Character progression (including growing older) vs Forever the same age?

[Jackalope89]

Most stories, be it books, movies, TV series, etc, have their characters progress, grow older, grow as characters, and eventually pass on their knowledge and such to the next generation.

Comics however, have become notorious for refusing to allow characters to grow/age. Almost as much as Pokemon for keeping Ash Ketchum 10 years old for over 20 years.

So, do you think that characters should be able to grow old and pass the mantle on (or at least experiment with it), or keep everything "static", so to speak?

[Flash Gordon]

Things need to stay static, in mainstream superhero comics.

Characters like BATMAN, AQUAMAN, and SUPERMAN exist for everyone and need to remain open and available to readers of all shoe sizes.

[lemonpeace]

Things should grow and progress because that is the nature of reality. Demographics change and sensibilities change, refusing to change with the times is how entertainment dies. The only reason DC is still around today is because they adapted over time; even if those in charge have forgotten that lately.

[Jim Kelly]

I prefer either one or the other. In the comic strips, there was GASOLINE ALLEY where everyone aged in real time (although it reached a limit with Walt Wallet) and you also have the example of PRINCE VALIANT where time progressed (although not in march step with real time in the 20th century). But there were also a majority of strips where time never progressed, such as KRAZY KAT. And in PEANUTS, while some characters may have aged a few years in the life of the strip, it would have ruined things if any of them had aged beyond a certain limiit, as it was very much about that world of little children (where adults never even appeared).

I always liked that Archie existed in this perpetual state for decades--the fashions might change but everything else remained the same and the characters never got anywhere. There was something comforting in that--no matter how my own life changed, I could always check in on the Riverdale gang and see that everything was the same as it ever was. It bums me out that the Archie publishers have given up on this vision and are playing the same game as Marvel and DC now.

The problem with the majority of DC and Marvel super-hero comics is that they don't do either the perpetual now or the real time progression. They create some semblance of progression (but not in real time) and they can only go so far down that road. They usually end up rebooting to give themselves a do-over. I always liked the super-hero comics that were static and just stayed in the same set-up. But I also liked comics like the Earth-Two JSA and the 30th century Legion, where there was real progression and passage of time. DC could do both--but instead they don't do either and settle for a compromise of some forward movement with a lot of retraction.

It makes all super-hero comics look the same, when they don't need to be. Why not offer different options to the reader? One version of the Batman gang that age and die and give way to new generations of heroes and another version of the core Batman concept, where Bruce and Dick are always the Dynamic Duo.

[SiegePerilous02]

Story progression would be ideal, but is seldom easy to put into practice with the Big Two. It's much easier to do with a self contained story by one author who can map out the timeline and world building, with a beginning, middle and end, even if it's not so clear during development. What Tolkein did with his legendarium he was able to do because he was the sole author in charge. Ditto pretty much any creator of an indy comic.

With the big Two, the creators of the original characters are no longer involved and it has a rotating cast of creators since of varying quality and ideas for what is best for the franchise (the fanbase is of course even worse). The stories are not designed to end but go on indefinitely. It is difficult to progress when you're not progressing towards anything. The IPs are strong and used for marketing in other media, which solidies certain things in larger pop culture and therefore make it even more difficult to change in the comics. Because although the material being represented is old, it's new to the new audiences Catering to nostalgia creates stagnation, but changing things up could lead to something so different it barely resembles what came before, and in that case, why not just put the energy into creating something wholly new?

There is no easy answer at this point. Serialized, progressing story telling was more effectively done by Marvel, and even they have hit road blocks. Demanding it from DC seems even more pointless since the foundations of their mythos were always stagnant before soap opera story telling was added later. The foundation of the era hailed as having the most forward momentum (the 90s/2000s) was built on the house of sand that was COIE, because it involved partial reboots and changing the past, and resulted in the clusterfuck continuity we have now. If there was a time to move away from the old properties, around then was about when they could have done it and maybe had it stick. Unfortunately for characters like the Titans, the partial reboot the reinvigorated older properties, stuff like TDKR and major other media pushes like Batman '89, BTAS, Lois and Clark, and even more recent stuff like the CW shows, later DCAU cartoons and the movies have kept the older characters fresh in everybody's minds.

At this point, if I get bored with the same stuff, I just read something else until it catches my interest again. It's not as if there is a shortage of reading material out there. The sliding timescale and the unrealistic aging isn't something that really needs to be dwelled on. The lack of new readers is a problem. Their business model is flawed, it doesn't have as much to do with which characters are in the books. Kids don't want to read expensive-yet-short comics when they can see the characters in movies, video games and cartoons. Or if they do, they don't have a lot of access to comics, especially kid friendly, continuity-light ones. This hurts ALL characters, even ones like Batman.

If they ever progressed things and characters retired, passing the mantles down shouldn't be the automatic go to method. I'm seldom interested in sequels or watered down versions. It worked for Wally, but everybody? Meh. Let's get some fresh, legitimately new ideas. Like Marvel when they invented the FF, Spider-Man, the Avengers, X-Men, etc.

[Jon Clark]

My personal opinion is that times change and characters change. And while som believe that superheroes shouldn't change the fact is that they do.

We have Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, New-52, Rebirth, Earth-1, Earth-2, and probably dozens more character specific ways of pointing out how a character or concept has different somewhat incompatable periods in its history.

Try and picture a unified DCU, a single universe.

On this world Kal-L /Clark Kent debuted in the 1930's as Superman. Soon after Bruce Wayne inspired by a bat took on the role of Batman. They had minor roles in their world's major hero team the JSA, whose line up contained Alan Scott and Jay Garrick amongst others. Diana of Paradise Island came to the US as Wonder Woman shortly before Pearl Harbor. Through the 1940's heroes came and went until by the 1950's most heroes had retired, died, left Earth, etc;. Only Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and a handful of others remained active.

Much of the 1950's history happens as we saw it in the comics, except that there were some things behind the scenes we were unaware of. The Superboy tales will later be revealed to be a mix of some early tales that did involve a non-costumed Clark/Kal-L and present day adventures involving a second Kryptonian infant who Superman had left in the care of relatives, his cousin Jonathan and Jonathan's wife. The Robin of this era is actually Commisioner Gordon's son Tony.

In 1956, we start a 2nd generation of heroes as Barry Allen, inspired by the Flash who retired earlier in the decade becomes the 2nd Flash. Hal Jordan becomes the 2nd Green Lantern, though it will be over a decade before the connection between his Green Lantern Corps and Alan Scott is explained. Dick Grayson becomes the 2nd Batman and the younger Clark Kent replaces Kal-L as Superman.

By 1970's it would be Wally West, John Stewart and a 3rd Batman who were the main heroes alongside the 2nd Superman and his cousins (Kara and the new Kandorian Superboy) along with other heroes like Donna Troy (who replaced Diana when Paradise Island returned, with Diana remaining the now powered version who partnered with I-ching).

Today we'd be following like the 5th batman, the 3rd Superman but new readers wouldn't be familiar with any of the 1930's stuff anymore than they are today. Their Superman would be the one Grant Morrison introduced back in 2008 who began his adventures in a T-shirt and jeans. Batman fans would be reading about how Tim Drake dealt with being left at the alter by the 6th woman to take up the name Catwoman. The Arrow TV show would have simplified history with Conner hawke as the first Green Arrow and no mention of his great-grandfather Oliver Queen. the Flash TV show would leave out the back story and start with Bart Allen as someone other than the grandson of the 2nd Flash or Bart's career as Impulse.

[astro@work]

I like a slow character progression, but not real time.

Real time would have caused the younger characters to "age out" a while ago. Real time would mean the OG Titans being in their 80's now...and the original JLA dead from old age. Not sure I want that. But I do like a slow progression forward. Things like Superman being married with a son, Batman with a son...
I wouldn't even mind Jon and Damien assuming the mantles in maybe another 20 years after they are long established.

One of the reasons I always loved the JSA, esp. being on Earth 2, was that we got to see this progression. They weren't time locked like the JLA where there was almost no forward progression.

[Frontier]

I mean, it's easier to do progression and developments that stick in a serialized medium that so often has a finite ending like TV shows, cartoons, movies etc. then it would be in the comics which, as they are now, will keep going on in perpetuity.

[Jim Kelly]

The character I always think of for real time progression is Conan the Barbarian, as adapted by Marvel and mainly Roy Thomas. They had all the history of the character already set by Robert E. Howard and other authors. So Roy could set different stories somewhere within that timeline. Which is what happened in the Marvel titles.

Having a Terry Sloane who is now dead on Earth-Two doesn't preclude telling stories about that character. They just can't happen in the fictional present day. But you can go all over his timeline in telling stories about his character. (Pre-Crisis) Earth-Two as a whole was an interesting place, because there was a long history to play with and characters were influenced and affected by those that came before and after them.

The argument against this approach seems to be that today's readers don't want stories set in a fictional past. But is that so? There seem to be a lot of stories that take place in farflung periods--past and future--and even fantasy realms that have no connnection to our wold. So why can't there be this big long history of characters, that writers can place their stories within?

[Aahz]

IMO you can only age the characters if your story is supposed to end at some point, for DC it doesn't really work.

You can do something like this in else worlds, but not really in the main continuity.

[Arsenal]

I like a slow character progression, but not real time.

Real time would have caused the younger characters to "age out" a while ago. Real time would mean the OG Titans being in their 80's now...and the original JLA dead from old age. Not sure I want that. But I do like a slow progression forward. Things like Superman being married with a son, Batman with a son...
I wouldn't even mind Jon and Damien assuming the mantles in maybe another 20 years after they are long established.

One of the reasons I always loved the JSA, esp. being on Earth 2, was that we got to see this progression. They weren't time locked like the JLA where there was almost no forward progression.

This. If I had a choice, I’d want this.

[Jackalope89]

I like a slow character progression, but not real time.

Real time would have caused the younger characters to "age out" a while ago. Real time would mean the OG Titans being in their 80's now...and the original JLA dead from old age. Not sure I want that. But I do like a slow progression forward. Things like Superman being married with a son, Batman with a son...
I wouldn't even mind Jon and Damien assuming the mantles in maybe another 20 years after they are long established.

One of the reasons I always loved the JSA, esp. being on Earth 2, was that we got to see this progression. They weren't time locked like the JLA where there was almost no forward progression.

See, that kind of gradual progression I could get behind.

[Sacred Knight]

Very slow progression but never getting to the point where a hero would hang it up. I don't want my favorite characters growing old and passing the mantle onto legacy characters I don't care about. Not unless things were utilized in such a way where there were another reality created where I could then get those said classic characters anew. With options like that then my entire mindset would have to be rethought.

[Jim Kelly]

IMO you can only age the characters if your story is supposed to end at some point, for DC it doesn't really work.

You can do something like this in else worlds, but not really in the main continuity.

I don't think so. The story of Thomas and Martha Wayne ends at some point, but that doesn't stop writers from going back and writing new stories about the Waynes. Krypton blows up, but that doesn't end the number of stories about Krypton.

Individual characters can have their completed novel by a creative team within the larger DCU. Some characters maybe deserve to have an end. The larger DCU can keep on going, because the universe keeps on going.

I can understand why DC wants to have one universe where Superman and Batman are young. But there doesn't have to be just one universe--and there isn't.

A main continuity is probably an idea whose time has come and gone, because there are many continuities that people are invested in--and one continuity doesn't really deserve to be more important than the others. A lot of people come to the comics from other media--and maybe now those other media are just as relevant as any of the comic book continuities.

[Lee]

Individual characters can have their completed novel by a creative team within the larger DCU. Some characters maybe deserve to have an end. The larger DCU can keep on going, because the universe keeps on going.

I can understand why DC wants to have one universe where Superman and Batman are young. But there doesn't have to be just one universe--and there isn't.

A main continuity is probably an idea whose time has come and gone, because there are many continuities that people are invested in--and one continuity doesn't really deserve to be more important than the others. A lot of people come to the comics from other media--and maybe now those other media are just as relevant as any of the comic book continuities.

What would DC have to gain from ageing Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne out of the DC Universe and doing alternate universe comics with them instead?