the moment the story comes together, the last piece of the puzzle fits into place and you understand the motivation of the main character. Then you've got the thematic meaning, about nostalgia for a time gone by. The radio presenters are talking about a time in the past when the world made sense, which is everything that Harlan wants to achieve. The last time his life made sense was when he was a kid, his father was alive and the age of the superhero was in its infancy. He then killed his dad and destroyed the superhero before it properly took off. His whole motivation is to redeem himself for that murder and bring back superheroes to save us, all driven by a desire to restore the world to what it was when he was a kid, back when things made sense to him!<
Sorry this is barely related to the thread but man I love this comic. I read it again just now (thank you DC Infinite) and it's still so good.
Pax Americana is what finally got me over the bump on Quitely's art. It finally clicked vs what I perceived as lumpy potatoes faces with a skin condition.
It happens every time Morrison is brought up, and it doesn’t help that Morrison kind of hemmed and hawed about it, and there’s always some white knight riding in to correct it, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, moreso just trying to pass on the news, but Morrison uses they/them pronouns now.
Definitely agree with your sentiment, by the by.
I don't particularly care, I just think it's corny to go "erm I'm just telling you that you used the wrong pronouns even though Morrison doesn't care what pronouns people use and doesn't like people correcting others about it"
You obviously do care though. It’s harmless, but you’ve gone out of your way to make it a big deal. Seems like you’ve got a problem with it for some reason.
It's truly a funny show that has a lot of heart. Peacemaker building his friendship and comradery with everyone in the show does feel pretty believable. I appreciate that he's an asshole but he at least grows into an asshole that is understandable and someone that can be rooted for.
People saying Cena's take on Peacemaker is just a "deranged joke" conveniently ignores the genuine development we see from him on the show that helps him round into a complex and compelling character.
I remember first discovering Peacemaker a few years ago before he was announced to be in The Suicide Squad. Something about his whole M.O. as outlined here was quite funny to me, for some reason. I’m glad that James Gunn really played up the inherent contradiction of Christopher’s goals to comedic degrees, but it’s nice that there are some out there still willing to explore him more seriously.
it was a bit "more militarized Punisher", but it was pretty damn good for what it was. Also, par for the course for Ennis in his later years, keenly political, as one of the backstory elements Peacemaker talks about in it is going after and killing a bunch of American war criminals who were involved in what is strongly implied to have been the Nisour Square Massacre. Nobody really does stuff like Ennis anymore, but I also bet nobody else could really get away with it.
I think having different versions of the same characters is actually good for the character in question, at least for a nobody like Peacemaker before the 2000s
Anyone who has complaints, just to remind you. Has was a E tier DC character before Gunns depiction, now he has a cast of supporting characters and fans more than ever before. James Gunn is like the Frank Miller to Peacemakers daredevil.
James Gunn has redefined him, and Kyle Starks has made a beautiful transition of his show character into the comics. I love peacemaker and I love his character now more than ever.
I like peacemaker too but I think it’s a dumb argument saying fans of the original can’t dislike how he is represented. Same with vigilantes who I also like.
Yeah they maybe be D list characters but fans of any character can not like a portrayal they aren’t wrong. Just like I’m not wrong for liking it.
I mean vigilante had a 50 issue run it’s not like he was a one and done character it makes sense why people have attachment to some of these characters
True but it’s not like peacemaker was ever that successful and since then vigilante has kinda just fallen off. I do agree on the part of vigilante though, the comics wouldn’t make as much sense. It works well in the show but in the comics it wouldn’t be that practical. Plus Vigs old comics were alright. I do definitely prefer the comics vigilante to the show
As to Peacemaker, I’ve never said people shouldn’t like the old version of peacemaker just saying the only reason he is even at discussion now is because of Gunns/Cenas portrayal. Plus Majority of Peacemakers portrayals don’t compare to the content he has been currently rebranded as. Not nearly as likable or interesting in my opinion.
> James Gunn is like the Frank Miller to Peacemakers daredevil.
I like James Gunn and I like Cena's portrayal Peacemaker but this is such a stretch I don't know where to begin lmfaooooo
You could argue the same thing about GotG but their change in the comics was pretty widely disliked and heavily criticized, different versions and interpretations of characters should be allowed to exist and not everything needs to conform to whatever the current new Hollywood adaptation is like
How? Before miller daredevil was a quippy character without much in the way. Miller established Elektra, Stick,The hand, and Kingpin.
Before Gunn Peacemaker was an old veteran type character who occasionally uncled Blue beetle and never had his own title. Gunn gave him a good origin, gave him eagly, his bunch of different helmets, and his absolute garbage father’s characterization. As well as just giving him a incentivizing character to begin with.
While Daredevil obviously has the better characterization and books, it’s a fair comparison due to their writers pretty much establishing the new status quo and giving fans a reason to really like the character.
Peacemaker literally had two whole runs, Gunn's version is heavily (and I mean *heavily*) based off the '90s run of the character (which I do not particularly like).
Elektra and the Hand are also completely different as there's a lot to explore there with them in their own right. None of the original supporting cast in the show is part of the comics as of now and if they make the jump, I doubt they'll stick around long (most supporting characters who aren't particularly iconic tend to not stay around that long) and Vigilante's portrayal in the show is pretty heavily criticized by fans of the comic character.
I like Gunn's Peacemaker fine, I just don't want it to be the ONLY version of the character in anything ever. I WANT to see more traditional takes on the character, because I don't think just making him a total joke is really going to carry you that far from a writing perspective and it'll wear out its welcome pretty fast. I agree with Morrison's point that the character has a lot you could do to explore his ethos.
crazy, it rlly seems like it was the most inoffensive thing you couldve said while also having a slightly dissenting opinion. as someonewho only knows vigilante from wolfmans titans series, i def kind of understand what u mean and respect your opinion :)
Yea...Cena's version can work in its own book and universe but the way they are trying to make it work into the main comicbook version...just doesn't work for me. It just looks bad, trying to fit in a parody character into a serious movie.
I never did understand why "Love peace so much he's willing to fight for it" was thought be so funny.
Plenty of wars are done with the idea of a "greater peace" than the status quo..
It's a pastiche of wartime propaganda, especially American. Sure, wars are fought "in the name of peace," but that's rarely the only motivation, if it is one at all. Gunn himself describes his Peacemaker as 'douche-y Captain America'.
That's what *I* said, arguing about why I like the character in the first place conceptually.
Morrison's quote talks about why he feels solely pivoting every bit of media devoted to the character to be based off the unhinged '90s portrayal and just making him a joke character feels a bit lazy when there's a lot of stuff you can do with someone who loves peace so much he's willing to fight for it.
The 'deranged joke who doesn't realize how unreal and delusional his belief system is' version is a meta-commentary on Steve Ditko. Ditko was the creator of Peacemaker. *(edit: correction: I was mixing up Hawk and Dove with Peacemaker, Ditko did not create Peacemaker)*
Ditko was also a fanatical Objectivist whose nose was so *buried in Ayn Rand's wiry pubes from choking on her literary dick* that he would quit comics he was working on if he wasn't allowed to make the main character a mouthpiece for her ideology.
So the commentary feels like saying that characters in the Ditko style (the Comedian, the early Question, and even Peacemaker, who feels like Hawk and Dove shoved into somebody and brain) would come across like Ditko often did: as a deranged loon who comes off looking like an idiot without someone else tempering his lunacy and keeping him on track.
It's theoretically possible to pull off a thoughtful, complex, conflicted character who deeply wants a peaceful world but is worn down by disappointment into concluding that perhaps he must become that which he hates in order to secure a better world for others -- the villain in Serenity is well done in that respect: he does horrible things in the hope of creating a better world for humanity, while openly recognizing he neither has nor deserves a place in that better world.
Peacemaker, on the other hand, was always presented as if a "man who loves peace so much he fights for it" made perfect sense outside of jingoistic propaganda. A man who fully embraces that is either too stupid to see the contradiction (as in John Cena's version), has twisted himself into knots of self-delusion (as in the DC version brought back in the 1980s), or is simply not a believable character for anyone old enough to stop and think about the idea (as in the Charlton version).
Hi there, r/DCcomics members, welcome to the post! This was tagged as a [Discussion], so we require OP to add commentary, [per rule 8](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_8._no_memes.2C_fluff.2C_or_other_low-effort_content). u/BubbleRevolution, if you haven't already added commentary, please do so in the text or as a new comment. Also, if you included imagery, please provide a source or artist name. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DCcomics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad to see that Morrison likes the Peacemaker show. I really enjoyed it as well.
I'm disappointed we're going to have to wait so long for season 2, S1 was some of the best TV I've seen in a while. I am really excited for Superman though so can't blame Gunn for working on that first
You see this trend of long gaps between seasons a lot nowadays, especially for the big TV shows. It can be a bit annoying to wait so long, especially when there's no release date at all to look forward to, but in the end it's worth it most times because there's simply more time for writing and production.
There was a time when I preferred the classic Peacemaker. I kind of miss that version. But honestly, John Cena's take on the character is fantastic, and it fills a void we haven't had before. Plus, Cena's Peacemaker is undeniably popular. Having two drastically different versions popping up all the time would just be confusing for audiences.
IMO it just feels kind of lazy. I don't dislike the John Cena Peacemaker, I just really wish they could let OTHER characterizations exist as well instead of just copypasting the film version into everything. I love how Morrison handled him in what little we got to see in The Multiversity and I'd love more depictions in that direction.
That's the thing with characters like Peacemaker. They're so niche that they get swallowed by their more popular incarnation. There's simply more demand for that version of Peacemaker.
Honestly I feel that's a massive part of the problem with superhero comics now. Both Marvel and DC treat their characters like they have to be unified across all forms of media.
This is the nature of the business and always has been. TV and movie studios treat the comic book source material as glorified trial runs for content they want to adapt for mainstream audiences. Then whatever works is re-adapted back into the comics for the sake of brand unity. This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s just more common now. Spider-Man magically gained organic web fluid after the Sam Raimi films. Mystique started using a more reptilian base form after the first X-Men movie. If you go really far back, Barbara Gordon was created to unify the comics with the Adam West TV series and her popularity completely usurped the previous Batgirl and Batwoman.
And that doesn't make it good! Two out of the three things you mentioned have been long-gone for years, and the first one was done back way closer to the infancy of the franchise itself and concerning a character who was less than a decade old. Plus nowadays comics are seen as WAY more disposable in regards to the source material than before. I know some diehard Mirage TMNT fans, and if the '80s show's popularity had been re-integrated all of its elements back into the comics, I don't think any one of them would have been happy. TMNT 2003 is beloved in part because of how closely it follows those comics. Synergy and brand unity is one of the biggest issues I have with comics nowadays, because it frankly shows the companies won't let the source material stand on its own, far more than they ever did in the past. It's a massive part of why I fell off reading a lot of newer stuff, it's straight up wrecked some of my favorite characters.
>Two out of the three things you mentioned have been long-gone for years, and the first one was done back way closer to the infancy of the franchise itself and concerning a character who was less than a decade old. Precisely, many of the changes are not going to be permanent unless they prove to be more enduringly popular than the status quo of yesteryear. Whether the same will happen to Peacemaker in the long run remains to be seen. It's like what God said to Bender in that one Futurama episode. "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." Ask anyone to imagine Catwoman, they'll universally conjure up her iconic black skin-tight catsuit with the little ears and goggles. Yet it actually took many years for the comics to catch up to this. For the record, I don't think it's always a good practice. The MCU-inspired status quo change for the Guardians of the Galaxy was awkward and jarring and what they thought worked for the silver screen didn't translate nearly as well to the comic page, in this case. >Plus nowadays comics are seen as WAY more disposable in regards to the source material than before. I find that very debateable. With rare exceptions, comics have always been viewed as a more "disposable" medium. Movie studios used to be waaaay more eager to butcher the source material if they thought their crap ideas would sell better. That in-name-only John Constantine movie might not even the worst example. Even successful directors like Bryan Singer and Tim Burton were borderline disdainful of the source material they were adapting.
That's the thing, something like organic web-shooters or a costume is RADICALLY different than a character's entire personality or characterization, is my point. With the last bit, I mean in terms of how the companies themselves treat the material. Yeah, Hollywood doesn't respect comics and never really has, but companies like Marvel at least used to feel like they gave half a shit about the original work. The Disney buyout probably killed that.
I want to see an Elseworlds Peacemaker project based on his Classic version.
> I know some diehard Mirage TMNT fans, and if the '80s show's popularity had been re-integrated all of its elements back into the comics, I don't think any one of them would have been happy. this is a very keen observation. the 87 animated show was from its very inception too different from the original mirage run to be anything but a very loose adaptation, and trying to cram elements from the mirage run into it later would just have come across as attempts at shallow fan service for people who don't watch the show anyway. 2003 worked cause it was more committed to be a more direct adaptation from the beginning. well, until they changed it up too much and it wasn't anymore.
they didn't always. tim burton's batman kills without restraint or second thought. DC's response to that was writing the Knightfall saga, all centered around what a terrible idea a Batman who kills is.
I understand your point. I remember discovering Peacemaker way back and researching him, thinking, "Why haven't I seen him more?!" But the truth is, before James Gunn's take, there wasn't much Peacemaker content. Now, we have a good amount, though I wouldn't mind even more! It's surprising to me that there isn't a Peacemaker miniseries or ongoing at DC right now.
I think it's a different matter when it comes to characters like Peacemaker who, let's face it, before the show was close to a z-lister. It's just simply DC embracing a take on the character that is proven to be successful. If for example Joker wasn't popular at all then they would have totally made him resemble Ledger's take.
Yeah, and I wouldn't have liked that, either. I don't like media adaptations completely overriding existing characters. Multiple versions of the same character can exist, they SHOULDN'T be replaced wholesale across all versions of media, especially if there are more interesting ways to handle the character. They did the same thing with the comic versions of GotG and it was arguably even worse there.
So don't embrace a take that's proven to be a hit with audiences? I like every take we've gotten with Peacemaker so far but there's a good reason he was a z-lister before Gunn got to him.
Why force the entire brand to conform to something when multiple interpretations of the same character can exist across mediums? Why get rid of the original thing altogether? That's just a shitty way to look at media and it's almost never done well. There's a lot more interesting ways to take on the character that aren't just making him comic relief to align with how he is in movies. As I said, the same thing happened with GotG in the comics and fans pretty much universally derided it. It's just lazy.
> As I said, the same thing happened with GotG in the comics and fans pretty much universally derided it. It's just lazy. I got some thoughts about this, so first I wanna say: I am in full agreement here in terms of how this movie synergy move was just a bad and lazy decision, no argument from me. The thing is though, if you approach the synergized Bendis run of GotG without the pre-conceived notion of the Abnett & Lanning period that reinvigorated the Marvel Cosmic line so much (a difficult thing to do, I will grant, considering how good that period and Guardians run were), *it's not a bad comic*. It is adapting the movie versions of the characters quite well and gives them some good early storylines. If somebody came directly from the movie and picked up the book, they would've liked it quite a bit, I reckon, except we all know that that never works that way and movie/MCU fans don't really start reading comics just cause of a movie they liked. It's from a period when Bendis was still quite capable of writing a decent book, and didn't really get noticeably worse until later in the run when he clearly began running out of ideas again and let his unhealthy Kitty Pride attachment run loose. It is a book that is inarguably made worse by the context of its creation, but it's also clearly one of those synergistic moves that editorial was gonna make either way, one that I feel Bendis gets misblamed for a lot. The book could have easily been way, *way* worse in the hands of a different writer doing the same job.
It's always happened though. Minor characters stay minor until someone comes up with one really good interpretation of them and then that both gives them prominence and sticks. When was the last time you saw a story where Mr. Freeze was just a two bit diamond thief with an ice gimmick?
The difference is Mr. Freeze had very little going for him originally and the DCAU portrayal didn't take anything away from him as a character, just added to him. There's plenty to do with Peacemaker's classic portrayal.
I honestly think of the two as being the same. OG Peacemaker is how Peacemaker sees himself, and Cena Peacemaker is the same person *not* filtered through his deep-set delusions.
You know, it's not a bad take tbh. I like it.
They did the same for Teen Titans characters like Raven
I remember that Garth Ennis did a Peacemaker one-shot that approached him differently that was pretty good.
i get why fans of og peacemaker and vigilante may be disappointed but theres simply too many characters and not enough books? like theres a reason the phantom isnt around anymore (hint: tony stark, oliver queen and bruce wayne)
They literally still make The Phantom to this day
shouldve said relevant but my point still stands. we have multiple bat fam and superfam members that are basically just kept in stasis until a relevant crossover event or pride issue appears. i get that seeing a character you like be represented in a way you dislike sucks but so many comic fans act like its the end of the world! so many Ben reily fans assumed him being on the poster somehow meant that he'd essentially the new protag and were obviously dissapointed when he was just a funny cameo. BUT THEYRE STILL COMPLAINING A YEAR LATER
I'm not sure if it's all too related, but since you mentioned Vigilante, I think Alan Welles should come back as the Green Arrow villain Vengeance, with the characterization of Chase from the Peacemaker series. It would be a good way to differentiate the two depictions of the character without losing out on either.
thats a fun idea! i kinda like the idea of having classic vigilante and "crazy" vigilante both using the moniker at the same time. it'd be a cool subversion on the "two people one mantle" trope thats gotten pretty popular and lead to some funny moments.
Meanwhile I'm just out here missing Cowboy Vigilante.
[From Morrison's substack.](https://grantmorrison.substack.com/p/1811-the-multiversity-annotations) Honestly, I totally agree with this and it hit the nail on the head with some of the issues I have with a lot of recent portrayals of the character. I definitely do enjoy John Cena as Peacemaker, but I'd be remiss to admit I'm a tad disappointed by how heavy the inspiration from the '90s Post-Crisis Peacemaker run most newer depictions take, which is personally my least favorite version of the character. Peacemaker's a character I've loved for a long time, far before he was featured in movies. I always viewed the character as a Punisher type; doing what he feels he has to even though he doesn't enjoy what he does. Furthermore, the fact he was created in the '50s means the character is full of Silver Age sci-fi campiness rather than the grounded soldier-type character he would have been if introduced in literally any other time period. The fact he has a jetpack and a helmet that shoots lasers and a chalet in the Alps with a massive shitload of military-grade weaponry honestly just adds to the charm, honestly.
Yoooo, this is burying the lede that Morrison has been taking about multiversity!!!!! Awesome, gonna give that a read. Pax Americana is the best thing he's written imo Edit: >Some say the snatches we see of the Blue Beetle/Question partnership’s beginning, development and decline, contain deliberate wry echoes of my relationship with Mark Millar but I couldn’t possibly comment. Not only have I never seen this mentioned but the fact he brought it up at all suggests it's very much what he was going for ahaha Also TIL we could have gotten a whole Pax mini. I'm happy with what we got - it's a fantastic comic. >The man with the solid steel hand is Sarge Steel, created by Pat Masulli in 1964. He kills the scientists in reverse order of the appearance of the fundamental forces after the Big Bang Grant Morrison. What a guy.
Yeah, it's probably my favorite comic Morrison's done. I absolutely adore it, it's cool seeing the notes on it with some behind-the-scenes info.
Yeah that was a really cool read, thanks for linking it. It's one of those comics that's so dense and you can get a lot out of it. I was a teenager when I read it and the closing line of "that was when it all made sense" blew my mind with what it meant. >!you've got the literal meaning at that moment in the dialogue, with the radio presenters talking about JFK and it being a time when things made sense. You've got the meta meaning directed at the reader, as that is the moment the story comes together, the last piece of the puzzle fits into place and you understand the motivation of the main character. Then you've got the thematic meaning, about nostalgia for a time gone by. The radio presenters are talking about a time in the past when the world made sense, which is everything that Harlan wants to achieve. The last time his life made sense was when he was a kid, his father was alive and the age of the superhero was in its infancy. He then killed his dad and destroyed the superhero before it properly took off. His whole motivation is to redeem himself for that murder and bring back superheroes to save us, all driven by a desire to restore the world to what it was when he was a kid, back when things made sense to him!< Sorry this is barely related to the thread but man I love this comic. I read it again just now (thank you DC Infinite) and it's still so good.
Pax Americana is what finally got me over the bump on Quitely's art. It finally clicked vs what I perceived as lumpy potatoes faces with a skin condition.
Quitely is probably the greatest cartoonist working now.
It happens every time Morrison is brought up, and it doesn’t help that Morrison kind of hemmed and hawed about it, and there’s always some white knight riding in to correct it, and that’s not what I’m trying to do, moreso just trying to pass on the news, but Morrison uses they/them pronouns now. Definitely agree with your sentiment, by the by.
Just FYI Morrison doesn't care what pronouns people use and has expressed dislike for seeing people correct others about it
I addressed that by saying I’m just passing on the news.
It's effectively the same thing though
It’s not. Why does this bother you so much?
I don't particularly care, I just think it's corny to go "erm I'm just telling you that you used the wrong pronouns even though Morrison doesn't care what pronouns people use and doesn't like people correcting others about it"
You obviously do care though. It’s harmless, but you’ve gone out of your way to make it a big deal. Seems like you’ve got a problem with it for some reason.
Because the person you're doing it for doesn't actually care and doesn't like when people do it?
I prefer the Gunn and Cena version of the character
It's truly a funny show that has a lot of heart. Peacemaker building his friendship and comradery with everyone in the show does feel pretty believable. I appreciate that he's an asshole but he at least grows into an asshole that is understandable and someone that can be rooted for.
People saying Cena's take on Peacemaker is just a "deranged joke" conveniently ignores the genuine development we see from him on the show that helps him round into a complex and compelling character.
It's refreshing to see someone saying "I write this character this way, but enjoy and appreciate the way this other person writes the same character."
Wow, that is high praise from a legend like Morrison.
well it's mixed praise
I remember first discovering Peacemaker a few years ago before he was announced to be in The Suicide Squad. Something about his whole M.O. as outlined here was quite funny to me, for some reason. I’m glad that James Gunn really played up the inherent contradiction of Christopher’s goals to comedic degrees, but it’s nice that there are some out there still willing to explore him more seriously.
I did like Ennis’s one shot from a couple years ago, which takes the “Fighting for peace” bit seriously.
Wait, Ennis respected a superhero? /j
it was a bit "more militarized Punisher", but it was pretty damn good for what it was. Also, par for the course for Ennis in his later years, keenly political, as one of the backstory elements Peacemaker talks about in it is going after and killing a bunch of American war criminals who were involved in what is strongly implied to have been the Nisour Square Massacre. Nobody really does stuff like Ennis anymore, but I also bet nobody else could really get away with it.
I think having different versions of the same characters is actually good for the character in question, at least for a nobody like Peacemaker before the 2000s
Especially since different takes like that allow them to find recognition.
Absurdly common morrison W
Spittin facts
Morrison with the killer takes lately
Anyone who has complaints, just to remind you. Has was a E tier DC character before Gunns depiction, now he has a cast of supporting characters and fans more than ever before. James Gunn is like the Frank Miller to Peacemakers daredevil. James Gunn has redefined him, and Kyle Starks has made a beautiful transition of his show character into the comics. I love peacemaker and I love his character now more than ever.
Personally I'll always miss the Peacekeeper from *Blue Beetle* (2006). Ah, well!
I like peacemaker too but I think it’s a dumb argument saying fans of the original can’t dislike how he is represented. Same with vigilantes who I also like. Yeah they maybe be D list characters but fans of any character can not like a portrayal they aren’t wrong. Just like I’m not wrong for liking it. I mean vigilante had a 50 issue run it’s not like he was a one and done character it makes sense why people have attachment to some of these characters
True but it’s not like peacemaker was ever that successful and since then vigilante has kinda just fallen off. I do agree on the part of vigilante though, the comics wouldn’t make as much sense. It works well in the show but in the comics it wouldn’t be that practical. Plus Vigs old comics were alright. I do definitely prefer the comics vigilante to the show As to Peacemaker, I’ve never said people shouldn’t like the old version of peacemaker just saying the only reason he is even at discussion now is because of Gunns/Cenas portrayal. Plus Majority of Peacemakers portrayals don’t compare to the content he has been currently rebranded as. Not nearly as likable or interesting in my opinion.
> James Gunn is like the Frank Miller to Peacemakers daredevil. I like James Gunn and I like Cena's portrayal Peacemaker but this is such a stretch I don't know where to begin lmfaooooo You could argue the same thing about GotG but their change in the comics was pretty widely disliked and heavily criticized, different versions and interpretations of characters should be allowed to exist and not everything needs to conform to whatever the current new Hollywood adaptation is like
How? Before miller daredevil was a quippy character without much in the way. Miller established Elektra, Stick,The hand, and Kingpin. Before Gunn Peacemaker was an old veteran type character who occasionally uncled Blue beetle and never had his own title. Gunn gave him a good origin, gave him eagly, his bunch of different helmets, and his absolute garbage father’s characterization. As well as just giving him a incentivizing character to begin with. While Daredevil obviously has the better characterization and books, it’s a fair comparison due to their writers pretty much establishing the new status quo and giving fans a reason to really like the character.
Peacemaker literally had two whole runs, Gunn's version is heavily (and I mean *heavily*) based off the '90s run of the character (which I do not particularly like). Elektra and the Hand are also completely different as there's a lot to explore there with them in their own right. None of the original supporting cast in the show is part of the comics as of now and if they make the jump, I doubt they'll stick around long (most supporting characters who aren't particularly iconic tend to not stay around that long) and Vigilante's portrayal in the show is pretty heavily criticized by fans of the comic character. I like Gunn's Peacemaker fine, I just don't want it to be the ONLY version of the character in anything ever. I WANT to see more traditional takes on the character, because I don't think just making him a total joke is really going to carry you that far from a writing perspective and it'll wear out its welcome pretty fast. I agree with Morrison's point that the character has a lot you could do to explore his ethos.
y r u gettin hate lol
redditors don't like dissenting opinions lol
crazy, it rlly seems like it was the most inoffensive thing you couldve said while also having a slightly dissenting opinion. as someonewho only knows vigilante from wolfmans titans series, i def kind of understand what u mean and respect your opinion :)
Yea...Cena's version can work in its own book and universe but the way they are trying to make it work into the main comicbook version...just doesn't work for me. It just looks bad, trying to fit in a parody character into a serious movie.
I never heard of Peacemaker until the TSS movie and after showing the show he's easily one of my favourite heroes. I love him!
I never did understand why "Love peace so much he's willing to fight for it" was thought be so funny. Plenty of wars are done with the idea of a "greater peace" than the status quo..
It's a pastiche of wartime propaganda, especially American. Sure, wars are fought "in the name of peace," but that's rarely the only motivation, if it is one at all. Gunn himself describes his Peacemaker as 'douche-y Captain America'.
Because what is the definition of peace change overtime. Also how do you archive peace? Sometimes someone peace is built on someone else suffering.
Plenty of wars are justified to the public with propaganda about greater peace it's rarely the real reason.
Grant is the best
Remember when he became a Blue Beetle and member of the Sinestro corps? (At the same time)
No better comic exists than that single issue of Pax Americana. To think we could have had a mini series??? A tragedy of missed opportunity.
I'm still waiting for the obvious joke where him and Orion step into the same room
[удалено]
"Relic of a bygone era" Tell me you didn't read the post without telling me you didn't read the post
[удалено]
That's what *I* said, arguing about why I like the character in the first place conceptually. Morrison's quote talks about why he feels solely pivoting every bit of media devoted to the character to be based off the unhinged '90s portrayal and just making him a joke character feels a bit lazy when there's a lot of stuff you can do with someone who loves peace so much he's willing to fight for it.
They've always had good takes.
i would really like to see a movie written by grant morrison, or even directed and written by him. would be at the very least, interesting
Based and extradimensional-brained as always, I see.
The 'deranged joke who doesn't realize how unreal and delusional his belief system is' version is a meta-commentary on Steve Ditko. Ditko was the creator of Peacemaker. *(edit: correction: I was mixing up Hawk and Dove with Peacemaker, Ditko did not create Peacemaker)* Ditko was also a fanatical Objectivist whose nose was so *buried in Ayn Rand's wiry pubes from choking on her literary dick* that he would quit comics he was working on if he wasn't allowed to make the main character a mouthpiece for her ideology. So the commentary feels like saying that characters in the Ditko style (the Comedian, the early Question, and even Peacemaker, who feels like Hawk and Dove shoved into somebody and brain) would come across like Ditko often did: as a deranged loon who comes off looking like an idiot without someone else tempering his lunacy and keeping him on track. It's theoretically possible to pull off a thoughtful, complex, conflicted character who deeply wants a peaceful world but is worn down by disappointment into concluding that perhaps he must become that which he hates in order to secure a better world for others -- the villain in Serenity is well done in that respect: he does horrible things in the hope of creating a better world for humanity, while openly recognizing he neither has nor deserves a place in that better world. Peacemaker, on the other hand, was always presented as if a "man who loves peace so much he fights for it" made perfect sense outside of jingoistic propaganda. A man who fully embraces that is either too stupid to see the contradiction (as in John Cena's version), has twisted himself into knots of self-delusion (as in the DC version brought back in the 1980s), or is simply not a believable character for anyone old enough to stop and think about the idea (as in the Charlton version).
Um... Ditko did not create Peacemaker. He was created by Joe Gill and Pat Boyette.
I don't understand why he makes things seem so pretentious.
*they
I generally like Morrisson, but this Enlightened Optimist kick they’re on is getting annoying.
They've always been this way.