Why can't we ever let characters die for good?

[Eclips0]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.

When Barry Allen was killed off, that was sad but out of it we got Wally West, a great and interesting replacement character who flourished into his own, so why can't we do the same with other heroes or villains?

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?

To me it would seem to make allot of sense, because with them would come a whole new dynamic and new and creative stories. And I know some fans would be upset but they would eventually come around. I mean how much longer can we do stories about the same old characters over and over again before the well of ideas runs dry?

[Superbeast]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.

When Barry Allen was killed off, that was sad but out of it we got Wally West, a great and interesting replacement character who flourished into his own, so why can't we do the same with other heroes or villains?

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?

To me it would seem to make allot of sense, because with them would come a whole new dynamic and new and creative stories. And I know some fans would be upset but they would eventually come around. I mean how much longer can we do stories about the same old characters over and over again before the well of ideas runs dry?

I think it's in part becomes they are iconic and it's hard to accept change when people are so emotionally invested in them. Also the spate of "publicity stunt" deaths in the 90s and poorly chosen fill ins (Artemis, Azrael) turned a lot of people off and cheapened the impact of a new character taking up the mantle and costume. If heroes die like heroes, then most will accept that. However if they go out in a cheap way and their death means little in the scheme of things afterwards, people get upset. Ted Kord's death was not exactly heroic, but he remained a hero to the end if that makes sense, and his death affected people. Same goes for Superboy. Also given the nature of the business, it's half expected the main name will be retconned back into existence and importance some way, so their is a lack of faith in the writers from the readers that they'll stand their ground and keep them dead. The only way people ever accept a new person in the role is generally if the previous person serves as a mentor as sorts.

I blame Jean Grey and the HEAT, the guys who campaigned for like 9 years until Hal came back as a Green Lantern.

[Kage Kisaragi]

Because that level of dickery is reserved for comic book characters. In other words killing off a character who has been a staple in a company from almost day 1, a character who is as much a part of what truly is Americana would be the ultimately form of dickery to which no human person should ever stoop.

[Amy Grendel]

I buy comics specifically for a character. I hated that the Wonder Woman mantle got passed around to at least three other females. I understood why it happened, but to me, Diana was the reason why I was picking up the comic. Having someone else fill the role is jarring like XYZ is going to be the new TV mom on this series because the former actress had a problem with her contract. We're supposed to just keep going with this new actress and watch her play the role when the chemistry is different and it's just really not the same anymore. (Kind of like the replacement Becky on Roseanne.)

On the positive side, Artemis did turn out to be my new favorite character in DC Universe so I guess it was a good thing she filled the WW role briefly!

[AmyLoPan]

I blame Jean Grey and the HEAT, the guys who campaigned for like 9 years until Hal came back as a Green Lantern.

One of the few instances where I was happy to see some retcon action was when they brought back Hal.

That being said... yeah, it sucks. A character dies and you're kinda like, "Meh". Even if it's a character you love, you know it's probably not permanent. Takes all the drama out of it.

[Superbeast]

One of the few instances where I was happy to see some retcon action was when they brought back Hal.

That being said... yeah, it sucks. A character dies and you're kinda like, "Meh". Even if it's a character you love, you know it's probably not permanent. Takes all the drama out of it.

I am not saying bringing Hal back was a bad thing, just that his return to form was hard evidence that people's emotional attachment to characters in their roles and failure to accept change can be persistent and unrelenting until a retcon is needed. Hal went out like a hero during Final Night but to avoid further backlash they made him somewhat heroic as the Spectre. However even that wasn't good enough so eventually they resolved to just put him back as a Green Lantern to get the faboys off their backs and looked for someone who could pull it off and get some support behind them for doing so.

[Kage Kisaragi]

well you have to remember comics depend on the readers, and the readers want their heroes to last forever, you take that away and you lose your source of income.

[Laughing Mask]

the last time they tried to have a new batman it failed miserably.

[Gottaluvit]

It's comics. Men fly and shoot beams from their eyes. It's not about reality, but an escape into fantasy for many readers. What better fantasy do humans have then the dream of immortality or being able to return/cheat death?

I for one am here for the stories, a character's like Superman, Batman and WW can die and return twenty times, but as long as the story is good, I don't care, I get enough reality in the real world or watching the news at night.

[Lorendiac]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.

When Barry Allen was killed off, that was sad but out of it we got Wally West, a great and interesting replacement character who flourished into his own, so why can't we do the same with other heroes or villains?

At first glance, it seems to me as if you're suggesting that a whole bunch of us fans go through the roof every single time a well-established superhero kicks the bucket. As if none of us can tolerate the "death" of any veteran character. (You didn't say this in those words, but that's the impression I get on the first pass. I could be wrong.)

If that's what you meant to suggest, I think it's an inaccurate generalization.

Personally, I handled the death of Barry Allen just fine. I've never cried myself to sleep over it; I've never torn out my hair; I've never written an angry letter to DC to beg them to bring him back. (As you might guess, Barry Allen was never one of my personal favorites, although I had nothing against the guy when I was a kid in the early 80s!)

And there are lots of other characters for whom I could say much the same -- when they died, it didn't make me explode in fury, and if they wanted to stay dead, I wouldn't beg the writers and editors to bring them back! :)

But there are bound to be some characters whose deaths greatly annoy me. The characters who still struck me as having lots of potential; the characters I'd have been willing to keep collecting new stories about for the next ten years, if those stories were done by gifted writers. As Mark Gruenwald once pointed out, every character is somebody's favorite. I mean, if DC killed off Helena Bertinelli (Huntress) tomorrow morning and talked like it was supposed to be permanent, they might get a thousand angry letters within a week. And if they killed off Power Girl, they might get a thousand angry letters within a week, and if they killed off Hal Jordan (yes, again!) they might get a thousand angry letters within a week . . . but it wouldn't be the exact same "thousand angry fans" writing those letters in each case!

I honestly think that in each case, an awful lot of fans would end up basically shrugging and saying, "Ah well, easy come, easy go. I personally never found that character more than mildly entertaining on a good day . . . besides, she (or he) will probably come back someday, if it matters!"

But there would always be a minority of fans who took any of those deaths extra-hard, and they would be the ones who wrote angry letters and started up clubs such as "H.E.A.T." (the one that lobbied for a decade or so to bring Hal back), and so forth . . . and there's really nothing that can be done to prevent that! (Nor should we try! I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech and all that stuff!)

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?

No, no, and no. We'll have none of the above ever get "permanently" replaced!

To explain my reasoning on that, let me quote a few lines from one of my old pieces, 12 Tricks for Keeping Superheroes Young (http://lorendiac.livejournal.com/4207.html) -- I'll put the stuff I'm quoting from myself in boldface, to make it easier for people to quote my words, in turn, if they want to reply to some of what I said.

After all the trouble that DC (and other related companies, such as Warner Bros.) have taken to firmly implant in the general consciousness the idea that "Superman is the Last Son of Krypton, aka Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter at the Daily Planet, and his girlfriend (or wife) is Lois Lane, and so forth," and the idea that "Batman is Bruce Wayne, richest and most eligible bachelor in Gotham, who was scarred for life by witnessing the murders of his parents as a child," and so forth, the chances of their allowing either of those characters to ever get visibly middle-aged, maybe even retire and be replaced by a grown child or other successor as a permanent thing, are right up there with my chances of winning the election for President of the United States next year.

So Superman and Batman will never be more than "thirtysomething." And since they are supposed to live in one coherent universe which they share with their contemporary superheroes, many of whom are roughly the same ages as Supes and Bats, DC appears to feel that if Superman and Batman are going to be perpetually "thirtysomething," then most of their fellow members of the Silver Age and Bronze Age JLA should be locked into the same age range, give or take a few years.


To me it would seem to make allot of sense, because with them would come a whole new dynamic and new and creative stories. And I know some fans would be upset but they would eventually come around. I mean how much longer can we do stories about the same old characters over and over again before the well of ideas runs dry?

I'd like to quote something else I said, in a similar discussions here on CBR, two years ago!

But don't you guys think that Bruce is just going to eventually become incredibly boring to read as Batman? I mean, there's only so many things they can do with the character. I think eventually they're going to have to replace him in order to breath life back into Batman.

Nope. That's like saying that someday Sherlock Holmes will "have to be replaced" by one of the street kids he called his Baker Street Irregulars, or that Tarzan of the Apes "will have to be replaced" by his son Korak the Killer (or one of Korak's kids?). Such claims don't hold water. Look at how long those guys have already lasted! The first published Holmes story came out in 1887; for Tarzan, it was in 1912. That means they are turning 118 and 93 years old, respectively, in 2005. That doesn't mean the entire character concepts have somehow become hopelessly boring and stale and needed to be "replaced" instead of having more and more stories keep coming out about them in one medium or another.

Granted, in Sherlock's case in particular there have been various stories about people who were supposedly his children, proteges, etc., but none of that means that everyone has stopped doing new stories about Sherlock Holmes from time to time as well. Lots of different authors have worked on Sherlock, and they generally make no effort to have their stories be consistent with each other "in the same continuity" or any silly thing like that. Sherlock has become such an iconic figure that lots of casual readers, moviegoers, etc., feel they have a satisfactory grasp of the bare essentials of what kind of guy he is supposed to be, and as long as those bare essentials are respected, they couldn't care less if the details about Holmes and Watson that are presented in a new story somehow contradict some of the nitpicking details that were presented in the original material by A. Conan Doyle, or in various other books, movies, etc., that featured stories written by other people entirely about what were theoretically the "same characters."

Likewise, everybody thinks he knows who Tarzan is. And now that Superman and Batman have been making money for DC for 67 and 66 years, respectively, I think they have adequately demonstrated that they have become symbols with the same sort of staying power that Sherlock and Tarzan both have. Except for Wonder Woman and Batman's sidekick Robin, most of the other Golden Age superheroes have faded into obscurity as far as ordinary human beings (people who don't buy many comic books) are concerned, but DC is not likely to see the slightest need to ever "permanently retire" two big success stories who have actually achieved name recognition with hundreds of millions of people - Superman, the mild-mannered reporter named Clark Kent, and Batman, Gotham City's richest and most eligible bachelor named Bruce Wayne.

[Suzanne]

The Big Three will NEVER have permanent replacements. Someone could step in, but it would only be temporary. I think characters never stay dead because there's interest or some potential that can be explored unless it someone who's very unpopular.

[thehod]

the last time they tried to have a new batman it failed miserably.

Actally, no it didn't.

Azreal was never meant to replace Batman on a permenant basis. I can remember an member of the Batman writing team (Denny O'Neil I think it was) saying that they were worried that everyone would love AzBats, so that'd they'd have real problems when it came time for Bruce to return.

[Shypsi-Prime]

The Big 3 are the backbone so they will never die for good. Plus, they have built up such an extensive history and fanbase that it would be a very large risk to even consider replacing them.

[Eumenides]

I am not saying bringing Hal back was a bad thing, just that his return to form was hard evidence that people's emotional attachment to characters in their roles and failure to accept change can be persistent and unrelenting until a retcon is needed. Hal went out like a hero during Final Night but to avoid further backlash they made him somewhat heroic as the Spectre. However even that wasn't good enough so eventually they resolved to just put him back as a Green Lantern to get the faboys off their backs and looked for someone who could pull it off and get some support behind them for doing so.

Funny that Hal Jordan was one of the first characters to get me into DC(ironically during the 'awful' time he was about to go all Parallax on us), and when he died I didn't care; I was pretty happy with his replacement (who managed to sell for 10 years), and I knew there were a lot of back issue stories for me to read about him, so what if he wasn't around anymore. Then Final Night comes (one of the few comics that's made me cry), and I think, that's it, that's the last, perfect Hal Jordan story. How naive I was :rolleyes:

I do wish characters stayed dead for good in comics: I always feel ripped off when my emotional investment in a story or character is pissed on by creators (and let's face it, HEAT played little importance; Hal got back because Johns, super-writer at DC, wanted him back) who don't come to this industry to create new characters, but just play with what someone invented 70, 60, 40 years ago.

[Melbourne Mew Mew]

Wasn't there a saying that "Nobody ever stays dead in comics except Bucky, Jason Todd and Uncle Ben"?

And I know at least one of those has returned now.

[Marty4Magik]

Heh, two even.:D

But I guess we can add the first Supergirl to that list.

[Kage Kisaragi]

I still don't see what the big deal is. If death is the only way a character can gracefully leave the stage then I think we need to check our favorite past time because its just became that much more harder to disbelieve.

[Eumenides]

I still don't see what the big deal is. If death is the only way a character can gracefully leave the stage then I think we need to check our favorite past time because its just become that much more harder to disbelieve.

I'd like for more heroes to just retire, like Starman Jack Knight did because he wanted to raise a family. Unfortunately when heroes stop living under the stoplight, they become easy targets for pointless deaths because creators equate retirement with being unpopular; they don't understand some readers do like to see some of these characters living a normal life.

[nuclearman]

... it's a real annoyance .... not so much for me at DC because it has lots of worlds and planes of existence that I can dig .... but at Marvel it doesn't sit.

Having said that ... one of the best DC comics I've read in the last three years was the death of Ted Kord in DC's lead into infinite crisis ... his death meant something and I hope he stays dead ... even though I loved the character.

[mattx110]

The only thing cooler for a comic character than going out in a blaze of glory is coming back under mysterious circumstances and beating the hell out of their team-mates enemies.

That and after a certain amount of time, their death is basically more well known than the actual character. The death still has the impact on the characters close to them, but they can come back and not ruin it. All the pain is still there, but we've got Bucky and Todd and Jordan and god knows who else back.

[Mr Omnis]

I think that if a character's death was done in a rather "big" way, then the character should stay dead. Like with Hal, Ollie, and Jason. They each died "big", and they each even had replacements. They're the kind of people who, in coming back, make their replacement either redundant or obsolete.

With Hal back, we don't NEED Kyle
With Ollie back, we don't NEED Connor
With Jason back, we don't NEED a Robin

Superman, I think, won't stay dead because of the staple that he's developed. I think he should have, though, because I thought World Without a Superman was wonderful.

[StoneGold]

Blame Sherlock Holmes. Or Jesus.

[Michael P]

I blame Jean Grey and the HEAT, the guys who campaigned for like 9 years until Hal came back as a Green Lantern.

Whereas I blame John Byrne and Geoff Johns, for listening to them.

Also, whoever at Marvel decided to bring back Magneto after Morrison's run. Talk about missing the goddamn point...

[DoctorDoom]

Actally, no it didn't.

Azreal was never meant to replace Batman on a permenant basis. I can remember an member of the Batman writing team (Denny O'Neil I think it was) saying that they were worried that everyone would love AzBats, so that'd they'd have real problems when it came time for Bruce to return.
Yeah I remember reading that. Personally I loved the look of AzBats (the first new costume, not the armor)

[Lorendiac]

Whereas I blame John Byrne and Geoff Johns, for listening to them.

I've assumed that Johns brought back Hal just because he personally believed it was the right thing to do, and not just because he'd been brainwashed by reading lots of emails from HEAT members (I have no idea how much attention he ever paid to HEAT).

Also, whoever at Marvel decided to bring back Magneto after Morrison's run. Talk about missing the goddamn point...

For what it's worth, I recall reading a statement by Morrison to the effect that when he killed off Magneto, he took it for granted that someone else at Marvel would find a way to let Magneto miraculously return from the dead for other stories at some future date, because that's what Magneto does!

He was a bit upset that they were retconning it so that the Xorneto character who died toward the end of Morrison's run "wasn't really" Magneto, though. (Not that it ever made much sense to me to say that it could have been Magneto . . .)

[Paradox]

Lorendiac needs to think about the bizness:

I've assumed that Johns brought back Hal just because he personally believed it was the right thing to do, and not just because he'd been brainwashed by reading lots of emails from HEAT members (I have no idea how much attention he ever paid to HEAT).

Actually, I presume his return was by way of editorial fiat, just as his "heel turn"/death was. I doubt Johns had any say in the matter, other than "yes or no" to writing the story.

[Pól Rua]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.
My gripe isn't the death, but for the most part, the execution. Having a light-hearted character like Impulse brutally kicked to death, for instance.

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?
Nope. Because DC makes more money off of those characters by selling T-shirts and merchandise than they do off comics.

[Fenris]

The notion a character should die eventually is related to the traditional understanding of characterization: that good characters develop and change over the course of a story.

That understanding came from books, and applied well enough to plays and movies, because all these things usually have a clear ending.

Series literature isn't at all like that. When a series is never expected to end, character development is functionally a bad thing- it dates the character and creates impossible demands for further development.

Impossible, that is, because most characters under most writers have a limit to how far they can be developed. Their characterization eventually reaches a resolution or clarification; anything more will be contradiction or anticlimax.

Death is one way of ending a story. But series stories aren't meant to end. That's probably the short answer I could have stuck with.


õ
But what fun is that?

[Kusanagi]

The reason popular characters never stay dead is very simple. Money. It's quite easy to keep a character from a team book dead, or a character from an low selling solo title dead. But a character like Bats, Supes, or Spidey? Not going to happen. No matter how good the story, it will never happen at least not permanently. The big companies would never leave there large fanbases out in the cold like that.

The only reason Barry Allen has stayed dead, is Wally West worked as a replacement and fans for the most part accepted him. He's the exception to the rule, but you notice when a very popular hero dies, their gimmick isn't retired, nope they bring it back immediately in hopes of keeping the fans. It's just only Wally has worked so far, maybe Cap Bucky will have the same luck. (doubt it)

[Typo Lad]

As long as DC/Marvel can sell underoos, characters will be brought back to life.

[OverMaster]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.

When Barry Allen was killed off, that was sad but out of it we got Wally West, a great and interesting replacement character who flourished into his own, so why can't we do the same with other heroes or villains?

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?

To me it would seem to make allot of sense, because with them would come a whole new dynamic and new and creative stories. And I know some fans would be upset but they would eventually come around. I mean how much longer can we do stories about the same old characters over and over again before the well of ideas runs dry?

You are thinking egoistically, forgetting the future generations. If Batman creators had killed Batman in the 70s after three whole decades of stories, we would have never had a Dark Knight Returns, a Year One, a Killing Joke.

Like Erik Larsen once said, at some point you have to either grow past comics or stop wanting comics to fit YOUR likings over the sake of the classic legacies.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

My gripe isn't the death, but for the most part, the execution.

Don't mind me. I'm just here for the irony.

[Pól Rua]

Don't mind me. I'm just here for the irony.

Fuck. I don't believe I posted that without intent.
I'm subconsciously hilarious.

[Distorted Humor]

I personally wish that some of the Watchmen Characters came back :p

[Lorendiac]

Actually, I presume his return was by way of editorial fiat, just as his "heel turn"/death was. I doubt Johns had any say in the matter, other than "yes or no" to writing the story.

I think I had envisioned it a bit more like this:

For several years after the character assassination of Hal Jordan in "Emerald Twilight" and "Zero Hour," I imagined the editors on the Green Lantern title, and/or their higher-ups who could override them, firmly clinging to the conviction that "Hal is old hat; Kyle is the hot new kid in the GL business; we must keep Hal out of the GL business no matter what."

I'm sure there were other writers during that decade or so (mid-90s to mid-2000s) who would have loved to bring Hal back, but their pitches couldn't get anywhere until an editor came along who didn't automatically scream "Blasphemy! Remove thyself from my office, infidel!" at any suggestion of "Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if we brought Hal back as a Green Lantern?"

Then I imagined another change of editors, followed by Geoff Johns coming along with a pitch which reached an editor who was at least open-minded enough to consider the idea instead of automatically feeding it into his paper shredder as soon as he realized what it was all about.

Is it possible that instead the initiative came from an editor? Sure. Although in that case I very optimistically assume that if Johns thought it was a BAD idea to bring Hal back, that he would have stepped aside and let someone else with more enthusiasm for the project write that miniseries. (Mark Waid, for instance -- I feel certain he would have jumped at the chance. Or maybe they could have brought back Gerard Jones for the occasion -- what's he doing these days, anyway?)

But do I actually know what happened at DC's offices to trigger the return of Hal Jordan as a "heroic Green Lantern" all over again, with the Yellow Fear Demon thing being retconned in out of thin air to explain his previous insane behavior? No, I freely admit I don't know. I don't think I've ever bothered to read any detailed interviews (with Johns or anyone else) that delved into the subject of how and why the decision was made to bring Hal back and give him a monthly title all over again . . . heck, after reading the mini that "rehabilitated" him, and then the first issue of his new title, I promptly lost interest in him again, anyway, so I haven't bothered to stay up-to-date with anything happening in his continuity in the last couple of years! :p

[StoneGold]

You are thinking egoistically, forgetting the future generations.

Speaking of egotistical, that your corporate character is actually worth hanging around for future generations in the hands of other writers?

[Michael P]

You are thinking egoistically, forgetting the future generations. If Batman creators had killed Batman in the 70s after three whole decades of stories, we would have never had a Dark Knight Returns, a Year One, a Killing Joke.

Nonsense. Doyle killed Holmes off in 1897, and people are still writing stories about him, many of them unable to fit into what's considered the Holmes "canon." It's actually the selling point of some Holmes anthologies.

(True, Doyle brought Holmes back, but even if he hadn't, the character's popularity would have ensured that someone would have picked him up and ran with him after Doyle passed on. Rule Number One of publishing: Publishers like money.)

Like Erik Larsen once said, at some point you have to either grow past comics or stop wanting comics to fit YOUR likings over the sake of the classic legacies.

And his definition of the "classic legacies" being perfectly contiguous with his likings is just coincidence, right?

[Chris Nowlin]

You are thinking egoistically, forgetting the future generations. If Batman creators had killed Batman in the 70s after three whole decades of stories, we would have never had a Dark Knight Returns, a Year One, a Killing Joke.

Odd point as Dark Knight Returns is an alternate future, and Year One is set in the past. Killing the character would have precluded neither of those stories.

[K'Nort]

Odd point as Dark Knight Returns is an alternate future, and Year One is set in the past. Killing the character would have precluded neither of those stories.

That's the part I find most irritating about not letting characters stay dead and not letting them age. You can still (also) write stories about them in their heyday.

[Corrina]

Nonsense. Doyle killed Holmes off in 1897, and people are still writing stories about him, many of them unable to fit into what's considered the Holmes "canon." It's actually the selling point of some Holmes anthologies.



Bad example, as Holmes was brought back due to the same kind of fanboy devotion as is being discussed in this thread. Doyle was thrilled he'd killed off Holmes, so he could go write more stuff he was interested in.

And then nothing sold like Holmes. Doyle wanted to keep his family fed, so he finally wrote more Holmes. But even then, he set "Hound of the Baskervilles" BEFORE Holmes' death, so it was a lost adventure and not bringing the detective back to life.

Finally, Doyle gave into the same kind of insistence that produced HEAT and Holmes was back.

[Michael P]

Bad example, as Holmes was brought back due to the same kind of fanboy devotion as is being discussed in this thread. Doyle was thrilled he'd killed off Holmes, so he could go write more stuff he was interested in.

And then nothing sold like Holmes. Doyle wanted to keep his family fed, so he finally wrote more Holmes. But even then, he set "Hound of the Baskervilles" BEFORE Holmes' death, so it was a lost adventure and not bringing the detective back to life.

Finally, Doyle gave into the same kind of insistence that produced HEAT and Holmes was back.

True. I just couldn't think of anyone else who'd been killed off and was still being written about today.

Did they ever kill off Doc Savage or The Shadow?

[Paradox]

Lorendiac imagines:

I think I had envisioned it a bit more like this:

For several years after the character assassination of Hal Jordan in "Emerald Twilight" and "Zero Hour," I imagined the editors on the Green Lantern title, and/or their higher-ups who could override them, firmly clinging to the conviction that "Hal is old hat; Kyle is the hot new kid in the GL business; we must keep Hal out of the GL business no matter what."

I'm sure there were other writers during that decade or so (mid-90s to mid-2000s) who would have loved to bring Hal back, but their pitches couldn't get anywhere until an editor came along who didn't automatically scream "Blasphemy! Remove thyself from my office, infidel!" at any suggestion of "Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if we brought Hal back as a Green Lantern?"

Then I imagined another change of editors, followed by Geoff Johns coming along with a pitch which reached an editor who was at least open-minded enough to consider the idea instead of automatically feeding it into his paper shredder as soon as he realized what it was all about.

Is it possible that instead the initiative came from an editor? Sure. Although in that case I very optimistically assume that if Johns thought it was a BAD idea to bring Hal back, that he would have stepped aside and let someone else with more enthusiasm for the project write that miniseries. (Mark Waid, for instance -- I feel certain he would have jumped at the chance. Or maybe they could have brought back Gerard Jones for the occasion -- what's he doing these days, anyway?)

But do I actually know what happened at DC's offices to trigger the return of Hal Jordan as a "heroic Green Lantern" all over again, with the Yellow Fear Demon thing being retconned in out of thin air to explain his previous insane behavior? No, I freely admit I don't know. I don't think I've ever bothered to read any detailed interviews (with Johns or anyone else) that delved into the subject of how and why the decision was made to bring Hal back and give him a monthly title all over again . . . heck, after reading the mini that "rehabilitated" him, and then the first issue of his new title, I promptly lost interest in him again, anyway, so I haven't bothered to stay up-to-date with anything happening in his continuity in the last couple of years! :p

Too convoluted for my taste. I assume the "yes or no" came straight from Paul Levitz. I also assume they've seen treatments of bringing Hal back over and over ever since he "left". The decision likely involved a lot of non-story elements like licensing, marketing and merchandising.

As to Johns...well, the whole idea sounds "work for hire" to me. A job's a job. That's certainly the tack Ron Marz took when they gave him a call to "do in" Hal when he created Parallax. It's either a paycheck in Johns' pocket, or in someone else's.

[StoneGold]

Did they ever kill off Doc Savage or The Shadow?

Depends. Chaykin did some wacky stuff with the Shadow where Lamont Cranston died, but he wasn't really the Shadow. I don't feel like summarizing it now. Look it up.

[Typo Lad]

I think they killed King Arthur, right?

[StoneGold]

I think they killed King Arthur, right?

Nope. Suspended animation in Avalon until he will rise again when England faces its greatest peril. I guess they killed him at the end of Camelot 3000, but I don't think that really counts.

Although in the early stories, Robin Hood dies.

433 Had Robyn dwelled he kynges courte

But twelue monethes and thre,

That [he had] spent an hondred pounde,

And all his mennes fe.


434 In euery place where Robyn came

Euer more he layde downe,

Both for knyghtes and for squyres,

To gete hym grete renowne.


435 By than the yere was all agone

He had no man but twayne,

Lytell Johan and good Scathelocke,

With hym all for to gone.


436 Robyn sawe yonge men shote

Full fayre vpon a day;

'Alas!' than sayd good Robyn,

'My welthe is went away.


437 'Somtyme I was an archere good,

A styffe and eke a stronge;

I was compted the best archere

That was in mery Englonde.


438 'Alas!' then sayd good Robyn,

'Alas and well a woo!'

Yf I dwele lenger with the kynge,

Sorowe wyll me sloo.'


439 Forth than went Robyn Hode

Tyll he came to our kynge;

'My lorde the kynge of Englonde,

Graunte me myn askynge.


440 'I made a chapell in Bernysdale,

That semely is to se,

It is of Mary Magdaleyne,

And thereto wolde I be.


441 'I myght neuer in this seuen nyght

No tyme to slepe ne wynke,

Nother all these seuen dayes

Nother ete ne drynke.


442 'Me longeth sore to Bernysdale,

I may not be therfro;

Barefote and wolwarde I haue hyght

Thyder for to go.'


443 'Yf it be so,' than sayd our kynge,

'It may no better be,

Seuen nyght I gyue the leue,

No lengre, to dwell fro me.'


444 'Gramercy, lorde,' then sayd Robyn,

And set hym on his kne;

He toke his leue full courteysly,

To grene wode then went he.


445 Whan he came to grene wode,

In a mery mornynge,

There he herde the notes small

Of byrdes mery syngynge.


446 'It is ferre gone,' sayd Robyn,

'That I was last here;

Me lyste a lytell for to shote

At the donne dere.'


447 Robyn slewe a full grete harte;

His horne than gan he blow,

That all the outlawes of that forest

That horne coud they knowe,


448 And gadred them togyder,

In a lytell throwe.

Seven score of wyght yonge men

Came redy on a rowe,


449 And fayre dyde of theyre hodes,

And set them on theyr kne:

'Welcome,' they saydm 'our [dere] mayster,

Under this grene-wode tre.'


450 Robyn dwelled in grene wode

Twenty yere and two;

For all drede of Edwarde our kynge,

Agayne wolde he not goo.


451 Yet he was begyled, i-wys,

Through a wicked woman,

The pryoresse of Kyrkesly,

That nye was of hys kynne:


452 For the loue of a knyght,

Sir Roger of Donkesly,

That was her owne speciall;

Full euyll mote they thee!


453 They toke togyder theyr counsell

Robyn Hode for to sle,

And how they myght best do that dede,

His banis for to be.


454 Than bespake good Robyn,

In place where as he stode,

'To morow I muste to Kyrke[s]ly,

Craftely to be leten blode.'


455 Syr Roger of Donkestere,

By the pryoresse he lay,

And there they betrayed good Robyn Hode,

Through theyr false playe.


456 Cryst haue mercy on his soule,

That dyed on the rode!

For he was a good outlawe,

And dyde pore men moch god.

[Typo Lad]

Nope. Suspended animation in Avalon until he will rise again when England faces its greatest peril. I guess they killed him at the end of Camelot 3000, but I don't think that really counts.

Does he not actually die at the end of Le Mort d'Arthur?

Forgot about Robin Hood. Good catch.

[thehod]

Dan Didio comments on character death in an interview over on Newsrama (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=140406), stating that, yes DC has probably overdone character death a little this year, but that with Blackest Night hitting in 2009, and the tagline of "The Dead will Rise" that it has been sort of part of the larger plan.

Now, I don't really believe that for a second, but the rest of the interview is rather refreshing in its honesty of what DC has been doing poorly this year, so I tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Typo Lad]

Meh. Another "Yes, we know the stories have been bleak, but just wait till next year!"

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me six years in a row?

I think not.

[Night]

That's the part I find most irritating about not letting characters stay dead and not letting them age. You can still (also) write stories about them in their heyday. Then we have to put contemporary values on historical events....

[StoneGold]

Does he not actually die at the end of Le Mort d'Arthur?

Forgot about Robin Hood. Good catch.

Yeah, but that was a later piece of Arthurian legend. The original stuff has him healing up at Avalon.


Consider it an early retcon.

[K'Nort]

Then we have to put contemporary values on historical events....

Not really. Plenty of things are written/filmed every day that aren't set in the absolute present. And are nevertheless quite popular.

[Reptisaurus!]

I personally wish that some of the Watchmen Characters came back :p

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Maybe we could get Judd Winnick and Greg Land on this!

[Distorted Humor]

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Maybe we could get Judd Winnick and Greg Land on this!

On second thought...perhaps Watchmen should be best left to being a one time event ;)

[StoneGold]

Not really. Plenty of things are written/filmed every day that aren't set in the absolute present. And are nevertheless quite popular.

But they generally have our value systems laid on top of them. Take your average modern Western, for example. Odds are, the hero finds racism to be a bad thing.

[K'Nort]

But they generally have our value systems laid on top of them. Take your average modern Western, for example. Odds are, the hero finds racism to be a bad thing.

Yes. But I don't see a problem with that. They're stories for today's readers, after all.

I'm just saying, let Batman etc age naturally. And if you want to write stories of them as you remember, set the story (casually) back in the whatever. Your average reader is not going to notice an overlay of modern values in that context.

[Loren]

On second thought...perhaps Watchmen should be best left to being a one time event ;)

Y'know, there are still a dozen or so of the 52 earths that haven't been identified yet. One could still be home to the Watchmen characters.

It's such a pity we didn't think of this earlier. There could have been another Countdown one-shot where the Challengers of the Beyond visit the Watchmen universe after the original story ended, and show how everything turned out.

[K'Nort]

Y'know, there are still a dozen or so of the 52 earths that haven't been identified yet. One could still be home to the Watchmen characters.

That's what I've been afraid of, yes.

[Paradox]

Distorted Humor makes a wise choice:

On second thought...perhaps Watchmen should be best left to being a one time event ;)

I'm so glad you changed your mind! I'd hate to have to hunt you down and murder you in your sleep before you even had 100 posts. :evilsmile

[Distorted Humor]

I'm so glad you changed your mind! I'd hate to have to hunt you down and murder you in your sleep before you even had 100 posts. :evilsmile

Hee! Would hate to see what happens to the cast and crew if the Watchmen movie sucks. :p

[GRANT!]

Rorscharch totally needs to be in the JSA.

[GRANT!]

In comics we seem to always complain when a character is killed off, in perticular this mystifies me with DC.

When Barry Allen was killed off, that was sad but out of it we got Wally West, a great and interesting replacement character who flourished into his own, so why can't we do the same with other heroes or villains?

Do you think we will ever have a permanent new Batman? or Superman? or Wonder Woman?

To me it would seem to make allot of sense, because with them would come a whole new dynamic and new and creative stories. And I know some fans would be upset but they would eventually come around. I mean how much longer can we do stories about the same old characters over and over again before the well of ideas runs dry?


As long as Batman and Superman are in mainstream (with movies, tv shows and other media outside of comics) they are always going to be Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent.

I keep saying the problem isn't so much the characters but the fans who just don't let go of the characters and allow younger generations to enjoy them. Yeah stories repeat themselves but the idea was you were suppose to move on and your kids would be reading these characters. I don't think that's happening that much right now.

I'm not saying it's wrong to enjoy a Batman book when you're over the age of 15 but if you find yourself complaining that Joker is escaping Arkham too many times maybe you should start to read something else.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with having less well known icons like Green Lantern or Flash get passed on to different generations. Certain properties need to change to maintain their shelf life. Other properties not so much.