Yeah, I think when you get to the point where you’re saying like Lex Luthor and Catwoman are “iconic” characters, you’re not using the word in a manner that carries any actual meaning. Which is really what DC did, and why it was so dumb.
I mean you can argue semantically anything you want, you can shape and twist the meaning of the word anyway you want, but then it doesn’t have any meaning.
If you need to engage in a semantics argument with people to convince them that a character is “iconic” then to me, that’s kind of like missing the point. Isn’t that the point or definition of “iconic” that there’s like an underlying, universally understood meaning? How can something be iconic, ie. universally recognized and understood, if you need to argue (poorly and unsuccessfully) that something is iconic?
Why use the word “iconic” when you’re actually talking about “popular” or “established” or whatever? In this context it’s just a stupid buzz word that means nothing, and it’s exploitative, misleading, and dumb.
Superman is iconic. There is a clear difference in how culturally visible “Superman” is as a household name versus the Flash. If you call the Flash “iconic” as well, instead of just “popular” (and even that is arguable, to anyone that doesn’t read comics) then what does that mean Superman is?
If you told me “an NBA icon” was coming up the street and I turned to see Kenny Smith, I’d slap you right on your stupid mouth.