« “Hey Clark, Watch the Hand Checking” | Main | Batman and the Monster Men #1 »

November 16, 2005

Comments

Aya Ayuvara

I hope you are right about the OMACs. Jsut remember: There are humans and there are superhumans. With powers you're bound to NOT understand. Powers that can easily kill hundreds of people with the blink of an eye or the wave of a hand. From such difference, fear stems.

And now there is a tool to keep superhumans in check. And the core of this tool is... human.

Sure if the idea is overused, it would be bad (as if the X-Men were always hunted by Sentinels), but brought up from time to time, it would help to keep the feet on the ground. So I hope you are right, even if you don't seem to like the OMACs.

Kurt

While I didn’t care for the way the OMACs were initially birthed into the DCU, I think a decent job has been done in retroactively attaching an explanation for them. They're here and I can accept that. But what I can’t accept is when they’re used as a generic antagonist to prop up lazy storytelling – which is much of how they’re being used currently. (Witness JLA 122.) Oddly enough, the Sentinel comparison hadn’t occurred to me, but it seems very apt and for some reason makes me like the OMACs less.

As to them being human at their core – aren’t most of the DC heroes that? What’s the difference between an OMAC and Green Lantern? With the exception that GL is acting under his own free will. (As far as we know.)

Aya Ayuvara

Well human is maybe the wrong word, as you are right: most heroes are (even if they are aliens, they are still human and act human).

My point was something different. Not their humanity but their (relative) innocence. It is not their wish to act against the heroes, still they do.

The comments to this entry are closed.