Originally Posted by
J. D. Guy
Not all writers do this, but there is this onus for some writers to "put the toys back in the toy chest" when they finish their run. It's kind of context dependent, but in general, I'm not a fan when they do this. It makes it even easier than it already is for a new writer to come along and pretend that story and what it contributed to a character's history didn't happen and/or didn't matter. This sucks, especially for characters who had strong feats in the given story that deserve to be acknowledged, celebrated, and built upon, or for characters who really don't have much to their names to begin with to go losing history that way.
It also runs the risk of feeling like you mentioned, where the story "didn't matter". I personally consider this a dangerous and lazy trap for a reader/viewer of fiction to fall into, particular many present-day fiction readers/viewers who are more susceptible to falling into it. It's kind of a one of the root points for many of the misaimed and toxic takes when it comes to analyzing works of fiction, including on a more casual level (one of which being the prevailing weaponization of the dreaded "f" word). The thing is, when writers pull stunts like this, it doesn't do anything but feed into this deleterious mindset and behavior for readers and viewers, especially the ones more inclined to it in the first place.
I also am not too fond of this prevailing notion that a team or group of heroes are only every operating when there is an active comic book run training a camera on them. This is bad because it really hampers the feeling that a connected world/universe (like DC and Marvel, etc., are supposed to be) is a lived in world/universe. The heroes don't stop being heroes and don't stop mattering to the goings on of their world/universe just because their not on-screen/on-page in front of a captive audience of readers and viewers. Yet the writers will do this, dismantling perfectly functioning teams that'd never split up if the run wasn't ending, and not to mention disenfranchising anyone who doesn't have a comfy solo book or other immediately slated position to fall back on. For example, New Super-Man and the Justice League of China should never have stopped being a thing just because their book specifically detailing them and their adventures ended. (Granted, I also attest that it should never have ended in the first place, but still.) They should still and forever be a fixture whenever something goes down that requires the all-hands-on-deck types of emergencies that the Justice League of America frequently find themselves in. The JLA aren't the only ones around who'd take up the defense, so they shouldn't be treated like they are. But because they have a never-ending book, they're treated like the first, last, and only defense when stuff hits the fan.
So yeah. Don't just pack everything up just cause one writer's leaving. "The Adventure Continues" is a trope for a reason. Tropes are tools and writers should use this tool in their stories more often.