Do you find it necessary for your favorite DC hero to WIN, WIN, WIN all the time

[Frontier]

I think on a general basis people go into a Superhero story expecting the hero to overcome the villain and the challenges facing them and save the day.

That shouldn't mean the hero shouldn't struggle, but there's a difference between a hero struggling for a win and a hero who just continually fails or loses.

[kjn]

There has to be a balance I think. Winning all the time is, to put it frankly, boring. But if you have nothing but loss after loss after loss, it starts to be heard not to see the character as nothing but a failure, and so assume that any attempt at something will be a loss. Ultimately I should be both excited when a character wins, and saddened when they lose, but I should never feel bored about it.

Exactly. One should also remember that a lot of the most enduring and remembered stories (in general, not only comics) are tragedies in some form.

I also think that one should not look at it as simply win/lose, but succeed/fail. The hero might still be the winner at the end, but they did not succeed in everything they set out or needed to do. Or take a story like the Hiketeia, where both Batman and Wonder Woman lost.

[Godlike13]

Well, at some point there should be a pay off. Hard to like or route for someone who just loses all the time.

[Vakanai]

Well yeah, of course my hero should always win, who wants to see the villains take over?

[Güicho]

I don't mind my heroes losing occasionally, as long as the core of the character isn't destroyed.

^This exactly, not interested in shockingly degrading, permanently damaging, or breaking a hero for shock value, like some authors do to desperately draw attention when they don't know how to write a character, that is a betrayal the character.

That doesn't mean they have to win every battle though .
To the contrary, losing a battle is great , and needs to be explored, what maters is how they handle it, survive and come out of it.
That's is worth exploring, and how you know if it's still your hero who emerges.

[Atlas]

I think supehero comics should provide heroes who win most of the time, but at no time should those wins be completely free of any loss for the superhero and/or their supporting cast. Superhero comics should be fun and filled with adventure, but also drama and consequences for all involved. That doesn't mean endlessly dark and grim explorations like TDKR or Watchmen, but it does mean that extraordinary characters should not be above learning ordinary life lessons.

[Robanker]

I love it when my favorites win, but I like seeing them get the crap beat out of them too. It makes their eventually victory that much sweeter. And it reminds us that what they're doing is actually terribly dangerous.

I like seeing Superman beaten up on occasion because I think it's important to remind people that yeah, he's bulletproof, but the stuff he fights on a daily basis is every bit as capable of hurting/killing him as the people Batman or Spider-Man fight. Superman doesn't seem so boring and invincible when he's got a black eye and fractured arm. And when he keeps going after a beat down? It just reminds us that powers or no powers, he's one stubborn tough SoB.

As long as the character is respected, I'm more than fine with seeing them defeated, either physically, mentally, or otherwise. Failure is how we define character, after all. Now, I'm not interested in seeing my favorite characters get sh*t on by writers trying to elevate someone/thing else (don't red shirt my favorite C-listers!), but an honest loss? That's great, actually.

My sentiments exactly. It should be handled well and not just to prop some other character up. Jobbing kind of sucks to read about.

[Lightning Rider]

I think how they lose is important. It has to have some kind of story consequence that explores the character and it has to be interesting, not just a cliche trap or physical overpowering.

[jump]

My only problem with heroes winning all the time is that some villains no longer hold the same threat they use to do. There was/is a long stretch where The Riddler was just a joke despite being one of the most iconic of Batman's rogues and I've seen promising new villains get introduced only to lose hard so that any other writer doesn't want to use them.

[Rakiduam]

Not always, but now and then would be nice. And win, not they thinking they win but really are playing a role in the villian's bigger plan, like in Young Justice.

At this point I am satisfied with competence.

[BatmanJones]

Reading some remarks on these forums, I get the impression that for some fans, it's necessary that their favorite DC hero WIN, WIN, WIN every time, all the time, and that the slightest adversity, challenge, difficulty, mistake, setback, or defeat is proof that the writers are part of some grand conspiracy to "get" the character. Is this really how some fans feel about their favorite DC characters?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

For me, no, of course not. It's the adversity that makes them human. This seems to be at the heart of the controversial responses to Identity Crisis. If something bad happens to a beloved character some can't recognize it for heartrending because they're too busy blaming a writer for the horrors he put characters through. For me it only enriches my appreciation of my favorite characters when they "lose" or face horrible adversity. That's so for me in all forms of art and it's not for nothing that Samuel Beckett is my favorite playwright or that I highly esteem Maria Irene Fornes and Sarah Kane. Each of them understood that it's the failures, the pain, the hurt that makes their characters potent.

I don't read comics to see my heroes win; in fact it's more true I read them to see them lose. I don't want my favorite characters to be protected from loss or extreme tragedy. To show them at their lowest honors them.

[titanfan]

Well, at some point there should be a pay off. Hard to like or route for someone who just loses all the time.

Yeah, at least in comics, what happens more often than not is that characters go too long without a payoff. At some point they do need to capture the villain, or successfully save someone or have a happy ending. (Preferably without the help of someone else)

Dixon's Nightwing, while beloved to many, went far too long without a big solo win (almost his entire run).

The Morrison Justice League was amazing but kept having to get saved by the "guest hero" of the arc for like the first year.

[Trey Strain]

Considering that the top villains almost always escape from custody immediately, do the heroes ever really win?

But I wouldn't mind a story once in a while where the villain just GETS AWAY and isn't captured or defeated.

Like Wo Fat in Hawaii Five-O does.

[BatmanJones]

Not I.

Reading some remarks on these forums, I get the impression that for some fans, it's necessary that their favorite DC hero WIN, WIN, WIN every time, all the time, and that the slightest adversity, challenge, difficulty, mistake, setback, or defeat is proof that the writers are part of some grand conspiracy to "get" the character. Is this really how some fans feel about their favorite DC characters?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I prefer stories that feature the bolded things above to ones where my favorite heroes are just winning fistfights. It's why a series like Heroes in Crisis seems like catnip to me.