Super hero succession planning

[jackdaw53]

Nowadays, I've given up reading current comics, and just stick to reading back issues. Last few weeks, I've been re-reading Gotham Central. Not got to end of run, but one thing I pondered as I walked into town was that two of the detectives went on to become other characters: Rene Montoya becoming the Question and Crispus Allen the Spectre.

Did that make sense to me in terms of characters history to that point? For me, Rene becoming the Question did make some sort of sense... she was consistently shown as having very fixed views on what is right or wrong, and a tendency to follow her own instincts in pursuit of justice. But couldn't really see why Crispus would become the Spectre anymore than anybody else. You could write a one issue origin story for many, many characters giving them some reason to pursue vengeance... and they would be just as good a fit for the Spectre as Crispus.

But in general I think I like the idea of doing this a bit more: to turn long standing support characters into lead characters a bit more often. (e.g. I'd have liked the new Green Lantern to have been a member of the "Bat family" rather than a completely new character.)

Anybody agree/ disagree?

[DonC]

In-story both were kind of from left field. Renee becoming the Question was because Gotham Central writer Greg Rucka wanted to do more with her in 52. Crispus Allen becoming the Spectre, I think, was simply DC putting the names of unused characters into a hat and pulling one out.

[jackdaw53]

In-story both were kind of from left field. Renee becoming the Question was because Gotham Central writer Greg Rucka wanted to do more with her in 52. Crispus Allen becoming the Spectre, I think, was simply DC putting the names of unused characters into a hat and pulling one out.

Got to agree there was no overpowering logic to either choice.

But... I do think idea of developing characters from one role to another has plenty of mileage if done well.

But its rarely done well in DC stories. Partly because DC really has no idea what makes a character really successful, and is therefore never going to replace the really top tier characters. For example, no Robin is ever going to replace Bruce as Batman permanently, or anybody replace Superman.

And even worse... even when it is done well (e.g. Replacing Hal Jordan and Barry Allen)... it never sticks.

That sounds pessimistic, but I'd argue that upside is that its something DC could easily improve.

But certainly I'd have loved to see Dick Grayson become latest GL. (Nobody can seriously tell me that he's got less will power or ability to control fear than half the geezers that are already GL's.... and it could have led to a ton of interesting stories.)

[DonC]

But... I do think idea of developing characters from one role to another has plenty of mileage if done well.

The key part is "If done well." Like you said, DC rarely does it well. Barbara Gordon as Oracle worked because Oracle was a good character and the idea of a computer genius fit within Barbara's existing character. Round peg into a round hole, so to speak. But making Crispus Allen, and even worse, Hal Jordan, the Spectre was a horrible idea simply because it was so against his character. Square peg into a round hole.

[Zak213]

i thought the renee montoya- vic sage partnership in 52 was awesome and i like the idea of renee becoming the question.