Dan Didio vs. The Titans

[ChangingStation]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, friend. I think iconic, fictional characters should more or less stay static with their age & structure.

... What about Jay Garrick? He's arguably improved as a character because of what he represents, the old guard who inspired the current generation of heroes. And he started out at the same age as Batman and Superman.

Fictional characters should be allowed to change, if it improves their stories. Peter going to college, losing his girlfriend, struggling to balance gets ends to meet with his actions as Spider-Man, all arguably helped give Peter his everyman status that made him so popular, and made it feel like his character was growing. There are limits of course, but that's true of every hero.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Again, comics weren't designed for people in their 40's and 50's. It morphed into that certainly, and now the industry is dependent on us. But what made Peter so popular was that kids and teenagers related to him, because he endured similar problems that they encountered. When the kids started to grow up, Peter grew up with them.

And there certainly is a giant push to make Peter much younger to mainstream audiences. That's undeniable.

Yeah, he was designed for kids and teenagers to relate to originally but now, people in their 20s and 30s relate to him. I’m in my 20s. I didn't "grow up" with Spider-Man. He grew up long before I was even alive. However, I don’t really think there’d be much point in dragging Peter back into his high school years.

Society changes. When Peter first debuted, anyone over 40 was seen as old, and being single and childless at 30 was treated as anathema. In 1962 (literally the year Peter debuted), 90% of 30-year-olds had been married at least once. Nowadays, only 51% of 30-year-olds have been married before. So yeah, things were different back then, including the idea of who was "young" and who wasn't. And it's an attitudinal divide that can even be seen today between people who grew up in the 60s and people who grew up after that. My own mother has said to me that I'm not "young" anymore. I'm 28. If this were 50 years ago, I probably would have been married with children for the better part of a decade by this point in my life. But it's not. And of my current social circle, only one of my friends is married with a baby.

But that's the point: ideas of peoples' place in society based on age have changed since these characters first debuted. I'm sure in 1960, it would have been unthinkable that Batman could have kept going past the age of 35. Now, it's hard to even think of Bruce as a man in his 20s and take him seriously as an experienced superhero.

[godisawesome]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, friend. I think iconic, fictional characters should more or less stay static with their age & structure.

I can get that idea.

It *is* interesting to analyze how generational differences impact the idea though: Comic-wise, the “iconic” Robin for Millennials, is probably Tim Drake, while the “iconic” Dick Grayson is Nightwing, the “iconic” version of Babs is Oracle, and I think the similar “ethos” of desiring the familiar and “iconic” elements they expect definitely plays a part in some of the arguments and complaints.

So, an interesting query is How do you choose *which* characters and identities are iconic if you desire stability?

[Dr. Ellingham]

Again, comics weren't designed for people in their 40's and 50's. It morphed into that certainly, and now the industry is dependent on us. But what made Peter so popular was that kids and teenagers related to him, because he endured similar problems that they encountered. When the kids started to grow up, Peter grew up with them.

And there certainly is a giant push to make Peter much younger to mainstream audiences. That's undeniable.

Yes, the fictional characters don't belong to us. They aren't on a life-long journey with us.

We live, get old, and die. Fictional characters are only dead until someone wants them to be alive again. It's always been that way. It probably always will be.

Even within that, Superman and Batman can evolve - their fictional biographies are in flux constantly, being updated and rethought. There's still evolution. And history.

It's just not a linear stream.

[Restingvoice]

from what I've seen character growth or getting older is successful if it's good or better than what they were

Dick and Wally, for example, was just a tagalong kid in Flash and Batman until they became their own in Teen Titans. They may have those character traits before but as the main character, those traits stand out more and seeing their interaction with their own friends instead of as a sidekick to the mentor, people came to like them, maybe even better than where they came from.

Jason has his fans as Robin but became REALLY popular as Red Hood outside comics.

Peter Parker was interesting as a high schooler, as a young adult, as a married man, and as a father. A lot of fans welcome each version and angry when he's demon-divorced, but the newer or movie audience is okay with the highschool version too. In addition, the high school versions are new versions and not dealing with the same character, so older fans are okay with that too.

So the question: Why do people not like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman getting older, retiring, or replaced?
Not just because they're iconic, but because people already like them where they are. People are already satisfied
So unless the change introduces them is better than before, it's going to be rejected.

We see in this forum that even though a lot of people like Superman as a dad, there are people who don't like that development.

It's not just DC's iconic cash cows, Dick Grayson as a Secret Agent is very divided. Some like it coz it's new, different, and global, while some like him as a regular superhero, having a city, having friends, instead of something so drastically different.

Oh and there's Harley too. A lot of people like her being independent. A lot of people just like her as Joker's sidekick.

[Ascended]

So, an interesting query is How do you choose *which* characters and identities are iconic if you desire stability?

That's basically the question Didio and co. asked themselves when they were in their big "everyone at their most iconic" phase right? That mindset ended up doing a lot of damage and cutting apart a lot of character development and growth, stuff that had in some cases unfolded over the course of decades.

I'd say a character's most iconic time would be when their sales were highest and they were appearing in larger media the most and were the most highly recognized by the general audience. And you gotta factor in things like what their original role/mantle was, how long they stayed in that status quo, etc. Odds are all those things don't align at the same time though, so you'd probably have to approach it on a case-by-case basis.

But I think "iconic" is a double edged sword too. Look at Babs; she was Batgirl longer than she was Oracle, that was her first role, and she appeared more often in larger media as Batgirl than as Oracle. Batgirl is definitely her most iconic identity. And her returning to the role in the New52 made a bunch of her fans happy. But I don't think it's done her or the DCU any favors; Babs doesn't get important roles in Events anymore, she doesn't pop up in random books like she used to, she doesn't hold a unique position in the world, her book doesn't even sell all that great, certainly not loads better than BoP did....she's just another Bat running around Gotham, utterly redundant. Hell, she's even lost her position with the Birds of Prey to Harley now. I think Babs returning to her "iconic" roots ended up hurting the character in the end, and made her and the DCU a little less interesting, a little less diverse, and a little more bland.

And "iconic" has definitely hurt characters like Cyborg too; his "iconic" Wolfman-NTT status quo has him questioning his humanity, and DC keeps recycling Vic's angst over and over again, when the character had already grown out of that long ago.

"Iconic" is why Wally spent so much time on the shelf, because the "iconic" Flash is Barry.

[phonogram12]

Again, comics weren't designed for people in their 40's and 50's. It morphed into that certainly, and now the industry is dependent on us.

Which is why I feel ultimately comics may die out at some point. Middle aged readers aren't going to keep this medium going. And the fact that so many gate keeping fans want to keep everything so insular - attempting to keep out giant demographics of potential readers - certainly isn't going to help. No matter how much they may think so.

[The no face guy]

Which is why I feel ultimately comics may die out at some point. Middle aged readers aren't going to keep this medium going. And the fact that so many gate keeping fans want to keep everything so insular - attempting to keep out giant demographics of potential readers - certainly isn't going to help. No matter how much they may think so.

How are quote on quote "Gatekeepers" keeping everything so insular, all they have is purchasing power, the DC executives make the decisions.

[king81992]

How are quote on quote "Gatekeepers" keeping everything so insular, all they have is purchasing power, the DC executives make the decisions.

Members of the DC editorial cater to the 'gatekeepers' knowingly or not.

[The no face guy]

Members of the DC editorial cater to the 'gatekeepers' knowingly or not.

How so, provide evidence.

[godisawesome]

Members of the DC editorial cater to the 'gatekeepers' knowingly or not.

How so, provide evidence.

I would actually argue that editorial in the Didio era became gate-keepers with power, since they often cut off or dictated events and characterization decisions to journeymen-or-lesser writers in their pursuit of what they thought would be the most attractive product for new readers.

Not to say it’s wrong to try and attract new readers, or that editorial doesn’t play in important part in trying that.

More that attracting new readers doesn’t actually necessitate forbidding marriages, declaring certain character verboten, demanding heel turns on characters in ways that alienate already established fanbases, or pitting generations of fans against each other.

I’d say that all three Rebirths, and their follow ups, kind of show where editorial can be anything from positive gatekeepers to bad gatekeepers.

-Green Lantern Rebirth was giving in to Hal Jordan fans demands and brought him back... but also still incorporated Kyle Rayner, his stories, and really united the fanbase *enough* for Johns, Tomasi, and others to launch a massive campaign to kickstart and attract new audience members to Green Lantern comics while still having plenty of old ones remain loyal.

- Flash Rebirth tried to copy GL Rebirth, but on an arguably more successful franchise and status quo change, with the attempts to “fix” things having somewhat dubious impact, but still seemed okay overall... until it was followed up by Flashpoint and the New 52, which *did* have a good marketing run and one good creative team... but then fell apart once they left and never reached the heights of the GL Rebirth’s impact.

- Finally, the main DC Rebirth maybe just clarifies the actual situation - decisions made that will knowingly antagonize some fanbases but don’t actually have a real hook for new readers or suffer bad writing are going to have negative impact (Heroes in Crisis) while new fans *can and will* pick up material with complex histories that is still written well and presented competently (Super Sons, TEC Rebirth.)

The New 52 and Rebirth both show some stuff where editorial is wielding power that can act as gate-keeping to new and old readers... but I’d argue the overall experience would say that good writers and competent but not dictatorial editing are more important than at-times arbitrary continuity rules.

[The no face guy]

I would actually argue that editorial in the Didio era became gate-keepers with power, since they often cut off or dictated events and characterization decisions to journeymen-or-lesser writers in their pursuit of what they thought would be the most attractive product for new readers.

Not to say it’s wrong to try and attract new readers, or that editorial doesn’t play in important part in trying that.

More that attracting new readers doesn’t actually necessitate forbidding marriages, declaring certain character verboten, demanding heel turns on characters in ways that alienate already established fanbases, or pitting generations of fans against each other.

I’d say that all three Rebirths, and their follow ups, kind of show where editorial can be anything from positive gatekeepers to bad gatekeepers.

-Green Lantern Rebirth was giving in to Hal Jordan fans demands and brought him back... but also still incorporated Kyle Rayner, his stories, and really united the fanbase *enough* for Johns, Tomasi, and others to launch a massive campaign to kickstart and attract new audience members to Green Lantern comics while still having plenty of old ones remain loyal.

- Flash Rebirth tried to copy GL Rebirth, but on an arguably more successful franchise and status quo change, with the attempts to “fix” things having somewhat dubious impact, but still seemed okay overall... until it was followed up by Flashpoint and the New 52, which *did* have a good marketing run and one good creative team... but then fell apart once they left and never reached the heights of the GL Rebirth’s impact.

- Finally, the main DC Rebirth maybe just clarifies the actual situation - decisions made that will knowingly antagonize some fanbases but don’t actually have a real hook for new readers or suffer bad writing are going to have negative impact (Heroes in Crisis) while new fans *can and will* pick up material with complex histories that is still written well and presented competently (Super Sons, TEC Rebirth.)

The New 52 and Rebirth both show some stuff where editorial is wielding power that can act as gate-keeping to new and old readers... but I’d argue the overall experience would say that good writers and competent but not dictatorial editing are more important than at-times arbitrary continuity rules.

Well that is all fine and dandy, but you are presenting a completely different argument from the one above, the argument was that DC caves into fans who are gatekeepers. I see no evidence of this.

[skyvolt2000]

How so, provide evidence.

You can unknowingly do it.

If you only listen to pitches from a certain demographic. Example Dwayne McDuffie knows everything about Spider-man-he can't pitch a book-if you never ask him.

If you only listen to certain pitches. What is the biggest gripe about Cyborg?? Way too Man versus machine stories. John Stewart? That blown up planet.

If you only listen to pitches for certain characters. If all you listen to are pitches for a female of color NOT named Vixen-Vixen can't get a book or mini.

If you listen to pitches that can hamper someone in the cast. See Tom King's use of Duke Thomas in Batman. If you keep putting certain characters in the hands of writers who don't care for them don't get mad if they can't catch on.

If a writer wants to use (Blank) and you as editor don't allow them because your boss said Cassandra Cain is "pitch toxic" or Wally West is no longer a red hair white male-he's a racist stereotype black kid.

On the surface this could be viewed as not catering. However it could be viewed as such.


If you are ONLY catering to 40-50 year olds who only go to that comic book store that is gate keeping. Because as we have seen TOXIC behavior towards certain creators and characters.

Don't think these editors are NOT paying attention. They see it. They hear it. They have heard those store owners wanting some of them FIRED over certain books.
They SEE the double standard of "quality" and certain writers. They see the fandom wars.

They see the crying over too many variant covers, events, BAT GOD and Harley. Yet SALES state something other wise.
They see the cries for books with POC, LGBTQ, fringe folks and writers of certain demos. Yet the SALES and TOXIC behavior say otherwise. At times.
They see books that NO ONE ASKED for at other companies find audiences yet DC tries those books-HELLO TOXIC behavior.

So now while catering to those 40-50 years old and alienating everyone else. Something happened. Your competition did NOT.

Walking Dead, Lumberjanes, Miles Morales, Ms Marvel, Squirrel Girl, Power Rangers, Wynd, The Boys, Saga and others have gotten the fans DC choose to ignore.

Now we see Dc trying to catch up. It's why they are looking at the OGN market. Raven, Beast Boy, Aqualad and Cassandra Cain are FINDING audiences as OGNs. Nubia's novel next year will find an audience.

Why because Dc seems to have gotten it-pandering to 40-50 year olds isn't working. Depressed freak looking Cyborg does not SELL.
Hal Jordan worship makes you a millionaire. Hal, Jessica, John, Kyle, Guy, Jo and Simon will make you a billionaire.

[The no face guy]

You can unknowingly do it.

If you only listen to pitches from a certain demographic. Example Dwayne McDuffie knows everything about Spider-man-he can't pitch a book-if you never ask him.

If you only listen to certain pitches. What is the biggest gripe about Cyborg?? Way too Man versus machine stories. John Stewart? That blown up planet.

If you only listen to pitches for certain characters. If all you listen to are pitches for a female of color NOT named Vixen-Vixen can't get a book or mini.

If you listen to pitches that can hamper someone in the cast. See Tom King's use of Duke Thomas in Batman. If you keep putting certain characters in the hands of writers who don't care for them don't get mad if they can't catch on.

If a writer wants to use (Blank) and you as editor don't allow them because your boss said Cassandra Cain is "pitch toxic" or Wally West is no longer a red hair white male-he's a racist stereotype black kid.

On the surface this could be viewed as not catering. However it could be viewed as such.


If you are ONLY catering to 40-50 year olds who only go to that comic book store that is gate keeping. Because as we have seen TOXIC behavior towards certain creators and characters.

Don't think these editors are NOT paying attention. They see it. They hear it. They have heard those store owners wanting some of them FIRED over certain books.
They SEE the double standard of "quality" and certain writers. They see the fandom wars.

They see the crying over too many variant covers, events, BAT GOD and Harley. Yet SALES state something other wise.
They see the cries for books with POC, LGBTQ, fringe folks and writers of certain demos. Yet the SALES and TOXIC behavior say otherwise. At times.
They see books that NO ONE ASKED for at other companies find audiences yet DC tries those books-HELLO TOXIC behavior.

So now while catering to those 40-50 years old and alienating everyone else. Something happened. Your competition did NOT.

Walking Dead, Lumberjanes, Miles Morales, Ms Marvel, Squirrel Girl, Power Rangers, Wynd, The Boys, Saga and others have gotten the fans DC choose to ignore.

Now we see Dc trying to catch up. It's why they are looking at the OGN market. Raven, Beast Boy, Aqualad and Cassandra Cain are FINDING audiences as OGNs. Nubia's novel next year will find an audience.

Why because Dc seems to have gotten it-pandering to 40-50 year olds isn't working. Depressed freak looking Cyborg does not SELL.
Hal Jordan worship makes you a millionaire. Hal, Jessica, John, Kyle, Guy, Jo and Simon will make you a billionaire.

You have provided no empirical evidence just whining. Everything you have stated is subjective opinion because you do not like the way DC Comics is going. In short, it's not catering to your favourite characters.

DC cares about one thing only, the bottom line. Hal Jordan became Green Lantern again because he vastly outsold Kyle Rayner upon his return, his sales numbers that went through the roof at the time, which strongly indicates that his appeal was amongst young and old fans a like, much like Batman.

They are not going to give the title to Jessica Cruz because sales would most likely plummet. Neither John or Guy have shown that they have been able to strongly sell statistically speaking, if you hate Hal Jordan so much, Kyle is really your only option. DC replacement heroes were an attempt to catch up with Marvel, and it was a largely failed experiment when you look at the history of sales overall.

DC continually attempts to put out new characters all the time, diverse or otherwise, but the reality is, only a few titles sell, and those big titles allow DC to push the heroes you like. Believe me, I have spent years frustrated and pulling my hair out thinking if they just pushed my favourite characters it would make DC a fortune, but at the end of the day, reality is dictated by what makes the company profit.

[L.H.]

Well, speaking about new readers, that's the biggest mistake Didio made with the Titans franchise. I don't live in US, but in my country Teen Titans is still airing, as much as TTGo! My kids love them both. They're preschoolar, so they're not jet into reading comics, but they have books, color album, plushies and dolls of their favourite characters. More than a generation grew up with the Teen Titans, it would have been so easy to get them into comics, not with a TV spin off, but with a proper comic book.
Just mine two cents, of course.