The Glut of Batman characters is direct result of DC’s mismanagement of the dcu.

No one wants make new characters for any other DC franchise because they know once their run is done, the new character is going to get wiped and never heard from again. Batman characters( even unpopular ones) tend to stick around. So we get treated to an ever growing number of Batman sidekicks. Do we really need four plus robins? Damian Wayne essentially killed Tim Drake’s reason for existing and now they are scrambling to find a reason for Tim to exist. When you have so many characters that they start to cannibalize each other’s roles, I thing you need to stop.

Some of this creative energy could have been used in other books. Then their are the newer villains. Half of them are either completely generic( they could have just as easily been in Green Arrow’s or some other hero’s rogue’s gallery) or redundant. What makes Batman’s rogues so good is the fact that they are twisted versions of him. I think DC really needs to spread their new character creation out. Their are many heroes that need some new villains and supporting characters, or at least some further development of the ones they have.

You'd be a mug as a freelance writer to give a global media conglomerate your new creations when you could use them yourself elsewhere to make more for you

Today my brother and I were supposed to catch lunch. Flat tire threw him off a bit and we rescheduled but I'm one of those people always arriving early... I ended up watching this entire video

A World of Gothic Horror: The Problem With Modern Batman Stories

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4n_XdQC4mM[/url]

I have to admit I liked the take even though I ignore so many youtubers on comics in recent times.

He basically says what you're saying but ALSO that the ever expanding bat-family is bat for the gothic horror tone of many of the bat-stories.

and... almost ever writer who takes over adds a new "robin" to the franchise. Its really worth a watch even if you don't have an hour and have to skip ahead to you favorite bits.

I never read the story Arkham Asylum a serious house in a serious earth the Ideas in that are heavy as can be though and I'm glad I got to watch this.

[quote] The Glut of Batman characters is direct result of DC’s mismanagement of the dcu. [/quote]
It's more because there has been two very good runs of Batman first with Morrison then with Snyder that has made Batman into a sales juggernaut. In contrast none of the other DC franchises like Justice League or Superman have enjoyed this sort of success. What was the last ground shaking run of Superman or Justice League? Part of this is probably because editorial at DC has failed to nurture creativity and tried to enforce editorial mandates. The only other franchise that enjoyed some level of success was previously GL under Johns. But DC ruined that by putting in Venditti as his successor.

[QUOTE=mathew101281;4836887]
What makes Batman’s rogues so good is the fact that they are twisted versions of him.[/QUOTE]

DC editorial has been very well aware of this fact since at least the 80s.

Too much writers always want to leave their stamp on Batman's mythos. The energy given to Batman is never given to other characters.

[B]"When you have so many characters that they start to cannibalize each other’s roles, I thing you need to stop."[/B]

DC still have not realized this. It's annoying.

[QUOTE=Bruce Wayne;4836950]It's more because there has been two very good runs of Batman first with Morrison then with Snyder that has made Batman into a sales juggernaut. In contrast none of the other DC franchises like Justice League or Superman have enjoyed this sort of success. What was the last ground shaking run of Superman or Justice League? Part of this is probably because editorial at DC has failed to nurture creativity and tried to enforce editorial mandates. The only other franchise that enjoyed some level of success was previously GL under Johns. But DC ruined that by putting in Venditti as his successor.



DC editorial has been very well aware of this fact since at least the 80s.[/QUOTE]

I think I tend to agree with this view. Overall, I think the problem isn't so much Batman, it's that DC and WB have often failed to knock it out the park with their other characters. Batman has, fortunately for him, generally been handled much better than them over the years. For example, when he gets Christopher Nolan working on him, Superman gets Bryan Singer and later Zack Snyder. Batman really thrived during the New 52 with Snyder and Capullo, while Superman was a mess and revolving door for creative teams. After DC built up Green Lantern with Johns, it mystifyingly put a bunch of (with all due respect) no names at the time on the franchise, had the least popular and skilled among them lead the whole thing--Robert Venditti--and bizarrely kept him there for 5 years, killing all the momentum.

I think the other heroes would/would have fared a lot better if the quality of their comics and other media endeavors was consistently [B]A LOT[/B] better. You're not going to build fanbases like Batman has with lukewarm to cold content. Batman got there because of good content over the years (60s show, which people liked at the time, Denny O'Neil run, Dixon and Moench comics, Keaton films, Bruce Timm cartoons, Nolan movies, Arkham games, and so on).

That said, I do think the "Bat Family" is ridiculously big and the Robin situation is more than silly.

Well this is certainly a new way to complain about the Bat family being too large (seriously how many threads on this site alone are dedicated to this topic?). The large Batfamily is a separate issue from DC's problems. In fact, it might be one of the few things they are doing right given how popular most of these characters are.

[QUOTE=Agent Z;4837139]Well this is certainly a new way to complain about the Bat family being too large (seriously how many threads on this site alone are dedicated to this topic). The large Batfamily is a separate issue from DC's problems. In fact, it might be one of the few things they are doing right given now popular most of these characters are.[/QUOTE]

Tbf its more "The bat fam gets to stick around because any Bat item can be monetised and sold easier then any other DC character because DC focus on Batman leading to a self perpetuating issue"

The question is, does DC stop their top talents from working on anyone besides Batman or the writers are simply not interested? I personally believe it's the latter.

Super had Morrison and I think Snyder too(?) all working on him, but none of them were able to create a huge success that matched their runs on Batman. Tomasi has a successful run with Batman (I personally didn't like it, but oh well), but I hardly see anyone praise his work on GL and his run on supes rebirth is still no where close to the success of his Batman.

The thing is that most other franchises are just not big enough to support that many characters. And 4 robins seems much, but these characters among the most successful characters DC has.

Btw. Batman is not the only Franchise were they keep addind new characters, I mean were are now up to 7 human adult Green Lanterns (even if the Franchise couldn't even really support the 4 we had pre Flashpoint).

[QUOTE=jetengine;4837354]Tbf its more "The bat fam gets to stick around because any Bat item can be monetised and sold easier then any other DC character because DC focus on Batman leading to a self perpetuating issue"[/QUOTE]

True but that is an issue that can be solved by DC and WB putting more effort into their non-Batman properties. Which is what people like the OP should be encouraging DC to do instead of making yet another thread whining about how the Bat family is too big (as if that will stop them from just putting Batman everywhere).

Its been their 1st or 2nd top selling book for over 60 years with a fully developed world and supporting cast and is probably the most flexible character ever created - want horror batman, dark batman, fun batman, future batman, batman fighting turtles or predator, elseworlds batman, bTman fighting darkseid, batman fighting crimelords, batman with sidekick, batman solo - they have it all and it all sells. People want to write him because its a great character with a ton of scope, a pre made world, and the chance to make a good chunk of money. Cant see the problem

Personally, I find Batman to be among the [I]least[/I] interesting of DC's characters.

But one reason I think we have had such a glut of Bat characters is that Batman is a creature of the city, and the city is defined by having lots of characters and places. The city of Gotham is a living and breathing thing in a way that Metropolis—or other ficitional cities—seldom are. And cities both require characters and provide a clear framework and a place for them.

Now, Gotham used to be a place that didn't belong to Batman. It was the place for Slam Bradley, Black Canary, Wildcat, and many others. But as the city's association with Batman became stronger, Gotham became smaller and the new characters created to compensate largely became Bat characters.

I notice that DC/WB will invest hard on a character during the period where they give them money.
Green Lantern family got a movie, TV series, and four ongoings at once during its height with Johns at the helm.
Harley Quinn in the last few years
Birds of Prey during this movie period
Wonder Woman during her movie periods
Batman Who Laughs this last year
But all of them have been periods. After which it's back to usual, and when it's back to usual, they stop investing that hard. They have more confidence in these characters, that they will keep investing in them more than the others, but not as hard during their peak period.
The longest-lasting period has been Batman, since the 80s, has its ups and downs, but when you have a character lasting this long, of course, they're gonna invest in his world harder than the others.

I notice the exception is Green Arrow, though maybe because the Arrow series, I heard, is so different than the comic, that when they tried to synergize, it didn't work.
Another exception is Titans, but DC's selective hearing when it comes to Dick Grayson's generation has been well known, and when it comes to Young Justice, they did invest in the group... by letting Scott Lobdell took the lead...

So while DC often rightfully follow the money, they also throw in creators and concept without looking at what people like, what makes the content popular in the first place, and so you had the disparity between TV Young Justice, Lobdell's Titans, and just New 52 in general.

As DC/WB is a big company, there's this... struggle between the money suits, the manager who pick the creators, the creators who know what they're doing and know what fans want, the creators who don't, and most of them are fanboys of different eras... so even though they want to invest, sometimes the manager picks the wrong creators.

...and when they flop, the blame game begins, whether towards the creator or the characters, and the decision makers will make new mistakes.

What works in TV isn't necessarily going to work on comics too. So, I don't think the comparsion is fair.

Takes MCU for example. As much as people loves to gloat about it here, not a single successful movie character were able to find success in comics no matter how hard Marvel tries. X-Men and Spider-Man are still their biggest brands despite the former hardly having any media push.

It's always easy to say "they just don't understand!! if they did this or that, they would find success!", but it's not that simple.