Do you agree that heroes grab your attention, but supporting casts keep it?

[mathew101281]

After a while Superheroes tend to reach a status quo where it becomes almost impossible to implant any meaningful change into them. It becomes the job of the supporting cast to add new ideas into the franchise. If a franchise is about the hero exclusively it tends to become stale over time.

Examples.

I feel Batman has supplanted Superman as DC’s main hero mostly because their was definite push on the creators part to flesh out Gotham and everyone that lives there. Though they have been around almost as long as each other, I’ve always felt that Gotham was a more concrete location then Metropolis.

[Riv86672]

After a while Superheroes tend to reach a status quo where it becomes almost impossible to implant any meaningful change into them. It becomes the job of the supporting cast to add new ideas into the franchise. If a franchise is about the hero exclusively it tends to become stale over time.

Examples.

I feel Batman has supplanted Superman as DC’s main hero mostly because their was definite push on the creators part to flesh out Gotham and everyone that lives there. Though they have been around almost as long as each other, I’ve always felt that Gotham was a more concrete location then Metropolis.

^^^I agree w. the basic concept here, yeah.

A hero w. little to no supporting cast works in the short term/small doses; a limited series where we follow them for one big adventure. Eventually though, most readers are gonna want to see them get a little down time, interact w. other ppl.

[CSTowle]

Yeah, also why I like team books. Especially fringey ones. You get that development. You might not get it for Iron Man or Captain America in the Avengers, but for characters who don't have their book (Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye) you do. Or like I said with say Avengers Academy it's all character development (in between fights). Thunderbolts, Superior Foes of Spider-Man, JLI-era league, etc.

Also on the solo books though, Squirrel Girl was a great book but it would have been less without her friends and enemies(?). Spider-Man probably was the best example.

[DrNewGod]

My favorite era of Captain America was when he was living in Brooklyn Heights, and he had a rich cast around him.

[Kusanagi]

I can get behind this line of thinking, especially in solo books, the hero needs to play off someone and a quality supporting cast can lead to far more storytelling potential.

I also back the idea that in the big 2, it's usually the fringe books that can offer the most real change since they're not as subjected to 'status quo is god' like major books have.

[DrNewGod]

I can get behind this line of thinking, especially in solo books, the hero needs to play off someone and a quality supporting cast can lead to far more storytelling potential.

I also back the idea that in the big 2, it's usually the fringe books that can offer the most real change since they're not as subjected to 'status quo is god' like major books have.

It kind of depends. Marvel made good use of a lot of background players in a lot of places. D.A. Blake Tower. Jasper Sitwell. J.J. Jameson. Trixie Starr. Peter Henry Gyrich. Valerie Cooper.

It's not the same as an individual character's supporting cast, but those recurring supporting players, gave Marvel's world a rich feeling. Netflix was achieving something similar with their Marvel shows.

ETA: I suppose my point is that supporting characters can be used to not only make a character feel richer, but a whole continuity.

[Jim Kelly]

After a while Superheroes tend to reach a status quo where it becomes almost impossible to implant any meaningful change into them. It becomes the job of the supporting cast to add new ideas into the franchise. If a franchise is about the hero exclusively it tends to become stale over time.

Amen brother. Preach.

This is what I've always said--it's not a failure but a success when a feature has a depth of characters in its supporting cast. It seems like a lot of fans groan when the story isn't about the title character on every page in every issue and that telling stories about these other characters is cheating.

It's the other way around. The comics need to be about these characters, so the main character doesn't become stale and boring from always being the focus and going through the same story cycle every year. And the beauty is, the writers can change up the cast, to bring in some new blood. And that way the feature always seems new, even though it features a main character that's been around for fifty years.

The writers of syndicated comic strips knew this--and they can put the title character on the back burner a good amount of the time, because they have all these other characters to draw on.

This seemed to be the Marvel formula--in the 1960s and 1970s--but for some reason that fell out of fashion. Nowadays, super-heroes just hang out with other super-heroes--there seems no need for them to have secret identities, because they don't have personal lives. They are always on.

[SJNeal]

Once upon a time I might not have agreed, but 32 yrs into this hobby, I definitely do.

A recent re-read of a large swath of Triangle-Era Superman books reinforced this. As a kid I didn't appreciate the expansive and diverse supporting cast that made up Metropolis, but now I absolutely see that it was those characters that kept me coming back even when Superman himself had started to feel stale. Which is saying a lot, because Supes *did* see development and progress in those years.

[Zero Hunter]

My favorite era of Captain America was when he was living in Brooklyn Heights, and he had a rich cast around him.

I agree. Cap had a rich cast outside of just his hero pals and he actually had a life outside of just being Cap 24/7.

[From The Shadows]

I like a good supporting cast but that's not what keeps me reading. I think they enhance the experience but they don't complete it for me.

[mathew101281]

I like a good supporting cast but that's not what keeps me reading. I think they enhance the experience but they don't complete it for me.

Name a character that is consistently interesting but doesn’t have a good supporting cast.

[From The Shadows]

Name a character that is consistently interesting but doesn’t have a good supporting cast.

I guess I'm just not that interested in supporting casts as a whole. Not as a rule, but I know of characters whose supporting casts just don't interest me. X-Men and Spider-Man are examples that have supporting casts that I enjoy. But, they still don't really keep me coming back. I guess I'm in the minority.

[Mister Mets]

This gets a little messy, because supporting casts change and the main interest is in the protagonist. We're reading Daredevil, not Foggy Nelson and the law student intern.

[SpiderTBliss]

"Do you agree that heroes grab your attention, but supporting casts keep it?"

No. I read titles for the main character. The supporting cast might be good, might be bad, but it's the main character(s) I read for.

[BeastieRunner]

Name a character that is consistently interesting but doesn’t have a good supporting cast.

Wouldn't most team books like F4, X-Men, etc. fall into this category because most of their supporting cast is on the team?

For solos, I would say Atomic Robo, Silver Surfer, Man-Thing, Devil-Slayer, maybe Moon Knight (all I can remember is Frenchie and Konchu), Blade, Punisher.

The last 3 have a memorable supporting character but I haven't read a story staring the 3 of them in a long time that really used a supporting character well, or at all that I can remember.

Save Robo, I noticed I had a hard time coming up with a DC character as the Wonder Womans, Supermans, Flashes, Batmans have sprawling casts for arcs many times over.