DC Should Have a Policy For Not Bringing Back Heroes Whose Stories Have Ended

[Timothy Hunter]

One of the most frustrating problems facing the Big Two is that there is a percieved notion that nothing ever changes. While this isn't technically true (I don't think we will be seeing Dick Grayson in pixie shorts anytime soon), the stagnation in the DC and Marvel Universes from an outsider's perspective is shocking. Characters who have been introduced in the 40s, 50s, and 60s are still their strapping, young selves three quarters to a half a century later, with little character development to boot.

What is even more frustrating however, is when Marvel and DC make changes in the status quo in order to trick the reader into thinking that the change will be permanent (i.e. character deaths, heroes knocked out of action)
but quickly reverting that progression and returning to a state of business as usual.

Examples in relation to DC Comics that I could give are Superman being ressurected after his demise in the mid nineties and Hal Jordan resuming the Green Lantern role after he massacred much of the original Green Lantern Corps.

This is why I think DC should have have a policy for not bringing back a character whose story has ended, whether they die (Barry Allen, Vic Sage) or they merely retire (Jack Knight, Jim Gordon). This would help boost readers' trust in DC as a publisher, knowing that the stories they are currently enjoying won't be struck down and ignored by the next writer in the series, while also forcing DC to think more wisely about which characters to kill off.

[KC]

Nah. As long as there are still stories that can be told with these characters and fans that want to read stories about these characters, I am fine with DC continuing to publish stories about these characters.

I want to read about Clark, Hal and Barry and I am perfectly fine with reading stories about them for as long as I can.

[Robanker]

So the next generation shouldn't get to read contemporary stories of Batman and Jim Gordon working together because it will enrich our personal reading experience?

Should All-Star Superman not have been written because Clark's story should have ended long ago?

I don't understand when fans clamor for progression that takes the iconic characters off the board because it's essentially them taking their toys and going home. They want the ending. They want to go to the grave knowing they saw the definitive end of their darlings.

I wasn't around in the 40s. I'm glad these characters persist because I got to enjoy them in my lifetime and I want for fans of future generations to have that same privilege without having to dig up stories from a time that doesn't reflect their own and have no contemporary alternative. I adore the bronze age, it had the best Batman and I was a glint in my father's eye at that time at best. I understand the appeal of older stories, I often prefer them to some new works, but I'm just as invigorated by fresh takes from new minds. Let runs have conclusive endings as possible timelines and establish headcanon if that further legitimizes the result for you, but don't wipe the table on, say, Wally or Diana just because it's more personally satisfying.

Jack Knight is and interesting case because he was created to tell one finite narrative and left with his creator. In that specific case, I think it works because he was never intended to last forever. This isn't like Hal being mangled and later killed to drum up interest and therefore sales.

By and large, I'm against it. Put the toys back in the toybox, don't take them and go home. Characters like Jack Knight are basically the one exception I'm cool with, but otherwise I'd prefer this wonderful universe didn't lose what makes it special just because it makes me happier.

[Güicho]

Characters who have been introduced in the 40s, 50s, and 60s are still their strapping, young selves three quarters to a half a century later,.......

This is why I think DC should have have a policy for not bringing back a character whose story has ended, whether they die.... or they merely retire . This would help boost ......

Yes that ^ is the model that works.

For once I'd love to see one of these ^ people always declaring how to "fix" comics is to have the characters retire and die. Actually list a franchise that has gone on longer and more successfully, with comics, tv, animation, movies, games, merch etc....than these ongoing comic characters.
Using their retire and die (and I assume replaced by a new version) model. LOL!

Just one example , using your model. Name it. One that sells more. We can look at it as proof of better and longer working model.

....I'll wait.

Purposely* ignoring real time aging, with the ongoing sliding-time-scale, is the one thing that has made comics so unique from all other IPs and franchises, and has allowed them to thrive, every new generation discovering the often updated characters for themselves.
It's the best model, and it's proven to work.

Yet that's what they would get rid of, suposedly to "fix" comics. LOL!

When you get to an editor, or writer bemoaning nobody is reading their book, so they start planing to forcibly* age, retire, kill someone or a bunch of characters for shock, and they think that's how to make it feel like things are moving forward, because they have no better ideas.
That is when you fire that editor or writer, who has run out of ideas, and things to say about that character.
You get rid of them, not the character.

Sounds like what they need to write is an esleworld, or alt earth tale. (which are great, and what they are for, and they can give the lead characters the exact "end" they imagine)

Posted this myself in another thread:

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post3831620

Soap-Operas are great examples, although I'm not familiar with any, which has been the longest running one, how long?
Trek was a great example, although they've fallen back to reboots, and now instead of new legacy, going back to Picard.
Young Anakin(prequel) and Rey, are great starts, although not nearly as long not yet, we'll know it's staying power, when the next gens. moved away from Luke & Leia (who wil no longer be a presence), and just solos the new Legacy and/or prequel characters.
Bond uses sliding time scale.
Dr. Who has the lead character regenerate through a sliding time-scale.

Right now our more successful and longest running popular franchises, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, use sliding time scale, moving the lead character forward, not real time.
And most successful comic characters have followed this model. .

Please name any one IP/Franchise that has comparably worked better and longer than the current comic model that you want to get rid of.

...forcing DC to think more wisely about which characters to kill off.

This on the other hand would be nice.

[Timothy Hunter]

Should All-Star Superman not have been written because Clark's story should have ended long ago?

I respect your preference, but your point about All Star Superman is not valid. It is an out of continuity story, which I never said I was against.

[Timothy Hunter]

Also, think about it this way:

What if all of the various Star Trek television shows were forced to revolve around Captain Kirk's generation?

What if all of the various Star Wars films HAD to revolve around Luke Skywalker's generation?

Multigenerational stories CAN and DO work. Jo Jo's Bizarre Adventure is a great example. Does that mean DC can NEVER publish the adventures of Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. No. For the fans dedicated to those character there can be non-canon titles published. However, from a storytelling perspective explicitly, I think it would be best if the DC Universe pass down the torch from generation to generation like Alan unto Hal or Jay unto Barry.

[Robanker]

I respect your preference, but your point about All Star Superman is not valid. It is an out of continuity story, which I never said I was against.

My reason for All-Star was that it's as conclusive an ending as a modern Superman story would be, and were DC in the practice of retiring characters, that story would have been in continuity and his sendoff.

[Harpsikord]

Okay, but who is it that defines that a character's story is finished in something like comic books, where the narrative is ongoing? And what if that ending isn't something that people are inherently satisfied with? There are always stories to tell with these characters, otherwise they'd be creator-owned or intentionally written with a distinctive beginning, middle, and end and more often than not, not attached to the greater comic universes.

[Flash Gordon]

No thanks.

[Timothy Hunter]

Does anyone agree...?

[theoneandonly]

I find the complaint of progression reversion ironic given the thread you started with regard to Catwoman. so you feel that they should according to you revert only prosaic things like costumes use of equipment and the like and what they should further narratively is only life altering circumstances that would be acceptable as a logical progress of their story. if they take your preferences under advice I see that they will have to come up with new characters that will able to fill in the void left by retiring/killing off Superman Batman and wonder woman. will you supply them with the requisite characters while you are at it?

[KC]

Also, think about it this way:

What if all of the various Star Trek television shows were forced to revolve around Captain Kirk's generation?

What if all of the various Star Wars films HAD to revolve around Luke Skywalker's generation?

Multigenerational stories CAN and DO work. Jo Jo's Bizarre Adventure is a great example. Does that mean DC can NEVER publish the adventures of Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. No. For the fans dedicated to those character there can be non-canon titles published. However, from a storytelling perspective explicitly, I think it would be best if the DC Universe pass down the torch from generation to generation like Alan unto Hal or Jay unto Barry.

Fans of these characters don't want non-canon titles and not every fan wants to read stories about the next generation of characters. From a storytelling perspective explicitly, telling canon stories about the current generation of heroes is a valid way of telling stories about the DC universe.

[Dred]

So the next generation shouldn't get to read contemporary stories of Batman and Jim Gordon working together because it will enrich our personal reading experience?

Should All-Star Superman not have been written because Clark's story should have ended long ago?

I don't understand when fans clamor for progression that takes the iconic characters off the board because it's essentially them taking their toys and going home. They want the ending. They want to go to the grave knowing they saw the definitive end of their darlings.

I wasn't around in the 40s. I'm glad these characters persist because I got to enjoy them in my lifetime and I want for fans of future generations to have that same privilege without having to dig up stories from a time that doesn't reflect their own and have no contemporary alternative. I adore the bronze age, it had the best Batman and I was a glint in my father's eye at that time at best. I understand the appeal of older stories, I often prefer them to some new works, but I'm just as invigorated by fresh takes from new minds. Let runs have conclusive endings as possible timelines and establish headcanon if that further legitimizes the result for you, but don't wipe the table on, say, Wally or Diana just because it's more personally satisfying.

Jack Knight is and interesting case because he was created to tell one finite narrative and left with his creator. In that specific case, I think it works because he was never intended to last forever. This isn't like Hal being mangled and later killed to drum up interest and therefore sales.

By and large, I'm against it. Put the toys back in the toybox, don't take them and go home. Characters like Jack Knight are basically the one exception I'm cool with, but otherwise I'd prefer this wonderful universe didn't lose what makes it special just because it makes me happier.

Oh man I finally get to use the annoying argument everyone uses against me when I talk about Wally.

Go read the back issues. There's thousand upon thousands of them. The future is not deprived of Bruce Wayne stories by moving on from him. The only thing it is deprived of is everything BUT Bruce Wayne stories.

Not that moving on means you can never tell a Bruce Wayne story again. Brave and The Bold and JLA Year One happened in the 90s. The majority of Superman's best stories are alternate universe/elseworlds anyhow.

Also, I don't get what you mean by "don't wipe the table on, say, Wally" because, having your way, Barry Allen would've never died because he is "iconic" and we should've never even attempted to move on from him in the slightest. That is your stance. Why make a caveat for Wally?

I know the answer, by the by. Wally's stories were great. Moving on from Barry clearly had a positive outcome the likes of which has never been tried with any other "iconic" title, much less seen. And yet, when it was time for Wally to pass the torch, he passed it backwards to Barry because Wally and Bart made Batman and Superman look too old (Dan Didio's exact words, mind you).

I also find it hilarious as the world becomes less and less bigoted, less and less dogmatic, less and less xenophobic, this all star cast of straight white overlords looks more and more outdated. I expect the industry will fold before it ever becomes truly incongruous, but that really shouldn't be the solution behind it.

[Vordan]

Never going to happen. These serial characters are not ever meant to end, if you’re reading them because you want to get a sense of “progression” you’re deluding yourself. One More Day was basically when the man behind the curtain got revealed about this fact. You want to see Batman or Superman get an “ending”? Look at outside media. Movies, TV, video games, these can offer stories with beginnings, and endings. But the actual comics never will unless the Big 2 get shut down.

[LordMikel]

So first, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you used Superman's death as an example. Anyone who thought Superman was going to stay dead is stupid. He was coming back. Barry Allen would have been a better choice. I never thought they would have brought back Barry. He'd been dead for twenty years, maybe. I'm sure someone can quote the correct time frame.

So why did they do it?
Well we have threads like this.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...upergirl+linda

Why is Supergirl not using a name, that she hasn't used for 40 years? Nostalgia. It needs to be exactly how I remember it, even if it has changed. But it needs to go back to how I remember it. That is simply one example of posts out there.

Venom is another good example. Some people were glad he was no longer Eddie, others wanted Eddie back. I tried to find some threads on that subject, but was unable.

I want to give credit where it is due, while I don't read it, my understanding is Savage Dragon is doing the aging. He is now 20 years older. You'll have to ask others who read it how that is working.