-
[QUOTE=Dred;4262107]Wonder Woman is not technically a title inherent to Diana, though. Wonder Woman is just the greatest emissary of Themyscira to the rest of the world. It is the ideal title to be passed down if Diana were to take up her role as queen.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but I personally am still not interested. As are many others. It was a title that made its debut with Diana in the same story, and she was created to be Wonder Woman. And has largely remained the only Wonder Woman since 1941, despite the odd shake up with the likes of Artemis, Hippolyta or Donna. But she's carved in stone as being Wonder Woman in pop culture at large as an icon.
I'd be interested in Diana's story ending and Donna gaining more prominence. But Diana is one of the characters who is irreplaceable in her role/costume (certainly compared even to the likes of Barry Allen). Wonder Woman's story ends with Diana, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a superhero Amazon in the form of Donna Troy who can carve out her own niche. That is assuming of course Diana even takes over as queen. Hippolyta could not die and/or the monarchy could be dissolved like in the Jimenez run. And Diana is either ageless or ages extremely slowly, and retiring from superheroics is not something she'd be inclined to do.
*Except in the Perez reboot. It didn't come from the Amazons there, it came from a Boston newspaper.
[QUOTE=kjn;4262122]The original legacy hero was the 21st when we first met him :D
([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom"]The Phantom[/URL], who swore an oath that he and his descendants would fight pirates and evil back in 1536, and they've been at it ever since… Note that we have had the 21st Phantom since 1936… :eek:)[/QUOTE]
The Phantom mythos is not the Batman mythos. Batman was invented with Bruce Wayne, and like Diana, he's cemented in pop culture as Batman. Casuals know his name without needing to think about it. It's one of the reasons why we've had the first Batman since 1939:p.
Though again, I'm fine with Bruce retiring to marry Selina or whatever, and Dick taking over. Just not necessarily as Batman. Have him carve out his own legend.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4262156]Maybe, but I personally am still not interested. As are many others. It was a title that made its debut with Diana in the same story, and she was created to be Wonder Woman. And has largely remained the only Wonder Woman since 1941, despite the odd shake up with the likes of Artemis, Hippolyta or Donna. But she's carved in stone as being Wonder Woman in pop culture at large as an icon.
I'd be interested in Diana's story ending and Donna gaining more prominence. But Diana is one of the characters who is irreplaceable in her role/costume (certainly compared even to the likes of Barry Allen). Wonder Woman's story ends with Diana, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a superhero Amazon in the form of Donna Troy who can carve out her own niche. That is assuming of course Diana even takes over as queen. Hippolyta could not die and/or the monarchy could be dissolved like in the Jimenez run. And Diana is either ageless or ages extremely slowly, and retiring from superheroics is not something she'd be inclined to do.
*Except in the Perez reboot. It didn't come from the Amazons there, it came from a Boston newspaper.
The Phantom mythos is not the Batman mythos. Batman was invented with Bruce Wayne, and like Diana, he's cemented in pop culture as Batman. Casuals know his name without needing to think about it. It's one of the reasons why we've had the first Batman since 1939:p.
Though again, I'm fine with Bruce retiring to marry Selina or whatever, and Dick taking over. Just not necessarily as Batman. Have him carve out his own legend.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't she call herself Wonder Woman if she's literally taking up the role of Wonder Woman?
I don't get why you think something is indelible when you haven't even humored or seen the contrary.
If this were 1984 I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Barry, though. Tossing around the word icon without even humoring the idea that something can change.
-
[QUOTE=Dred;4262193]Why wouldn't she call herself Wonder Woman if she's literally taking up the role of Wonder Woman?[/QUOTE]
Aside from being an Amazon superhero, what is she doing to literally be Wonder Woman? Why can't Donna have some indiduality and come up with her own name (or why can't the writers use imagination and come up with something else)?
[QUOTE=Dred;4262193]I don't get why you think something is indelible when you haven't even humored or seen the contrary.[/QUOTE]
Fans can be attached to mantles because of the specific characters attached to them. I love Wonder Woman because I love Diana. If her story ends, I'd like to see the DCU continue without her, but I wouldn't be into a Wonder Woman sequel. It's not that complicated. I like Donna well enough (mostly from the pre-Crisis NTT run), but not enough to consider her THE Wonder Woman. There's only one character who is that to me. And for a whole lot of other people too.
Why are you so against the idea of Donna coming into her own without needing to specifically be Wonder Woman and wear the costume? You don't seem any more eager to humor that idea than I do a Wonder Woman II.
[QUOTE=Dred;4262193]If this were 1984 I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Barry, though. Tossing around the word icon without even humoring the idea that something can change.[/QUOTE]
Please. Barry was pre-dated by Jay, and was never the icon Wonder Woman was/is. Nobody pre-dated Diana as the superhero Wonder Woman, and she hasn't gone away for any meaningful length of time either.
Wonder Woman going away at all along with the rest of her generation so the Titans would be the main ones would still be obviously be a change, wouldn't it? Is it just not the change you'd like to see because they aren't all going down the same path as Wally did?
-
A policy of not 'bringing back a character whose story ended' would make it easier for a hostile editorial to remove any character they dislike. Just kill them off in some event/story,say their story has ended and never use them again.
The best thing to do is to treat every run as its own story/universe instead of trying to make things fit into continuity. Dislike how certain characters have been handled? Write a story that ignores past decisions and canon. If your story is good, readers will praise it as a classic, if not readers will bash you. Then when the next guy takes over, he can ignore what you've written and write the story that suits him.
-
[QUOTE=Dred;4262107]Wonder Woman is not technically a title inherent to Diana, though. [B]Wonder Woman is just the greatest emissary of Themyscira to the rest of the world[/B]. It is the ideal title to be passed down if Diana were to take up her role as queen.[/QUOTE]
I think that's an inherent Diana thing though.
-
[QUOTE=king81992;4262364]The best thing to do is to treat every run as its own story/universe instead of trying to make things fit into continuity. Dislike how certain characters have been handled? Write a story that ignores past decisions and canon. If your story is good, readers will praise it as a classic, if not readers will bash you. Then when the next guy takes over, he can ignore what you've written and write the story that suits him.[/QUOTE]
Both DC and Marvel could benefit from this, the Bendis school of writing.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4262232]Aside from being an Amazon superhero, what is she doing to literally be Wonder Woman? Why can't Donna have some indiduality and come up with her own name (or why can't the writers use imagination and come up with something else)?
Fans can be attached to mantles because of the specific characters attached to them. I love Wonder Woman because I love Diana. If her story ends, I'd like to see the DCU continue without her, but I wouldn't be into a Wonder Woman sequel. It's not that complicated. I like Donna well enough (mostly from the pre-Crisis NTT run), but not enough to consider her THE Wonder Woman. There's only one character who is that to me. And for a whole lot of other people too.
Why are you so against the idea of Donna coming into her own without needing to specifically be Wonder Woman and wear the costume? You don't seem any more eager to humor that idea than I do a Wonder Woman II.
Please. Barry was pre-dated by Jay, and was never the icon Wonder Woman was/is. Nobody pre-dated Diana as the superhero Wonder Woman, and she hasn't gone away for any meaningful length of time either.
Wonder Woman going away at all along with the rest of her generation so the Titans would be the main ones would still be obviously be a change, wouldn't it? Is it just not the change you'd like to see because they aren't all going down the same path as Wally did?[/QUOTE]
Because I understand how the world works I know Wally would've crashed and burned if his name was Mr. Zip. Same goes for any character trying to take on a new mantle in a failing market that tries something new. You need a better bridge, the mantles bridge. People will read a Wonder Woman comic, even if the star character is someone new. People will read a Batman comic even if some idiot named Jean Paul Valley is starring in it. People will read The Flash even if it's his dopey, annoying sidekick who steps into the boots.
Also, there's a lot of value and novelty in continuing the line in perpetuity. The thing about Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman is their comics have been in continual print since debut (though that's a bit iffy at times). Stopping those because you want to move the world onwards would be a shame. I don't get why, in Donna's case, she couldn't win the same privilege to be the Wonder Woman that Diana did. It's only so set for you because you've literally never seen anything else.
lol at Barry never being the icon WW was. Wonder Woman was failing at a time when Barry Allen, The Flash, revived the entire comics industry. For a time, Barry was significantly more iconic to comics than Wonder Woman. There was a time when Wonder Woman was failing so badly they had to strip her of everything that made her Wonder Woman, turn her into a powerless fashionista who reveled in every chauvinistic fantasy possible, just to keep her going (thanks Kanigher).
I don't seem eager to humor your idea? Dude, I have been humoring it for decades. Donna's had a million of her own names. They ain't Wonder Woman. Tell me how much you care about the name Troia or Darkstar or whatever, or how anyone in the world does, compared to Wonder Woman.
I value the titles of Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman. I just also value character progression, which is halted so long as the titles aren't allowed to pass on.
By the by, they don't all have to be perfect imitations of what Wally did. Not every step forward HAS to be the Titans (Superman has no Titans equivalent). The Titans have a very obvious throughline that would naturally progress the way Wally's did. That said I'm a bit iffy on the Titans because, much like their predecessors, they're a bunch of straight white men and a token girl heading the team. I'd like for some progression that reflects reality and not a less than ideal 1960s viewpoint. Amusingly, the JL already took the one actual diversity character situated with the Titans and adopted him in Cyborg. All that's left is white bread and an alien.
-
I again (as I so often do) look to how Japan handles extended superhero franchises as a point of comparison.
To date, there have been dozens upon dozens of different incarnations of Ultraman, Kamen Rider, the Super Sentai (what the West knows as the POWER RANGERS franchise) dating from the 1960s (ULTRAMAN) or 1970s (KAMEN RIDER, Super Sentai). Each series comes to its definite end, but leaves the protagonist intact and available for team-up with later iterations. It's been 53 years since the original Ultraman headlined his own series, 48 years since the original Kamen Rider debuted, and 44 years since GORANGER introduced the Super Sentai concept. None of the originals are the stars in perpetuity of their respective universes the way that Superman/Clark Kent, Batman/Bruce Wayne, and Wonder Woman/Diana Prince are, but they nevertheless get dusted off semi-regularly to join the fun with their younger, current successors.
U.S. superheroes have never been presented in such a manner, and given cultural habits, it's probably too late to start doing that now, but conceptually, it's never been impossible.
[color=red]Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)[/color]
-
[QUOTE=Buried Alien;4262455]I again (as I so often do) look to how Japan handles extended superhero franchises as a point of comparison.
To date, there have been dozens upon dozens of different incarnations of Ultraman, Kamen Rider, the Super Sentai (what the West knows as the POWER RANGERS franchise) dating from the 1960s (ULTRAMAN) or 1970s (KAMEN RIDER, Super Sentai). Each series comes to its definite end, but leaves the protagonist intact and available for team-up with later iterations. It's been 53 years since the original Ultraman headlined his own series, 48 years since the original Kamen Rider debuted, and 44 years since GORANGER introduced the Super Sentai concept. None of the originals are the stars in perpetuity of their respective universes the way that Superman/Clark Kent, Batman/Bruce Wayne, and Wonder Woman/Diana Prince are, they nevertheless get dusted off semi-regularly to join the fun with their younger, current successors.
U.S. superheroes have never been presented in such a manner, and given cultural habits, it's probably too late to start doing that now, but conceptually, it's never been impossible.
[color=red]Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)[/color][/QUOTE]
Exactly this. And, heck, just like with Power Rangers they don't ALWAYS and everytime have to be the exact same named things, but there's usually going to be a Red Ranger (Superman!) that harkens back to the OG one.
-
[QUOTE=Dred;4262442]Because I understand how the world works I know Wally would've crashed and burned if his name was Mr. Zip. Same goes for any character trying to take on a new mantle in a failing market that tries something new. You need a better bridge, the mantles bridge. People will read a Wonder Woman comic, even if the star character is someone new. People will read a Batman comic even if some idiot named Jean Paul Valley is starring in it. People will read The Flash even if it's his dopey, annoying sidekick who steps into the boots.[/QUOTE]
Well let's start by maybe trying a better name than Mr. Zip:p
We know for sure people will read the Flash if Wally stepped into it because he's the only one we got to see in the role for a long time. You have no guarantee they'd do the same for Batman or Wonder Woman. All the Batman replacements were always placeholders with "temporary" stamped on them. The Wonder Woman fanbase is one of the most difficult to please in all of comics (not always without reason), they are not necessarily going to embrace Donna the way Wally was embraced.
It very well could work. It very well could not. Neither Batman or Wonder Woman's stars have fallen enough the way Barry's did to warrant doing it.
[QUOTE=Dred;4262442]Also, there's a lot of value and novelty in continuing the line in perpetuity. The thing about Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman is their comics have been in continual print since debut (though that's a bit iffy at times). Stopping those because you want to move the world onwards would be a shame. I don't get why, in Donna's case, she couldn't win the same privilege to be the Wonder Woman that Diana did. It's only so set for you because you've literally never seen anything else.[/QUOTE]
They can continue the line with those characters, they just don't have to tell them in the present day. Do like kjn said and embrace a DCU that tells stories from different eras. We can see what a world after Diana looks like, while we see more of her adventures in the younger eras. Her title doesn't have to take place in the same period as adult Donna.
[QUOTE=Dred;4262442]I don't seem eager to humor your idea? Dude, I have been humoring it for decades. Donna's had a million of her own names. They ain't Wonder Woman. Tell me how much you care about the name Troia or Darkstar or whatever, or how anyone in the world does, compared to Wonder Woman.[/QUOTE]
We've never actually gotten Wonder Woman's story to definitively end while an adult Donna continues on as a superhero to forge her own path. Wonder Woman has always been around. DC isn't likely to try either of our scenarios, so it's kind of moot, but narratively Donna could still come into her own without becoming Wonder Woman.
And why should the Wonder Woman mantle be passed down to Donna? What does Diana and her fans gain from this? If Donna can't make it without the mantle...sucks to be her, I guess. It's not Diana's problem.
[QUOTE=Dred;4262442]I value the titles of Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman. I just also value character progression, which is halted so long as the titles aren't allowed to pass on.[/QUOTE]
Why is passing the mantles down the only way to allow character progression? That's strikes me as awfully limited. Really, there's nothing else that can be done to provide character development?
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4262501]Well let's start by maybe trying a better name than Mr. Zip:p
We know for sure people will read the Flash if Wally stepped into it because he's the only one we got to see in the role for a long time. You have no guarantee they'd do the same for Batman or Wonder Woman. All the Batman replacements were always placeholders with "temporary" stamped on them. The Wonder Woman fanbase is one of the most difficult to please in all of comics (not always without reason), they are not necessarily going to embrace Donna the way Wally was embraced.
It very well could work. It very well could not. Neither Batman or Wonder Woman's stars have fallen enough the way Barry's did to warrant doing it.
They can continue the line with those characters, they just don't have to tell them in the present day. Do like kjn said and embrace a DCU that tells stories from different eras. We can see what a world after Diana looks like, while we see more of her adventures in the younger eras. Her title doesn't have to take place in the same period as adult Donna.
We've never actually gotten Wonder Woman's story to definitively end while an adult Donna continues on as a superhero to forge her own path. Wonder Woman has always been around. DC isn't likely to try either of our scenarios, so it's kind of moot, but narratively Donna could still come into her own without becoming Wonder Woman.
And why should the Wonder Woman mantle be passed down to Donna? What does Diana and her fans gain from this? If Donna can't make it without the mantle...sucks to be her, I guess. It's not Diana's problem.
Why is passing the mantles down the only way to allow character progression? That's strikes me as awfully limited. Really, there's nothing else that can be done to provide character development?[/QUOTE]
What I know, for a [I]fact[/I], is it is significantly harder to sell a character with a brand new name and title than it is an already established one. There's a reason Miles Morales goes by Spider-man and not Archano-Guy. It helps with his presence and visibility. It helps people who are already aware of the franchise know who he is. You ask a random person on the street if they know about Wonder Woman, they'll say yeah. Same random person probably couldn't remember her name (Diana Prince!), but they know [I]Wonder Woman.[/I] The average comic reader isn't that far removed from that. Ask them what "Troia" means and it'll mean nothing. That is the cultural zeitgeist you're swimming upstream against. Why make it any harder for what is already going to be a trying transition? Why throw away an awesome name when you can keep the name and progression at the same time?
Diana and her fans could get a great story out of it. The transition, which is the primary storytelling method by which you would hand a title over, would heavily involve Diana. I guess the issue is: are you okay with Diana becoming a supporting character? I'd guess not, but that's how I'd do it in this particular case.
What DC is likely to do is irrelevant. DC will never move past Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana Prince, Hal Jordan, Arthur Curry and Barry Allen. They made movies with them, that's what they're sticking to. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, either narratively or representatively, but it's what we're stuck with. We, or at least I, am just dreaming of a better world where we're not stuck in a vice grip, repeating the same stories with a dash of whatever new piece of technology thrown in to make it the same story in this year instead of 10 years ago. I'm dreaming of, if I had the opportunity to change this, how would I do my best to both do it and make it succeed. Integral to that is the idea that comic buyers go, "I'm buying Batman this month." You don't try to shake people out of that habit. You work with it to give them something new while enforcing their buying habits that benefit the niche industry.
-
Okay, so I'm going to elaborate on my original intent of this post:
What I am proposing here is not all legacy characters will eventually take over the roles of their mentors. Some will, (maybe some of the most A-list nowpowered characters certainly, Batman, Green Arrow, Question) but many will mark their own path. Also consider that many of DC's major tier characters are practically immortal -take Superman for instance.
Also do take into account that the duration of the hero hero in real time would be, on average, 40 years (ages 19 to 59, probably even more if they were a sidekick previously. ) Most comic book readers will not even be alive to see two generations of heroes take power.
-
[QUOTE=Dred;4262519]What I know, for a [I]fact[/I], is it is significantly harder to sell a character with a brand new name and title than it is an already established one. There's a reason Miles Morales goes by Spider-man and not Archano-Guy. It helps with his presence and visibility. It helps people who are already aware of the franchise know who he is. You ask a random person on the street if they know about Wonder Woman, they'll say yeah. Same random person probably couldn't remember her name (Diana Prince!), but they know [I]Wonder Woman.[/I] The average comic reader isn't that far removed from that. Ask them what "Troia" means and it'll mean nothing. That is the cultural zeitgeist you're swimming upstream against. Why make it any harder for what is already going to be a trying transition? Why throw away an awesome name when you can keep the name and progression at the same time?[/QUOTE]
I think in general it's a shame we cannot sell legitimately brand new characters and concepts anymore instead of re-packaging old ones. At one time, in the Silver Age, Marvel an explosion of creativity that became the foundation of their fictional universe. DC did it in the Golden Age and again in the Silver Age. I think the biggest problem now that prevents new characters in comics from taking off is that comics as a medium are not satisfying compared to other forms of entertainment. Kids have no idea where to find comics, there aren't a lot of kid friendly ones out there for when they do find them, and what kid is going to spend the amount of money we do for something they will finish in 2-5 minutes tops and then be bored again? At this point, the MCU could start churning out brand new characters invented for the films and be guaranteed success because the brand is trusted.
Like, I get what you're saying with Miles Morales. I have zero interest in him because for me Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker. It's him (or preferably him and his wife) against the world. I'd be more than ok with a new young hero, especially a non-white one, filling the niche he used to fill, just in another identity. But I also know why Spider-Man is a more sure thing for him, and he wouldn't have his success without it. It just sucks that that is the case.
They certainly know who Diana Prince is now though. And you can keep Diana and still have her and the universe progress around her. Why throw away the awesome character who made the awesome name awesome when there is plenty of in-universe reasons for her not to go anywhere? She's probably not the best character for this legacy debate. She's an immortal demi-goddess and isn't going anywhere. Wonder Woman in different time periods (including the far future) is more interesting to me than her retiring in favor of Donna.
[QUOTE=Dred;4262519]What DC is likely to do is irrelevant. DC will never move past Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, Diana Prince, Hal Jordan, Arthur Curry and Barry Allen. They made movies with them, that's what they're sticking to. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, either narratively or representatively, but it's what we're stuck with. We, or at least I, am just dreaming of a better world where we're not stuck in a vice grip, repeating the same stories with a dash of whatever new piece of technology thrown in to make it the same story in this year instead of 10 years ago. I'm dreaming of, if I had the opportunity to change this, how would I do my best to both do it and make it succeed. Integral to that is the idea that comic buyers go, "I'm buying Batman this month." You don't try to shake people out of that habit. You work with it to give them something new while enforcing their buying habits that benefit the niche industry.[/QUOTE]
We're both arguing for different forms of progression, even if we don't agree on the particulars.
I think it's our wishful thinking scenarios that are irrelevant, because we both know DC wouldn't go for either of them. And not entirely without reason. And neither scenario would save the industry from dying a slow death anyway, because the bigger problem is kids not giving a shit about comics and preferring movies, tv shows and video games for their exposure to these characters
-
[QUOTE=Timothy Hunter;4262555]Okay, so I'm going to elaborate on my original intent of this post:
What I am proposing here is not all legacy characters will eventually take over the roles of their mentors. Some will, (maybe some of the most A-list nowpowered characters certainly, Batman, Green Arrow, Question) but many will mark their own path. Also consider that many of DC's major tier characters are practically immortal -take Superman for instance.
Also do take into account that the duration of the hero hero in real time would be, on average, 40 years (ages 19 to 59, probably even more if they were a sidekick previously. ) Most comic book readers will not even be alive to see two generations of heroes take power.[/QUOTE]
And what happens if readers don’t like the change like when Bart became the Flash? What happens if people use the replacement as a “jumping-off” point and you don’t get enough new readers to replace them? You have a very idealistic view of the industry. I would love to see Dick become Batman for good, or for Kon to take the Superman mantle from Clark, or for Donna to become WW, but it’s always a risk. There are a lot of diehards who will [B]only[/B] accept the originals in those roles, or in the case of Barry and Hal the “classics”. I’d love to see Barry marry Iris and retire and Wally to get the Flash mantle back but I’ve long since given up the hope of that happening.
-
[QUOTE=Timothy Hunter;4260780]Examples in relation to DC Comics that I could give are Superman being ressurected after his demise in the mid nineties and Hal Jordan resuming the Green Lantern role after he massacred much of the original Green Lantern Corps.
This is why I think DC should have have a policy for not bringing back a character whose story has ended, whether they die (Barry Allen, Vic Sage) or they merely retire (Jack Knight, Jim Gordon).[/QUOTE]
Not just Superman. I think more classic JLA members have died and come back than haven't. I think of the "Big 7" only Wonder Woman has beat the reaper (though Batman's 'deaths' have never been real ones). That's Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter. Not to mention Green Arrow who was almost Big 7. A re-read of Blackest Night gives us a multitude of formerly dead characters. And this is one of the reasons I'm not bent out of shape about the deaths (or alleged deaths) in Heroes in Crisis. Tom King has explicitly said heroes don't stay dead.
I agree the OP suggestion would give deaths etc more consequence but it would eliminate the thing I find most special about comic books/comic characters which is that they're the only serial storytelling in which I can follow the characters I loved almost from birth all the way to my death. And the stories about these characters were going for decades before I was around and will hopefully continue for a long time after.
I could get behind advancing the stories through legacy characters and the like. That wouldn't bother me too much. But there's a reason these particular characters (the folks behind the masks and not just the masks themselves) have survived as long as they have. It's a very rare thing to see a new character or legacy that has the kind of impact any of the Trinity have. I think the last time with DC was probably Harley Quinn which was a generation ago.
I thought Julius Schwartz's answer to this problem (JSA-to-JLA on parallel earths) was a very elegant one and one that might have worked through many reboots were it not for CoIE blowing it up.
Until Dick Grayson started to age in the 70s/80s, it didn't matter what era a story was being told in; our main characters were all around 28 years old and sidekicks stayed sidekicks. I may be remembering wrong but I feel like DC was explicit in explaining back in that era that Superman, Batman, and the like were all around that precise age, no matter which modern era served as the background for the stories.
Jack Knight is a great example of a character going away when his story was told and done with but he was a minor character and one that didn't have 80 years of stories behind him or even 10 years of them. I love alt-future/elseworlds/etc that give us the "end" of a major character's story but I hope DC never stops putting out books about Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent or Diana and their ever-growing supporting casts.
