Lemire & Sorrentino Take Over "Green Arrow"

[Mr. Holmes]

This is a BAD sign, a very bad sign. remember nocenti,she said the same thing, "Oh I dont know about Green Arrow, I dont even like him". blah blah and you all clapped hands. LOL DC you give people who dont even know anything about the character or have passion for the character to write, dont you learn from your mistakes?.


HOW IS SOME WHO SAY THEY DONT KNOW THE CHARACTER OR HAD INTERESTED IN THEM SUPPOSED TO WRITE HIM?. Same problem alert.

No I dont like to whine a lot, Im being realistic, some of you keep blindly putting faith in some of these writers because of some previous work or whatever, rolleyes and we end up being disappointed and burnt again and again and again. Same trick, same results. I hate to say I told you so another wasted year later

Well you seem to complain about everything, so of course there's no proving you wrong on being disappointed in things before they happen.

And it shows Azz never had much interest in Diana because she isn't even the focus of her book!

People keep saying that, but it's not supported in the book.

[stk]

People keep saying that, but it's not supported in the book.

Well, she wasn't the focus of the opening arc, which was an odd choice.

[nightrider]

Well, she wasn't the focus of the opening arc, which was an odd choice.

What does this mean?
Wasn't the first arc of the book about Wonder Woman?

[hunter_peterson]

Well, she wasn't the focus of the opening arc, which was an odd choice.

That isn't really true at all. Most of it focused on how her origins weren't what she thought they were and how that changed her life. Her relationships to home and family were extensively explored, she was proactive in protecting an innocent woman targeted by the gods/her new family and even went to hell and back to protect an innocent. Basically everything that happened revolved around her, with the partial exception of Apollo's plotting, and at's because she didn't really care if he wanted to be the king of Olympus.

Wonder Woman was the focus of the first arc. It's her book and it revolves around her life and the choices she makes. To some it might have felt otherwise, because of all the other characters showing up, but that's just world-building.

On topic, I think this could be great. It will certainly be better than what we've got now. And the art... the art... so gorgeous...

[TheBalzan]

The key difference being they are held accountable. Every time a police officer fires his gun in the line of duty, there's investigation and followup. Part of what makes these guys vigilantes is the fact there isn't that structure of accountability for their actions.

When we look at what made Green Arrow truly interesting and different as a character was his social conscience. When he did kill someone and justifiably, it had a profound impact on him. As done in the 70s, he was the kind of guy that was for the common man, social justice. Part of that would be people in authority acting without being held accountable for their actions. It makes sense that he'd see it's even more important for the heroes to be better than that. Of all characters, there's actually a strong reason for him not to kill.

I liked Grell's run for the most part, but when he started to kill rather than wound he lost me. After all, this was the same hero that used to use trick arrows. If he could fight crime non-lethally with trick arrows but not with regular arrows, it becomes a violation of the basic character. It makes no sense for him to use regular arrows if the implication is that he's actually less effective.

I give the show ARROW a pass in this regards because we're seeing the growth and maturing of the character and what he sees as his mission. He's still developing. And, we're seeing the ramifications of his actions as well. He's not being given a simple free pass. It comes with costs. It wouldn't surprise me to see a season ending with him taking responsibility for the kills and going to jail in order to come back out a hero redeemed.

I am behind this post 100%! Especially the bold parts.
In the Longbow hunters the kill is understandable and you can empathise with the (split second) decision that he makes after seeing the woman he loves being tortured, everything after that is just wanton slaughter for no other reason than to appear grounded. There are specific issues where it looks like it would be a great turning point away from lethal force use, like when he shoots a kid with a paintball gun thinking he's shooting at a cop, that were just there for drama and not an attempt and character growth.
Ollie does work when he's grounded, just not too grounded.

On another note I hope Hal comes back eventually so if Geoff and Jeff do do another shot at "Green Lantern Green Arrow: Hard Travelling Heroes" they can (re)develop their friendship. Which was sad to see there was no evidence of in JL#7. Not anything against Baz as hes quite an interesting character so far, he just doesn't have that same history. It's like when Kyle and Ollie join forces under Winick, it's a total different chemistry, which was fun, but not the same best frenemy dynamic.

[DrSimonHurt]

Seconded.

The whole absolute no-kill idea needs to die.

Yeah, no.

They're superheroes, not murderous vigilantes.

[mrj_rich]

I am intrigued by the idea of Lemire/Sorrentino on Green Arrow. Would it be a good idea to jump right into it or go back to issue # 1? I was a fan of the previous incarnations of the character (Before New 52), but have heard that the current one is awful. I may ignore the current story arcs. Do you think it would hinder my understanding of the current comic or would ignoring it be better?

[Mr. Holmes]

Yeah, no.

They're superheroes, not murderous vigilantes.

It's not black and white either.

[suss2it]

Yeah, no.

They're superheroes, not murderous vigilantes.

Just cause they're superheroes doesn't mean they shouldn't kill. I think the superhero genre is like the only one where it's a big deal that the protagonist kills his enemies. I mean look at James Bond and a thousand other action-movie heroes, they're still heroes who save the day and all that, but when necessary they're ready to kill. I'm not even saying every hero needs to be a cold-blooded killer or anything, but being overly concerned about the safety of murderous villains is a bit odd.

[TheBalzan]

Just cause they're superheroes doesn't mean they shouldn't kill. I think the superhero genre is like the only one where it's a big deal that the protagonist kills his enemies. I mean look at James Bond and a thousand other action-movie heroes, they're still heroes who save the day and all that, but when necessary they're ready to kill. I'm not even saying every hero needs to be a cold-blooded killer or anything, but being overly concerned about the safety of murderous villains is a bit odd.

James Bond is a murderer also, he just hides behind a badge, just like any Clint Eastwood cop character and most general action-movie protagonists. They are anti-heroes not heroes. Characters like Red Hood can work as anti-heroes, but there are characters that just don't work as anti-heroes.
When written properly Ollie has a strong social conscience which just does not fit with a complete disregard for fellow life.

[Mr. Holmes]

James Bond isn't an antihero just because you don't approve of his methods.

[stk]

I kind of like the idea of heroes with overwhelmingly strong super abilities, like Superman, having an absolute no-kill rule (although we've seen that good stories can come about when his code is broken). It makes sense for Superman to try to treat humans extra-delicately.

But I am not against there being some wiggle-room for the completely human characters like Batman or Green Arrow.