Just wondering since he is immortal and all that, whether he ever clashed with the Legion, heck it would only make sense?
Posted by Lightning Lad on :
Would have made just as much sense as Ra's al Ghul.
Posted by Blockade Boy on :
NO!
Huh?
NO!
Where'd that come from?
NO!
Okay already, we heard you. sheesh. He only asked a`question.
Posted by Omni Craig on :
I actually would have preferred to see Vandal Savage than Ra's al Ghul, if you ask me.
Posted by Blockade Boy on :
One vote for "neither."
I prefer to think that even though both are immortal, it's most logical that they would have gone on to more important things like sitting quietly in some 30th century park murmering to themselves and not bothering anyone.
Posted by Tamper Lad on :
I've never gotten immortal villains either. What kind of loser can live 10,000 lifetimes and not accomplish what he wants to.
Must be some kind of mental defective.
Posted by Caliente on :
Well, I'd be mentally defective if I had to live for some inanely long time, too. I mean, c'mon, who wants that? You know you'd go nuts, too...
Posted by thinbalion on :
Hmm... I was only wondering if it had ever happened... now as to whether it would be a good idea, yeah that's a whole other question...
Also these so-called imortals, are a good way of connecting the present and the future DCU. The Great Darkness Saga is one example of good execution.
In any event, this only popped in my head thanks to JSA, all thats going on there.
[ March 24, 2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: thinbalion ]
Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
As for happening, I don't think it has.
And I am one opposed to the idea. For one thing, it ruins any present day story featuring that villian because we now "know" that he has to survive to Legion time.
I also don't think you need a "connection" between the present DCU and the Legion, other than historical. And I think having too much of a connection just limits the Legion and the present day DCU.
Posted by thinbalion on :
True and I agree with cases like Darkseid, but with say Vandal Savage, who is supposed to be immortal (i.e. he doesn't die period), it would be feasible and would not destroy stories that have not been told already.
That said, I don't actually agree with him ever playing a role in Legion stories. He's not the kind of villain that would have good interplay with them. That's not to be said it couldn't be done, just that I'd have to be conviced of its quality.
Posted by Quislet, Esq. on :
quote:Originally posted by thinbalion: True and I agree with cases like Darkseid, but with say Vandal Savage, who is supposed to be immortal (i.e. he doesn't die period), it would be feasible and would not destroy stories that have not been told already.
Well yes, it would. We would know that none of his schemes play out if he is there in the Legion's time just like he always is. (yeah I know that the good guys always win, but the suspense would be ruined)
That's my main reason why Star Wars episodes 1-3 were not so good. We all knew what would happen. We all knew from the start of episode one that Anakin becomes Darth Vader and we are just waiting for it rather than get into the story.
Posted by Nightcrawler on :
I disagree about Vandal Savage. He's shown "dying" all of the time. I don't think having him show up again in a 30th century story is any worse than having him show up later in Green Lantern or the JSA.
It doesn't cheapen or ruin a story about him now. It just reinforces the claim that he's immortal. Which to me makes the stories in the 20th and 21st centuries all the more interesting.
Posted by Bicycle Repair Man on :
quote:Originally posted by Caliente: Well, I'd be mentally defective if I had to live for some inanely long time, too. I mean, c'mon, who wants that? You know you'd go nuts, too...
Someone tried using this approach to writing Vandal Savage in the Wally West Flash series in the late 1980s; I think the writer was Mike Baron.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
That sounds right, BRM.
I vew Vandal Savage as the ultimate loser - in 50,000 years or whatever, he's accomplished Nada.
I once brainstormed up an idea that he was the Time Trapper, having continued his losing streak straight through the end of time.
Posted by Blue Battler on :
"Nothing" is kind of an overstatement, IMO.
Supposedly, he helped sink Atlantis, and ruled either directly or behind the scenes some of history's mightiest nations.
Given that the guy started out as just your typical dumb caveman type, he's gone pretty far in life.
And I have to say the whole "It ruins the suspense if we know a character isn't going to die" idea has never worked for me just because I've read comics long enough to know that ANYONE can come back from the dead if it suits the whims of an editor or writer.
Heck, I'd be tickled pink to see a 1000 year old Superman show up in a knock down dragout fight the Legion's having with Darkseid, for instance. Posted by rouge on :
The problem isn't the immortality or even resurrection, it's the return to "Status Quo".
Look at the Pulsar Stargrave stuff. Brainiac was now required to show up in the 30th century as his old school green and bald self, undercutting the "New" Brainiac skeletal design, because he was eventually destined to return to his less-deadly incarnation as the robot Coluan dude.
Darkseid proved it can be done, but you have to be very careful (even in GDS there's some question as to whether he's a ghost or not when he's fighting Orion). I'd rather not risk it unless it's extraordinarily well-done.
Posted by KryptonKid on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare: That sounds right, BRM.
I vew Vandal Savage as the ultimate loser - in 50,000 years or whatever, he's accomplished Nada.
I once brainstormed up an idea that he was the Time Trapper, having continued his losing streak straight through the end of time.
I love this idea. This could be one of those "behind the scenes" elements that is understood by the creative team(s) but not dealt with directly. These elements tend to flavor and add dimention to a title.
Posted by Blue Battler on :
quote:Originally posted by rouge: The problem isn't the immortality or even resurrection, it's the return to "Status Quo".
Look at the Pulsar Stargrave stuff. Brainiac was now required to show up in the 30th century as his old school green and bald self, undercutting the "New" Brainiac skeletal design, because he was eventually destined to return to his less-deadly incarnation as the robot Coluan dude.
Darkseid proved it can be done, but you have to be very careful (even in GDS there's some question as to whether he's a ghost or not when he's fighting Orion). I'd rather not risk it unless it's extraordinarily well-done.
And for me, seeing a 1000 year old Superman showing up out of nowhere has the potential to be extraordinarily done. Or Vandal Savage. Or Solomon Grundy or Swamp Thing. It depends on the creative team.
The Great Darkness Saga is one of the best Legion epics-- I would hate to have not have had it created because they wanted to keep Future DC and Present DC separate.
(Besides, how many Legions has Superman met now?)
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
in my view, you can't write Legion with too much attention given to modern-day continuity; the carpet keeps getting pulled out from under you, so why not just assume the carpet will be eventually restored?
Imagine Paul Levitz worryingabout the 1987/8 "end" of the GL Corps, and re-writing Rond to be a Darkstar or something. Then, a few years later, there is a Corps. Then, 1993ish, there isn't. Now, there is again...
Worryingabout who is "dead" or changed is irrelevant. At one point Pulsar Stargrave was given a non-Brainiac origin; that didn't diminish the impact readers in the 70s had on seeing PS as the survived Brainiac. If Ra's was "permanently" killed in 2005, the 3002 Ra's could have been an imposter, but that didn't retroactively unweave the surprise of "The" #3.
I'd rather see creators worry about good stories than "continuity." DC "continuity" is like a river that floods every so often; writing the 3007 while worrying about the possible floods of 2008-2020 (and beyond) is ridiculous and counter-productive.
Posted by Eryk Davis Ester on :
I agree with Kent.
Good stories are a lot more important to me than whether the latest issue of comic X contradicts the continuity established in comic Y three years ago, etc. In fact, I'd argue that the over-emphasis on continuity and the "shared universe" idea is a large part of what's led to the decline of American comics over the past forty years. Consistency within a particular title or family of titles is important, but trying to tie a multitude of titles featuring vastly different characters that have been published for decades and written by numerous different authors together as though they are one seamless story is just being unnecessarily pedantic.
Posted by CJ Taylor on :
The differences between LSH and the modern DCU actually build excitement for me. So in the modern DCU, there is no Justice League. But if I read LSH, and they mention the League facing a Braalian threat- you know my curiosity is piqued. Maybe another writer picks that story up, maybe not. It's the hints, the suggestions and the possibilities both time periods have on the other
As for Savage, let him face the Legion. By then, he should have marshalled some bank and some forces to make a serious threat. Imagine him becoming the Jabba of some remote UP world. Or he's become a Luthor type villain- respectable veneer of a businessman, with a seedy, untouchable side.
Posted by googoomuck on :
Maybe the question that needs to be asked is...
If Vandal Savage is immortal why hasn't he shown up in LSH?
Posted by Set on :
quote: If Vandal Savage is immortal why hasn't he shown up in LSH?
After his experiences with 7-man super-hero teams in the 20th century, he's probably (wisely) chosen not to pick fights with any 25+ person super-teams in the 30th.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)