Creator's Pet

[DragonKent17]

Based of dreyga2000's Rescue from Scrappy Heap post

When the audience hates this character, but the creator loves him/her and gives him/her more focus, engages in Character Shilling, etc. This usually makes the character even more hated. (ie. Felicity Smoak in Arrow)


Damian Wayne was a major source to this for a while especially fans couldn't stand his snide attitude but later Character Development would start rescued from scrappy heap but Damian in the Animated films however.}

Kyle Rayner was a major creator's pet in the 90's since Hal Jordan's Face Heel Turn thanks to character shilling, a decade later and a number of those fans are now writers/editors for DC, and they promptly retcon the heel turn and restore Hal to being GL Numero Uno - and now must shill him to the fan base who grew up with Kyle and are upset with him getting booted down - and John Stewart as described above.

[lemonpeace]

Duke Thomas and Harper Row definitely get slapped with the creators pet label as well but I don't think they got nearly the same limelight as other creator pets. I think they are an odd example of "pets" who get all the hate yet none of the perks.

[Aahz]

Duke Thomas and Harper Row definitely get slapped with the creators pet label as well but I don't think they got nearly the same limelight as other creator pets.

They got for a short time, but then the creator apparently lost interest.

EDIT: Or in Dukes case it at least often looked like he was going to get pet treatment based on solicits, interviews ect. , but than his role turned out to be quite minimal.

[Zero Hunter]

I can think of a lot over at Marvel, but not that many from DC.

[lemonpeace]

They got for a short time, but then the creator apparently lost interest.

I disagree, they got development at the beginning sure but creator's pet implies extra attention and accomplishments due to nepotism and I don't think that's the case with either. For example, Kyle came in and was THE green lantern and got accomplishments and abilities beyond what most characters get in their entire career; both older and newer. If Harper and Duke came in, headlined Batman's title and starting beating Ras al Ghul and slapping up Deathstroke then sure, I could concede that but neither really did that. I would say Duke and Harper about as much attention as the average new character before but got the hate of a creator's pet. In all honesty, think about it now, the idea of a "creator's per" is too vague of a term and often gets misused as a buzz word for any new character particular parts of the DC fandom don't like or just don't want to engage with. That's not to say everyone should like every new character, nor is it to say that some characters get elevation due to nepotism but it's seems a inefficient term.

[Aahz]

I disagree, they got development at the beginning sure but creator's pet implies extra attention and accomplishments due to nepotism and I don't think that's the case with either.

Harper got pushed pretty hard in the Eternals, and got good showing as the expense of the other Batfamily members (Batman Eternal #42 is probaly the best example for that). And than there was is line aout her beeing perfect Robin in B&RE ...

In Dukes case it was imo often more, what it looked like before the actual stories were published. In the beginning Rebirth he was for example announced to star along Batman in two different books at the same time (King's Batman, and Snyders All Star Batman) on top of getting his own back up story. It just later turned out that Kong barely used him, and that his back up was kind of meh.

And than it looked like was getting a big role in Metal with a solo series connected to it, but in the end he only appeared in the prologue, an his series had only 3 issues and had not really anything to do with metal.

[Lee Stone]

I got that impression with Stargirl early in her career.

[lemonpeace]

Harper got pushed pretty hard in the Eternals, and got good showing as the expense of the other Batfamily members (Batman Eternal #42 is probaly the best example for that). And than there was is line aout her beeing perfect Robin in B&RE ...

In Dukes case it was imo often more, what it looked like before the actual stories were published. In the beginning Rebirth he was for example announced to star along Batman in two different books at the same time (King's Batman, and Snyders All Star Batman) on top of getting his own back up story. It just later turned out that Kong barely used him, and that his back up was kind of meh.

And than it looked like was getting a big role in Metal with a solo series connected to it, but in the end he only appeared in the prologue, an his series had only 3 issues and had not really anything to do with metal.

See, I don't think those count as creator's pet-isms, it's just positioning and development. I wouldn't say Harper's some anything at the "expense" of other batfamily member but admittedly I didn't follow Harper early enough to be 100% sure. Also mind you, a solid chunk of their career (at least for Duke, again i'm less familiar with Harper's stuff) they weren't even under their creator's pen. There wasn't anything about their roles or actions that felt like nepotism or particularly unearned, especially compared to most new characters. I don't believe a couple good showings in their early stages really constitutes the idea of being a creator's pet. By that logic all characters are "creator's pet" because they need to do something impressive early on to make an impact. Which is why I say the term is too vague and inefficient. If I were to use the term I would say a creator's pet is a character who is created, is extensively and almost exclusively used by their creator, and gets excessive focus and showings due to that nepotism more than the character's development or skills; I just don't see that with either characters.

[Vampire Savior]

Jessica Cruz.
Yes, there are some people who like her, but I know of a lot of people who can't stand her and feel that she wasn't needed in the already jam packed Green Lantern franchise. She's just eating up time that could have gone to some other person's favorite. Simon Baz is something like this, but not because he's so negligible. But seriously, the more Lanterns they add, the more they hurt that franchise. And no, she isn't popular just because DC keeps putting her in cartoons. That's just DC wanting her to be popular. But why does she get preferential treatment when characters like Guy and John just languish around and get passed over? Well, I'm sure there are several factors, and I'm sure Geoff Johns is one of them.

However, she was created by Geoff Johns, is a woman, and a minority... oh, and she has a mental illness, so she's pretty much bullet proof.

[Dred]

Insert whichever Flash you're bitter about here.

[Fergus]

Based of dreyga2000's Rescue from Scrappy Heap post

When the audience hates this character, but the creator loves him/her and gives him/her more focus, engages in Character Shilling, etc. This usually makes the character even more hated. (ie. Felicity Smoak in Arrow)


Damian Wayne was a major source to this for a while especially fans couldn't stand his snide attitude but later Character Development would start rescued from scrappy heap but Damian in the Animated films however.}

Kyle Rayner was a major creator's pet in the 90's since Hal Jordan's Face Heel Turn thanks to character shilling, a decade later and a number of those fans are now writers/editors for DC, and they promptly retcon the heel turn and restore Hal to being GL Numero Uno - and now must shill him to the fan base who grew up with Kyle and are upset with him getting booted down - and John Stewart as described above.

Damian was never a creator's pet since his creator had no plans for him to be anything but a short lived creation [1 issue]. His is more Tomasi's pet since Tomasi is the one that made a case for his continued use and the one to use him more frequently.

Morrison's Damian was also less powerful and more flawed than any other Damian.
I think fans apply the creators pet tag to any character that's written by their creator regardless of whether the creator shilled then or not.

[Dred]

I think the most obvious DC pet character situation is/was Giffen with Booster and Beetle. He'd shove those two in any comic he could.

[king81992]

Deathstroke when Wolfman was writing him. No matter what terrible things Slade did, Wolfman would always make up excuses to justify everything he did.

[Dred]

That wasn't quite just Wolfman. He was just so dang popular that they had to kind of coax him back into a position where he could be a protag. The same thing that's happening with Harley originated with Deathstroke.

[skyvolt2000]

Jessica Cruz.
Yes, there are some people who like her, but I know of a lot of people who can't stand her and feel that she wasn't needed in the already jam packed Green Lantern franchise. She's just eating up time that could have gone to some other person's favorite. Simon Baz is something like this, but not because he's so negligible. But seriously, the more Lanterns they add, the more they hurt that franchise. And no, she isn't popular just because DC keeps putting her in cartoons. That's just DC wanting her to be popular. But why does she get preferential treatment when characters like Guy and John just languish around and get passed over? Well, I'm sure there are several factors, and I'm sure Geoff Johns is one of them.

However, she was created by Geoff Johns, is a woman, and a minority... oh, and she has a mental illness, so she's pretty much bullet proof.

Who is her co-creator??? She is not bullet proof if his antics continue to get worst. I would NEVER buy a book with her in it. She is on borrowed time.


Duke hate was based on what was said versus the final product. All we saw was talk about Duke doing this and that and the final product trashed him.