Who's your favorite Robin? (Robins?)

[Ascended]

Jason had a sudden 180 turn over near his death where Starlin himself admitted that the reason behind the sudden change was because they wanted people to dislike him.

Does anybody here work in publishing? Because I study business and have years of experience in management roles, but I've never worked in publishing and this sort of thing would get you fired in every industry I've worked in. Why anyone would willingly de-value a property is beyond me, but I hear about it happening all the time in comics.

Is there some sort of weird publishing business theory that supports this sorta activity? I mean, each industry has its own quirks and rules, so maybe this makes sense in the publishing world, but it strikes me as incredibly stupid to purposefully sabotage a IP.

[MajorHoy]

. . . Is there some sort of weird publishing business theory that supports this sorta activity? I mean, each industry has its own quirks and rules, so maybe this makes sense in the publishing world, but it strikes me as incredibly stupid to purposefully sabotage a IP.

Well, if Jason wasn't working out the way DC wanted him to (either in terms of popularity or writers interest in working with the character), then it didn't necessarily harm them to get rid of Jason since he wasn't the only character to ever be "Robin". Besides, DC got a hell of a lot of publicity for what they did; got a lot of mileage with new story ideas working off Jason's death; and they eventually got Tim Drake as Robin, who seems to have been even more successful than Jason ever was in the Robin role.
So, did DC really lose anything by killing off Jason?

[oasis1313]

Well, if Jason wasn't working out the way DC wanted him to (either in terms of popularity or writers interest in working with the character), then it didn't necessarily harm them to get rid of Jason since he wasn't the only character to ever be "Robin". Besides, DC got a hell of a lot of publicity for what they did; got a lot of mileage with new story ideas working off Jason's death; and they eventually got Tim Drake as Robin, who seems to have been even more successful than Jason ever was in the Robin role.
So, did DC really lose anything by killing off Jason?

They lost a huge chunk of my esteem--although that means nothing to much of anybody but me. It's never right to kill children in children/ya "literature." If Jason had been given the ultra red carpet treatment Tim received, he would have been a huge success because the young readers would have bought off on the relentless propaganda shoved down their throats.

[agentofthebat]

Tim Drake all the way.

[oasis1313]

Tim Drake all the way.

Uncle Dan sends his best regards.

[Ascended]

Well, if Jason wasn't working out the way DC wanted him to (either in terms of popularity or writers interest in working with the character), then it didn't necessarily harm them to get rid of Jason since he wasn't the only character to ever be "Robin". Besides, DC got a hell of a lot of publicity for what they did; got a lot of mileage with new story ideas working off Jason's death; and they eventually got Tim Drake as Robin, who seems to have been even more successful than Jason ever was in the Robin role.
So, did DC really lose anything by killing off Jason?

No, Jason's death worked out really well in the end. It added a lot to Bruce's story and it opened the door for Tim, who was infinitely more popular and profitable. And at the end of the day, it even made Jason a better, more interesting character once he eventually returned.

But it could have easily gone differently. It could have backfired in any number of ways. I mean, DC held a death poll for a child. It's not hard to see how that might have rubbed the public the wrong way and bit the company in the ass.

Dont get me wrong, I totally believe that character death is a viable and useful narrative tool.....but we hear quite often how DC or Marvel or whoever decided to purposefully sabotage a character or property and I just dont get it. I can see why they'd want to remove Jason because that adds to the overall narrative, but to intentionally try to make fans actively hate one of your brands......where's the gain?

Jason isn't the best example here, but it's not just him; we've heard all kinds of stories over the years about publishers sabotaging their own product. Who the f*ck does that on purpose? That's why I'm asking if there's some kind of publishing business theory that works here, because otherwise it makes zero sense to me.

[oasis1313]

Comics editors, publishers, and "creators" are just overpaid fanboys. They get a personal hate for a character and they get to do whatever they want to destroy it.

[babybats]

No, Jason's death worked out really well in the end. It added a lot to Bruce's story and it opened the door for Tim, who was infinitely more popular and profitable. And at the end of the day, it even made Jason a better, more interesting character once he eventually returned.

But it could have easily gone differently. It could have backfired in any number of ways. I mean, DC held a death poll for a child. It's not hard to see how that might have rubbed the public the wrong way and bit the company in the ass.

Dont get me wrong, I totally believe that character death is a viable and useful narrative tool.....but we hear quite often how DC or Marvel or whoever decided to purposefully sabotage a character or property and I just dont get it. I can see why they'd want to remove Jason because that adds to the overall narrative, but to intentionally try to make fans actively hate one of your brands......where's the gain?

Jason isn't the best example here, but it's not just him; we've heard all kinds of stories over the years about publishers sabotaging their own product. Who the f*ck does that on purpose? That's why I'm asking if there's some kind of publishing business theory that works here, because otherwise it makes zero sense to me.

I would guess that they weren't thinking of characters like Jason as a brand. Batman was the brand, Jason was a supporting character and his role as an element of the story mattered more than his role as a potentially money-making IP. And when things like this happen, I don't think that this is a case of writers having a personal vendetta against a fictional character, but just that they think killing them or creating conflict around them is more important for the story than protecting an IP that they don't view as particularly valuable. Ironically, killing Jason and bringing him back as the Red Hood made him way more valuable as a brand than he was as Robin.

[oasis1313]

I would guess that they weren't thinking of characters like Jason as a brand. Batman was the brand, Jason was a supporting character and his role as an element of the story mattered more than his role as a potentially money-making IP. And when things like this happen, I don't think that this is a case of writers having a personal vendetta against a fictional character, but just that they think killing them or creating conflict around them is more important for the story than protecting an IP that they don't view as particularly valuable. Ironically, killing Jason and bringing him back as the Red Hood made him way more valuable as a brand than he was as Robin.

Yeah, but I had to wait a LONG time for Jason to come back. And had to put up with the excretal Tim Dreck. Didn't appreciate that.

[MajorHoy]

Yeah, but I had to wait a LONG time for Jason to come back. And had to put up with the excretal Tim Dreck. Didn't appreciate that.

Well, how much did you spend (how many calls to 1-900-720-2660 did you make) to try and keep Jason alive?

[oasis1313]

Well, how much did you spend (how many calls to 1-900-720-2660 did you make) to try and keep Jason alive?

I spent $30.00 (sixty calls); would've spent a lot more if I'd had time to keep dialing in and didn't have to go to work on a job with an hour commuting time and 12-hour shifts. Should have called in sick and kept going until I saved Jason (unless the whole thing was rigged in advance and the votes didn't matter), didn't have those nice robocall things back then. I've got a little more time and money now; I'd happily drop a couple of thousand now if that's what it took to kill Tim Dreck FOREVER.

[MajorHoy]

. . . Should have called in sick and kept going until I saved Jason (unless the whole thing was rigged in advance and the votes didn't matter) . . .

A popular story was that one person was able to rig up a system that did cause multiple calls to the KILL JASON and may have thrown off the results. Perhaps DC should have made it so that only one call (or some limit, like maybe five at most) could be made per a phone number for the voting.
(I could see where they may not have wanted to limit to just one call in case multiple readers shared the same phone number. After all, this was still back in the days before almost everybody had their own cell phone number.)

[Vinsanity]

Damo is the one I like cause he is different.

[Ascended]

I would guess that they weren't thinking of characters like Jason as a brand. Batman was the brand, Jason was a supporting character and his role as an element of the story mattered more than his role as a potentially money-making IP. And when things like this happen, I don't think that this is a case of writers having a personal vendetta against a fictional character, but just that they think killing them or creating conflict around them is more important for the story than protecting an IP that they don't view as particularly valuable. Ironically, killing Jason and bringing him back as the Red Hood made him way more valuable as a brand than he was as Robin.

It's true that DC doesn't look at Robin as an individual IP so much as a part of the Bat property (same goes for Nightwing and all the rest) but that actually makes it even more questionable.

Let's say that DC's child murder poll hit the public the wrong way. Maybe it was a slow news day and some mouthy opinion piece of a news caster or talk show host decided to make a stink about it, and it caught on. Now it's not just some minor, barely profitable franchise that's getting negative press; it's Batman, one of the biggest money makers at the company.

Again, I got no problem with killing characters to advance a narrative. Not at all, if it makes the overall property more interesting and better, maim and murder to your heart's content! But we've seen many stories about publishers who basically say "We don't like this character anymore. Oh, they're profitable enough but we don't like them, so we're gonna mistreat them until the fans hate them too!" It's not good business. Good business should never bend to personal bias like that.

Creators are just fanboys, like oasis said. I expect that from them. But I hold editors and management to a higher standard. Those guys should be capable of drawing a line between their personal opinions and what's best for the product and company. Yet we see stories like this on a regular basis.

Is the bar for comics really so low? It's amazing the genre has survived so long.

[oasis1313]

A popular story was that one person was able to rig up a system that did cause multiple calls to the KILL JASON and may have thrown off the results. Perhaps DC should have made it so that only one call (or some limit, like maybe five at most) could be made per a phone number for the voting.
(I could see where they may not have wanted to limit to just one call in case multiple readers shared the same phone number. After all, this was still back in the days before almost everybody had their own cell phone number.)

That's an interesting notion. It wouldn't be in the company's interest to limit the calls--at fifty cents a pop, they're making free money. So what if you've got a couple of crazy diehards who either love or hate Jason and want to duke it out with cash instead of pistols at dawn? I remember it being a royal pain in the azz because I had a stupid rotary phone back then (not much of a techie); if I'd had touch-tone I could have just punched the Redial button but I had to keep dialing. Killing children is just ugly. If I had to bet on it, I think DC planned to kill Jason anyway.