DC are cowards.

[lead sharp]

In all honesty both the big two tend to wuss out on big stuff. Superman died, place your bets on when he's coming back. Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, you name the hero they killed him and brought him back. In fact the only one I kinda like for that is Hawkman, makes a weird sense what with all the egyption mytholigy surrounding the afterlife and wotnot.

Marvel seem to be going down the sae root. Didn't they kill off Aunt May at one stage of the game? Mind you I remember the death of Sue Reeds baby, that was a story well told. Now I hope they don't bring Steve Rogers back, I really do.

This was inspired by (for those of you still reading) the one sheet from DC

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11785

'Heroes die, legends live on.'

Not in the DCU they don't. I've ranted about this before, sooo many times but it's never quite reached the point were I realised I'm only buying two titles from DC. The JSA (a team of justifiable comebacks well handled) and Batman (purely because Grant Morrisons writing it).

The DCU is a big fat mess. It's been retroed, revamped, rejigged, reversed, rejuvinated, reinvented, rebooted and refried too many times it lacks the cohesion of an eighty year olds bowls. And it's only getting worse.

Marvel is going the same way but I think they have a clearer idea of what the're doing. Civil War may have been badly handled but it was a good idea. It's justa shame it comes on the back of House of M and now World War Hulk.

I don't even want to pretend to ask the question 'So what would you do to sort it out?' I just want to hope that maybe a bigwig will read this and take note. Ha.

[BouffonVert72]

I think that one of the problems is the age of these 2 universes... DC : 70, and Marvel 47...
So, the "revamped, rejigged, reversed, rejuvinated, reinvented, rebooted and refried" seems to me logical...


And anyway, I think that there are so many editors in the indies, that in fact there is not problem : when we bore with the big 2, hop we go on the indies... That's all... :)

[lead sharp]

True enough, but for me it would make a little more sense to try a more generational (word? lol) approach. Lets see Robin become Batman, lets leave Kyle as GL and so on. I kinda like HUGE events, Kingdom Come looks like a great way to be turning things and come to think of it Blue Beetle seems to be one character they've genuinely tried to do things with.

I think the qoate hit me because I couldn't help but think that The IDEA of Superman is more important than the character, so it would be more interesting to see the mantle past on and see how some one copes with that mantle. But do it forever. And then do it again. Same with everybody.

Batman Beyond was a brilliant idea, tied in with the JLU and made that universe seem so much more real.

sigh.

[Ryan Day]

What do you really expect? These are incredibly valuable pieces of intellectual property; the top characters are recognized by millions of people. There's no way either company is going to make permanent changes to their meal tickets these days.

Both Marvel and DC publish some good books, but you're kidding yourself if you read them for meaningful change or daring storytelling.

[stelok]

It's typical to continue publishing stories about a character as long as the character is still popular. That's why Superman and Batman haven't changed much over 70 years.

That's why I prefer reading manga. The manga always had an ending or a finality.

The U.S. comic books end only when they have to be canceled due to poor sales.

But for the characters, there is no death nor any other form of finality, like retirement or crippled, as long as the company still exists.

[Shellhead]

Quick question: who is the most popular comic book character that has been introduced in the last 20 years? Is this character popular? Is this character starring in an ongoing monthly solo title, or even capable of carrying such a book?

Regardless of your answer, there weren't a lot of good choices, were there? For Marvel, I guess it would be Gambit. [shudder] For DC, I was going to say John Constantine, but he has actually been around since 1985, so I'm not sure. At any rate, my point is that it has become increasingly difficult to create exciting new characters that will be popular with the fan base. Even the best writers in the industry haven't delivered much in the way of great new characters who enjoy widespread popularity. So the existing characters are valuable, and shouldn't be casually sacrificed for a short-term boost in sales and then replaced for another short-term boost in sales.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Of course, the reason why old characters return so often is because their replacements generally aren't as memorable, much less profitable. Given the spectacular commercial and critical failiure that was the Bart Allen Flash series, why wouldn't DC bring back his predecessor with a tried-and-true writer attached?

[Shellhead]

Of course, the reason why old characters return so often is because their replacements generally aren't as memorable, much less profitable. Given the spectacular commercial and critical failiure that was the Bart Allen Flash series, why wouldn't DC bring back his predecessor with a tried-and-true writer attached?

Interesting example. In general, I agree with your point. However, nobody likes to talk about this, but Barry Allen's Flash series was selling poorly for at least a couple of years before DC killed him in Crisis on Infinite Earths. Thanks to Mark Waid and Geoff Johns, the Wally West version of Flash had a more popular series. So there is one example of the replacement being more profitable.

[Omar Karindu]

I find this discussion rather ironic given that DC is perhaps the company to point to in terms of total, distnctive revamps. Ther magic-ring-powered Green Lantern gives way to a space-age version with a different origin and a radically different sci-fi backdrop; ditto the vast conceptual and stylistic gaps with the revivials of the Atom, Hawkman, and several others.

No one's managed to do something like that since at any company so far as I can tell, largely due to changes in the comics market that make it absurdly risky. COIE is as close as we've gotten since, spawning as it did some fairly major revamps of DC's heroes, though generally not at the coneptual level as in the Silver Age shift.

At Marvel, you've got perhaps the Human Torch(es) , the Sub-Mariner, and of course the X-Men. But has any other character there really gone through the kind of rethinking that some of the Golden Age DCers did?

[Nitz the Bloody]

At Marvel, you've got perhaps the Human Torch(es) , the Sub-Mariner, and of course the X-Men. But has any other character there really gone through the kind of rethinking that some of the Golden Age DCers did?

Maybe not in terms of throwing out all conceptual elements, but in terms of a radical thematic change, would Daredevil count? The Miller version kept the basics of the character but took him in a much different direction, overhauling backstory in multiple areas, exchanging superheroic tropes for film noir influences, and infusing elements of Japanese culture into a previously whitebread character. Aside from the costume, powers, and occupation, there's little that the swashbuckling Stan Lee Daredevil has in common with his much more passionate and much less stable successor.

Same packaging, radically different product.

[Reptisaurus!]

Maybe not in terms of throwing out all conceptual elements, but in terms of a radical thematic change, would Daredevil count? The Miller version kept the basics of the character but took him in a much different direction, overhauling backstory in multiple areas, exchanging superheroic tropes for film noir influences, and infusing elements of Japanese culture into a previously whitebread character. Aside from the costume, powers, and occupation, there's little that the swashbuckling Stan Lee Daredevil has in common with his much more passionate and much less stable successor.

Same packaging, radically different product.

But that was more of a gradual thing. Daredevil was Marvel's most film noir superhero for years before Miller hopped on board. (Although you're right about the backstory. And the ninjas.)

Even back in the Roy Thomas days DD was drawn by Gene Colan, which gave the generally sprightly stories a much spookier look than, say, the John Buscema Fantastic Four or the Herb Trimpe Hulk.

And, yeah, I dunno. I wouldn't mind seeing more forward thinking storytelling from the big two. But there's plenty of comics out there that I do like, and that DO have more progressive storytelling.

And endings.

And I've got limited money, so it's probably for the best that Marvel and DC aren't putting out tons of product I have to own.

Also: Geez. The Morrison/J.H. III Batman stuff is really, really good.

[Omar Karindu]

I guess I get to be in the unenviable position of being on both sides of the Daredevil issue. Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, and most of all, the unfairly and painfully forgotten Roger McKenzie all shifted the book into a superhero noir.

What Miller did was to match a graphic technique to the extant noir sensibility of the book, which in turn let him apotheosize a transformation that had long since happened. Wolfman's Bullseye is not so different than Miller's; McKenzie's crime plots blueprint some of Millers.

What Miller did, as writer/artist, was consolidate these gains in startling fashion. But the move was there for him to capitalize on; it was not sui generis as is often claimed.

[Pól Rua]

DC are businesspeople.
It does them no good to eliminate characters who have and continue to make money from them.

Additionally, most of the archetypical superhero characters exist at that iconic level. You may as well be calling for Charlie Brown or Uncle Scrooge to be subject to age, death and replacement.

[thronzeblast]

I dont know if i would go as far as to call them coward's you cant kill off your hero's as new and successful one are very hard to create.Basically it just not good business the problem is not them not dying it's the whole build up and Finality that the company tries to sell to the reader then a couple year's later the character is back.Captain marvel was a death that i think was very well done and there was no need to bring him back as it would just cheapen the whole thing.Honestly when somebodies dies now i dont thing if they will bring him back it's more how long will he or she stay dead.How long time we see cap back or sabretooth turn up somewhere goliath could show up a couple of year from now with a healing factor which fixed the whole clor blew threw his chest.

[Kid Omega]

... I'm only buying two titles from DC. The JSA (a team of justifiable comebacks well handled) ...

You lost any credibility at this point right here.

[Stanlos]

In all honesty both the big two tend to wuss out on big stuff. Superman died, place your bets on when he's coming back. Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, you name the hero they killed him and brought him back. In fact the only one I kinda like for that is Hawkman, makes a weird sense what with all the egyption mytholigy surrounding the afterlife and wotnot.

Marvel seem to be going down the sae root. Didn't they kill off Aunt May at one stage of the game? Mind you I remember the death of Sue Reeds baby, that was a story well told. Now I hope they don't bring Steve Rogers back, I really do.

This was inspired by (for those of you still reading) the one sheet from DC

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11785

'Heroes die, legends live on.'

Not in the DCU they don't. I've ranted about this before, sooo many times but it's never quite reached the point were I realised I'm only buying two titles from DC. The JSA (a team of justifiable comebacks well handled) and Batman (purely because Grant Morrisons writing it).

The DCU is a big fat mess. It's been retroed, revamped, rejigged, reversed, rejuvinated, reinvented, rebooted and refried too many times it lacks the cohesion of an eighty year olds bowls. And it's only getting worse.

Marvel is going the same way but I think they have a clearer idea of what the're doing. Civil War may have been badly handled but it was a good idea. It's justa shame it comes on the back of House of M and now World War Hulk.

I don't even want to pretend to ask the question 'So what would you do to sort it out?' I just want to hope that maybe a bigwig will read this and take note. Ha.

I think DC could benefit from a cleaning house where the 'upper echelon' is concerned. A person who's approach is "hey I don't know what to do with these characters--let's kill them all" has no business whatsoever leading and providing the direction of the company. DC has the Legends and that is their greatest asset but the current PTB seem to pride themselves on absolutely destroying them (see their recent successful assassination of WONDER WOMAN).

I think that the Executive Editor should be someone like Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid--whatever else you can say about these two, they know and respect the legends at the company and have the benefit of decades in the industry.

[Babylon23]

Marvel seem to be going down the sae root. Didn't they kill off Aunt May at one stage of the game? Mind you I remember the death of Sue Reeds baby, that was a story well told. Now I hope they don't bring Steve Rogers back, I really do.

Actually, Marvel have been doing this for decades, just like DC. Jim Rhodes replaced Tony Stark, Super-Patriot (now US Agent) replaced Cap, Ben Reilly and Spider-Man..the list goes on. Returns from death are pretty common too. Jean Grey, Colossus, Cyclops, Magik, Aunt May. Reed Richards has been dead a fair few times. Marvel Boy recently returned to life in AoA. I have no doubt Steve Rogers will be back soon enough.

It's a fairly standard tool of comic book storytelling, especially over the past 20-30 years.

I don't see it as cowardice. Changes like killing or replacing a character are made when a book isn't selling, in the hope of increasing sales. It's rare that these changes are made due to purely creative reasons. The same goes for returning a classic character to the fold. The companies will follow through with whatever increases sales.

For DC, it's worked with both Green Lantern and now the Flash. Sales have increased on both book substantially. GL is now becoming more of a franchise than it's ever been.

As for whether Marvel is less of a mess than DC, I personally don't see it. Marvel is a complete train wreck at the moment. Of course, this all comes down to subjective tastes. I've never had a problem following DC books, multiverse or no multiverse, Crisis or no Crisis.

[EmeraldCity]

It's typical to continue publishing stories about a character as long as the character is still popular. That's why Superman and Batman haven't changed much over 70 years.

That's why I prefer reading manga. The manga always had an ending or a finality.

The U.S. comic books end only when they have to be canceled due to poor sales.

But for the characters, there is no death nor any other form of finality, like retirement or crippled, as long as the company still exists.

I love stories that start and end.. 100 issues? ok! 10 issues? ok.. but have a focus a path.. makes the discovery much more enjoyable.. Not saying DC or Marvel has to kill off characters left and right but they could focus their stories better. Like instead of having one character on 4 different teams at the same time, let the arc finish and move said character on....

But it is a business and they need to keep sales up

[Gilda Dent]

DC are businesspeople.
It does them no good to eliminate characters who have and continue to make money from them.

Additionally, most of the archetypical superhero characters exist at that iconic level. You may as well be calling for Charlie Brown or Uncle Scrooge to be subject to age, death and replacement.

It is possible to age characters. A few newspaper strips and the rare superhero comic do this.

It just isn't feasible for the big characters from the big two or the long running newspaper comics for business reasons. Aging characters, or at least aging them real time, limits the amount of time that they're useful.

DC needs to have their big players available for the long run, they need to think in terms of decades rather than years to keep their properties valuable.

That said, I think there is some room to play with second and third tier characters, especially where the character is really a powerset more than one specific person. Batman is Bruce Wayne and Superman is Clark Kent and Spider-Man is Peter Parker. The powers and stories are so closely tied to the specific character with them that to try to separate them carries too much risk of losing the audience.

But there are others, Green Lantern and Flash at DC, second tier characters where legacy characters have a better chance to work. Robin is another--Batman can go through a series of Robins as they grow up and leave without the Robin character losing appeal or potential, because Robin's primary identifying characteristic is that he's Batman's sidekick.

[Grazzt]

But there are others, Green Lantern and Flash at DC, second tier characters where legacy characters have a better chance to work. Robin is another--Batman can go through a series of Robins as they grow up and leave without the Robin character losing appeal or potential, because Robin's primary identifying characteristic is that he's Batman's sidekick.

Isn't there a limit to that, too, though? I mean, if the guy has gone through 6 Robins, most of whom have gone on to crimefighting themselves, then it ages him to a point where Bats shouldn't be fighting crime.

[Gilda Dent]

Isn't there a limit to that, too, though? I mean, if the guy has gone through 6 Robins, most of whom have gone on to crimefighting themselves, then it ages him to a point where Bats shouldn't be fighting crime.

Yeah, you can't be constantly recycling them, but comic book time is very slow time. How long was Jason Todd's tenure officially, a few months? Stephanie Brown got what, a week?

There's a limit, but it's probably a bit higher than we might expect due to the extreme time expansion we get it comics.

[joe bloke]

to be honest, i don't see why robin has to be anyone else other than dick grayson. i know he's nightwing now, and i'm cool with that, but i was a lot cooler with him as robin. not that i've anything against tim drake per se, it's just that whenever i think of robin it's dick grayson who i think of. likewise, barry allen as the flash or hal jordan as green lantern. i'm not trying to be all geek nostalgia boy about this, i think you can re-jig or revitalize an idea without crapping out it's defining elements. comics are a mythology unto themself, and, as such, not bound by the same rules of time and space that those of us in the real world have to put up with. there's no reason at all why aunt may shouldn't live forever. to me, at least, bruce wayne is batman, dick grayson is robin, clark kent is superman, hal jordan is green lantern, barry allen is. . .and so on and so on. but that's probably just me.

i don't think it's cowardly on either dc or marvel's part to keep killing characters and then bringing them back. i think it's indicative of a marked lack of imagination.

[EmeraldCity]

i don't think it's cowardly on either dc or marvel's part to keep killing characters and then bringing them back. i think it's indicative of a marked lack of imagination.


While I understand what you are saying, I disagree. Maybe cowardly is too strong of a word, but they are keeping IPs alive that make them money. They are scared to make new characters to replace the Batmans and Spidermans of the comic book world..

[Babylon23]

While I understand what you are saying, I disagree. Maybe cowardly is too strong of a word, but they are keeping IPs alive that make them money. They are scared to make new characters to replace the Batmans and Spidermans of the comic book world..

The important thing here is that these characters are indeed continuing to make them money. Marvel and DC are first and foremost businesses. They do whatever maximises their profits. Why get rid of Batman or Spider-Man when these characters continue to do that?

[joe bloke]

Absolutely, it's a money thing. I, however, was thinking more in terms of fumbling with ideas because it's supposed to keep them "lively" and "fresh." I was talking with the guys at my local comic shop ( Close Encounters, Bedford - plug plug ) this morning, and one of them remarked that the Barry Allen Flash was crap. I disagreed on the grounds that it wasn't the character or the concept that was inherently crap but the way he was being handled by a succession of hall-arsed writers. The idea of the Flash works perfectly. If the writers are crapping up that idea, then get shot of the writers and bring in some fresh blood to treat the idea with whatever it deserves. Killing the character just so that you can replace him with another character of the same name makes no artistic sense at all. It only makes sense if what you're trying to do is sell a few more books on the back of an "event."

Dick Grayson leaves, Jason Todd becomes Robin, Jason Todd gets killed, Tim Drake becomes Robin, Tim Drake buggers off, Stephanie Brown becomes Robin, Jason Todd comes back. Pointless, from a story-telling point of view. What was wrong with Dick Grayson? Ralph Dibney's missus gets right royally fucked over, and why? Just so's we can get a new Question? What was wrong with the old one?

Killing someone off, or raping them, or crippling them, or de-powering them - all ammounts to pretty much the same thing - seems, to me, the act of someone who can't think of anything better to do with a character. It doesn't add to the drama of the story, it just convinces me that imagination is in short supply in my comics.

I don't mind the occasional event every now and then. But these days it seems that it's one long drawn out event after another.

I don't mind the odd death here and there, if it means something ( Gwen Stacy dying broke my heart, but they cocked that up by bringing back - what was it? - her daughter? Mar-Vell's death was a work of brilliance - but they cocked that up by bringing him back ). But these days it seems that it's one pointless death after another.

I understand the money side of things. Of course, I do. But, I think, the money side of things is compromising the artistic side of things. Much like my beloved Football has been ruined by the almighty bank note, comics, too, are suffering for the sake of business.

You're right. Maybe cowards IS too strong a word. Perhaps cynics might better apply.

Sorry for the waffling.

[GrifterWC]

Killing someone off, or raping them, or crippling them, or de-powering them - all amounts to pretty much the same thing - seems, to me, the act of someone who can't think of anything better to do with a character. It doesn't add to the drama of the story, it just convinces me that imagination is in short supply in my comics.

I agree.

Let me just add this one thing, to me at least, Unlike policeman and firefighter's the heroes shouldn't be that easily replaced. The more you replace the characters, the less important the "superhero" becomes. If any Joe off the street can put on a costume and take over a heroes position then it just makes the original heroes point moot.

[Alan2099]

What about Robin Hood and King Arthur? Have often have their stroies been retold, rebooted, reimagined, reinteperated, rejected, re-whatevered?

Should people leave Robin and Arthur alone?

[joe bloke]

Retelling, rebooting, reimagining, reinterpreting, I don't mind. Hey, that's why we got Elseworlds or What If. . ?

But I'm sure I'd be pretty cheesed off if they killed King Arthur just so's Sir Galahad could assume the mantle of King Arthur.

[EmeraldCity]

The important thing here is that these characters are indeed continuing to make them money. Marvel and DC are first and foremost businesses. They do whatever maximises their profits. Why get rid of Batman or Spider-Man when these characters continue to do that?

Instead of giving Spider-Man/Superman 3 or 4 books a month (not following Sups so don't blast me for not knowing how many books he has per month) why not pull some resources back and create a new IP that can make you money just like the characters of old. I feel that a lot of kids aren't as interested in comics as they used to be because of the recycled characters. And now comics are trying to re-invent the same characters to keep the older crowd which to me means they are still missing the mark on the younger crowd..



There is an "adult" market for sure. But that market will fade away as well if they don't get kids into comics again.

[joe bloke]

I'm not sure if kids aren't interested in comics because of the recycled characters. I hate to sound " down " on kids, but I think the reason kids aren't interested in comics is the same reason kids aren't interested in reading full stop. Why would they want to go out and buy a Fantastic Four comic when it requires far less effort to just watch the new series on the Cartoon Network? Why bother picking up one of the God knows how many comics out there featuring Batman when all you have to do is pop Batman Begins in the dvd player? Obviously, this doesn't apply to all kids, but it applies to a significant enough number of them to make a difference. I don't blame them. When I was a kid, you didn't have a hundred and something different channels on your tv, you didn't have computers or dvd or playstations. That's progress for you. And that's where Marvel and Dc are concentrating their efforts in the battle for the kiddie-buck.

[GrifterWC]

Why would they want to go out and buy a Fantastic Four comic when it requires far less effort to just watch the new series on the Cartoon Network? Why bother picking up one of the God knows how many comics out there featuring Batman when all you have to do is pop Batman Begins in the dvd player? Obviously, this doesn't apply to all kids, but it applies to a significant enough number of them to make a difference. I don't blame them. When I was a kid, you didn't have a hundred and something different channels on your tv, you didn't have computers or dvd or playstations.

You have to add the price of comics today into this equation. No kid is going to spend $2.99 on a comic that takes 5 minutes to read when they have other things that can take up most of their "pleasure" time.

DC and marvel should charge .99 cents for their kiddie line and they should make sure they can be available in supermarkets, drugstores etc.

I remember being able to buy 16 books for $10 back in the day and it was worth it, today you get 3 books for that money and it sure as hell isn't worth it.

[founder81]

Quick question: who is the most popular comic book character that has been introduced in the last 20 years? Is this character popular? Is this character starring in an ongoing monthly solo title, or even capable of carrying such a book?


The most popular one I can think of is Impulse. I can't think of another character from Marvel or DC to reach any level of popularity created (fairly) recently.


That said, I think there is some room to play with second and third tier characters, especially where the character is really a powerset more than one specific person. Batman is Bruce Wayne and Superman is Clark Kent and Spider-Man is Peter Parker. The powers and stories are so closely tied to the specific character with them that to try to separate them carries too much risk of losing the audience.

But there are others, Green Lantern and Flash at DC, second tier characters where legacy characters have a better chance to work. Robin is another--Batman can go through a series of Robins as they grow up and leave without the Robin character losing appeal or potential, because Robin's primary identifying characteristic is that he's Batman's sidekick.

ALong this line of thought. If you would ask 10 random people on the street who is Batman, you'd get answers. If you'd ask 10 random people who is Green Lantern, i doubt you'd get more then 1 who would give a name.

[Nitz the Bloody]

A thought occurs about DC's superhero line; while I don't think they're cowards for flip-flopping on unprofitable decisions, the current crop of DC books definitely seem very homogenous and timid. I haven't read everything the company puts out, but of all the DC series I've tried over the past few years, most of the books were just....there. Generic genre fiction, without any idea or execution that could be perceived as creatively ambitious.

They get the idea of changing the status quo as events ( Crisis epics, time skips, newbies in old identities, etc. ), but it's a very shallow way of getting attention. It's like most DC writers understand plot but not theme, and can't really get into characters' heads on an authentic level, only on a melodramatic one. They aren't awful stories, they just aren't memorable ones either.

There are exceptions to the rules, in terms of stories that actually have some kind of flair or meaning. Anything Grant Morrison writes is interesting ( if not always successful ), Paul Dini's Detective Comics has been enjoyable, and even some of Geoff Johns' series have some flair to their execution. But the rest I think back on, the Teen Titans and Outsiders and whatnot, and just go kind of blank.

Say what you will about Marvel's current line, but their more experimental approach has created at least a few genuinely great series. I'd rather a spread of amusing highs and lows than a spread of homogenous middles.

[joe bloke]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think the problem there is that DC just can't seem to follow an idea through. The JLA's a good example of this. Great first arc, and then it turned to dirge ( although I'm holding out a lot of hope for the new creative team ). Wonder Woman, also, crapping out after the initial promise of something really exciting. I'm not sure if it's a case of not knowing what they're doing, or possibly just getting you hooked and then churning out as much toot as they can get away with before you stop buying the book. The only DC title currently delivering anything close to a consistently good read, in my opinion, is All Star Superman ( Grant Morrison - see? ). Marvel, while not perfect either, at least seems to be trying.