Frobin

I don't really see Relic as Galactus rip-off. He's a cosmic villain, true, and he seems to be really big, true ... but that's it. Galactus is a cosmic force of nature, a cosmic entity. I don't see such an attribute when it comes to Relic. He's just a scientist, maybe mad scientist, from the universe before our universe ... nobody knows why he still exists or why he survived the Big Bang? So he's more a very big, old and mighty person, not really a cosmic entity.

But I appreciate more cosmic villains in the DC universe, because contrary to the Marvel universe with all these cosmic empires and cosmic entities and villains, the DC universe outside of Earth very much depends on the Green Lanterns. There's not much more, maybe from time to time the Vega System and a few planets like Thanagar, Rann. But there are no really bad cosmic villains with the exception of Darkseid (and even he is very Earth focused). There would be some cosmic characters, but they usually are not really used in a cosmic way, always very Earth-centered: e.g. Despero, Starro (once used as a really amazing cosmic villain in R.E.B.E.L.S.), Queen Bee, or even Spectre, ...

It's no wonder Threshold is getting canceled. For me it's one of the biggest disappointments of the whole New 52 thing (and since there are many letdowns and disappointments it's really a big one!). I hoped for great stories with cosmic characters of DC and all I got were a lame story arc, a lame new character and lame reboots of some DC B- or C-list characters. The artwork was even more lame ... and this means something considering the weak story.

Only highlight of this book was the Larfleeze story. Since he'll get his own book, I will not miss Threshold!

Too bad ... again (like with DC universe presents) DC really missed the chance to highlight their space characters and structure their universe beyond Earth and the Green Lantern Corps.

Same for Legion of Superheroes.

@darkwingdan: No it isn't ... or at least ... it isn't anymore. Retrospective it is. As satire, as joke, as childhood memory ... but not as movie or TV adaptation of the superhero comic book character. It is and it has always been a mockery and a satire of the superhero genre. Seen within these limitations it's really funny (though I can't stand it anymore) and awesome ... but I don't think that Marvel want's to make a mockery of its own genre and character! So in this case "goes 60s Batman" means no compliment!

For me, but also in a more generally and reasonable perspectiv, Iron Man 3 is the worst superhero movie and one of the most annoying comic book adaptationssince ... well, since 60s Batman TV show, I guess. Yeah, I know ... this show is very popular and many love it: retrospective. But it made a joke of the character and the superhero genre, it was satire ... and besides that's the reason the 1989 Batman movie bei Tim Burton and even more the Chris Nolan trilogy has been such a success: Because it portrayed the character much more in the spirit of the comic book and took itself and the character more seriously.

IRON MAN goes MICKEY MOUSE!

In the first Iron Man movie and even more in the Avengers movie we've seen how funny AND cool Tony Stark / Iron Man can be as a movie character. BUT with Iron Man 3 we've seen just a senseless plot, in fact no real story to tell. The movie turns the character into Disney kids comedy, the fun is mainly childish irony (not the cool sarcasm of the Tony Stark seen in the Avengers movie) . Funny moments, but just for cheap laughter.

Disappointing and annoying for comic book readers, but even meaningless for movie goers. But (of course) amazing MARKETING - since (after seeing the trailers) I really was looking forward to another great Marvel movie.

The MANDARIN TWIST and EXTREMIS

I admit that the Mandarin twist made me laugh ... but just for a moment and for what? Even before the twist I considered the Mandarin not very well portrayed (with the exception of his personal look ... his terror organisation was way to much islamic fundamentalist designed). It wouldn't be a problem to portray the Mandarin without the stereotypes of the comic book characters ... just as a Chinese genius, not a terrorist, more a behind the scenes super crime godfather ... or Tony Stark's Chinese counterpart, but with much more ambitions to take over control. But then the Mandarin is a joke and Aldrich Killian is the Mandarin. Besides: Can anybody explain the plot? Why Killian wants to kill the president ... and of course, his issues with Tony are all about a girl and humiliation. A boy's fight (again). So cheap!

And Extremis ... it has NOTHING to do with the Extremis of the comic book. However, wouldn't be a problem ... if it would make sense at all ... in the movie. But it doesn't ... Extremis is the next step of human evolution? It genetically converts humans into some sort of dragons or human torches? Spitting fire and these cheap CGI of glowing heat beneath the skin ... come on ... that's the next level of human evolution. WHAT's about a plot that makes SENSE?!

Failed adaptation for the movie

Besides the movie is totally senseless even for movie goers who doesn't read the comic book. Most of all this movie is really annoying IF YOU ARE A FANBOY! Do you know why GAME OF THRONES or The Walking Dead are such a big success? Because (so far) both shows did pretty well in adapting the books and comics into TV. The Walking Dead showed that you can - and even should - make adaptations to comic book characters.

BUT imagine you read Game of Thrones ... you know the Kingslayer ... but then in the TV show it would be someone completely different than Jaime Lannister. But called Kingslayer ... just for the fans to have some recognition value. And then you have The Wall ... but it's something completely different than the wall in the books. Wouldn't fans be annoyed ... feel a bit played for a sucker?

Why calling something Extremis in the movie that have nothing in common with Extremis? Such a waste. Why using a great villain's name just to make a joke out of the character. As I said before ... Iron Man can be FUNNY and COOL as seen in Avengers. Adaptation means NOT using keywords for stupid fanboys to please them ... it means changing some things for the better to fit the medium or the times or the target group or whatever, BUT saving the spirit and the core of the character ... maybe changing the plot, but telling the same story. That didn't happen here.

And what's about the boy sidekick ... a little bit Disney family entertainment? Meaningless action without a plot, cheap laughter and cheap CGI, childish irony and a movie which doesn't know what it wants to be: a satire of Iron Man, a joke ... or a movie taking the character seriously (which doesn't exclude fun and irony).

EPIC FAIL! Such a downfall. Iron Man goes 60s Batman!

If that's what Disney is doing to Marvel ... the dark side took over! :(

For me, but also in a more generally and reasonable perspectiv, Iron Man 3 is the worst superhero movie and one of the most annoying comic book adaptations since ... well, since 60s Batman TV show, I guess. Yeah, I know ... this show is very popular and many love it: retrospective. But it made a joke of the character and the superhero genre, it was satire ... and besides that's the reason the 1989 Batman movie bei Tim Burton and even more the Chris Nolan trilogy has been such a success: Because it portrayed the character much more in the spirit of the comic book and took itself and the character more seriously.

IRON MAN goes MICKEY MOUSE!

In the first Iron Man movie and even more in the Avengers movie we've seen how funny AND cool Tony Stark / Iron Man can be as a movie character. BUT with Iron Man 3 we've seen just a senseless plot, in fact no real story to tell. The movie turns the character into Disney kids comedy, the fun is mainly childish irony (not the cool sarcasm of the Tony Stark seen in the Avengers movie) . Funny moments, but just for cheap laughter.

Disappointing and annoying for comic book readers, but even meaningless for movie goers. But (of course) amazing MARKETING - since (after seeing the trailers) I really was looking forward to another great Marvel movie.

The MANDARIN TWIST and EXTREMIS

I admit that the Mandarin twist made me laugh ... but just for a moment and for what? Even before the twist I considered the Mandarin not very well portrayed (with the exception of his personal look ... his terror organisation was way to much islamic fundamentalist designed). It wouldn't be a problem to portray the Mandarin without the stereotypes of the comic book characters ... just as a Chinese genius, not a terrorist, more a behind the scenes super crime godfather ... or Tony Stark's Chinese counterpart, but with much more ambitions to take over control. But then the Mandarin is a joke and Aldrich Killian is the Mandarin. Besides: Can anybody explain the plot? Why Killian wants to kill the president ... and of course, his issues with Tony are all about a girl and humiliation. A boy's fight (again). So cheap!

And Extremis ... it has NOTHING to do with the Extremis of the comic book. However, wouldn't be a problem ... if it would make sense at all ... in the movie. But it doesn't ... Extremis is the next step of human evolution? It genetically converts humans into some sort of dragons or human torches? Spitting fire and these cheap CGI of glowing heat beneath the skin ... come on ... that's the next level of human evolution. WHAT's about a plot that makes SENSE?!

Failed adaptation for the movie

Besides the movie is totally senseless even for movie goers who doesn't read the comic book. Most of all this movie is really annoying IF YOU ARE A FANBOY! Do you know why GAME OF THRONES or The Walking Dead are such a big success? Because (so far) both shows did pretty well in adapting the books and comics into TV. The Walking Dead showed that you can - and even should - make adaptations to comic book characters.

BUT imagine you read Game of Thrones ... you know the Kingslayer ... but then in the TV show it would be someone completely different than Jaime Lannister. But called Kingslayer ... just for the fans to have some recognition value. And then you have The Wall ... but it's something completely different than the wall in the books. Wouldn't fans be annoyed ... feel a bit played for a sucker?

Why calling something Extremis in the movie that have nothing in common with Extremis? Such a waste. Why using a great villain's name just to make a joke out of the character. As I said before ... Iron Man can be FUNNY and COOL as seen in Avengers. Adaptation means NOT using keywords for stupid fanboys to please them ... it means changing some things for the better to fit the medium or the times or the target group or whatever, BUT saving the spirit and the core of the character ... maybe changing the plot, but telling the same story. That didn't happen here.

And what's about the boy sidekick ... a little bit Disney family entertainment? Meaningless action without a plot, cheap laughter and cheap CGI, childish irony and a movie which doesn't know what it wants to be: a satire of Iron Man, a joke ... or a movie taking the character seriously (which doesn't exclude fun and irony).

EPIC FAIL! Such a downfall. Iron Man goes 60s Batman!

If that's what Disney is doing to Marvel ... the dark side took over! :(

The New 52 universe (DCnU) has so many inconsistencies and incoherent stories ... I don't know where to start, so I just pick the New Gods - because recently Orion appeared in Wonder Woman and Superman and Mr. Miracle and Barda were teasered in Earth 2.

Since I don't read Superman (anymore) and Wonder Woman, I'm interested in the (new?) origin of Orion ... and did Highfather appear too?

What I don't understand is:

In Justice League #1 we have seen Darkseid attacking Earth through Boom Tubes. The boom tubes are some sort of interdimensional gate (so Darkseid and his hordes exist in another dimension?) or at least some sort of wormhole to bridge very far distances (so Darkseid and his hordes are very far away ... farther away than any other alien empire, for example Vega System, Thanagar). I prefer the other dimension solution (since the Green Lanterns can travel the whole universe) ... so it could be the same Darkseid who attacked Earth 2 (and not another version of Darkseid).

However, the Justice League fought back Darkseid by closing the Boom Tubes - based on the Motherbox technology.

This was possible because Cyborg merged with the Motherbox technology and was able to close the boom tube doors (same on Earth 2, difference Cyborg didn't merge with the Motherbox technology - but Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman also managed to close the boom tube permanently ... unfortunately dying in doing so). Now he's still connected to the Motherbox technology and obviously can control boom tubes on Earth ... at least he would notice if a boom tube door opens and of course he would immediately close it!

Summary: Cyborg controls boom tube doors on Earth and that's the reason Darkseid can't attack Earth again. Cyborg would just close the boom tube again. Darkseid's too far away or in another dimension to reach Earth other than by Boom Tube (so far).

Right?

So my questions are:

1. Is Orion and are the New Gods in DCnU still connected to Darkseid? If not ... how lame (Orion wouldn't be Orion anymore, in my opinion) ... but what's their new origin?

2. But most of all: If they are still connected to Darkseid (I really hope so) ... so they come from the same place as Darkseid ... HOW is it even possible Orion is here? How did he manage to come to Earth while Darkseid didn't?

Since I don't read Wonder Woman and Superman can anybody tell me what's known so far about the origin of the New Gods and Orion and their connection to Darkseid?

Thx

I would say Tony Stark is Marvel's Lex Luthor ... at least Tony Stark was Marvel's Lex Luthor back then during Civil War and as long as he hunted down his own friends.

DC's Iron Man / Tony Stark is Batman / Bruce Wayne in my opinion ... the characters has more in common than for example Iron Man and Steel (though Steel was in terms of technology based powers his DC equivalent in JLA back then) or Cyborg (who is now some sort of technology based DCnU equivalent ... but even more powerful and more human-technology cross-linked than Iron Man with Extremis).

By the way: The Marvel equivalent of Batman in my opinion is not Tony Stark ... but Black Panther.

1. Earth 2
2. Green Lantern (so far, don't know what's coming with #21 and the new team)
3. Justice League
4. Justice League of America

Besides I hear that Animal Man, Swamp Thing and Demon Knights are good books, but I don't read them.

Aquaman has been ok so far, but now with Pelletier as penciller it lost some attraction to me. Green Lantern Corps is ok too, same for Batman ... though I don't read it monthly.

Looking forward to it. Green Lantern is one of DC's best books - hope it stays this way.

Especially the Green Lantern universe has been developed really great in recent years by Geoff Johns and others (Green Lantern Corps has been also amazing) ... but (though: nothing against a new villain!) in my opinion DC's cosmic universe is a bit chaotic (compared to Marvel). There are many characters that could be really great, but are often used as B- or C-listers.

Just think of Darkseid (in my opinion DC's Thanos), Mongul, Starro (the Conquerer - as seen in R.E.B.E.L.S), Queen Bee, Despero, Brainiac and other villains, who are cosmic for real but always used very Earth bound.
There are also many cosmic heroes (on Earth and in deep space). And think of all the alien races like the Dominators, the Khunds, the Qwardians, Tamarans, the whole Vega System ...

The DC universe seems so small ... the Guardians have organized the WHOLE UNIVERSE into 3600 sectors (with OA in its center) ... so tell me how it's possible the Green Lanterns never clash with STARRO, who rules 9 galaxies (which would be more than one sector?) ... there are hundreds of trillions of galaxies in the universe!

If you think about this the Guardians can't rule the whole universe ... just this Galaxy or many Galaxies (ours included) ... so they are more Guardians of our Galaxy ... this would open so much stories about the unknown threats outside the Guardian universe.

I just say (besides new characters), structuring the DC Cosmic landscape would be much work to do ...

After seeing the last page and the ring on the D.'s hand ... well, it seemed pretty clear for me that the thief was Batman himself under control of D. ... of course he's not aware of him mind controlled, so he's searching for an intruder (yet).

Only thing I wonder is ... if D. is using Batman to outplay the Justice League, why not taking ALL the things Batman has against the team members? Why just the Kryptonite ring for Superman?
Maybe D. is just too cocksure of himself and just considers Superman as a threat to him ... but it would be pretty stupid ... though it would somehow fit the character.