How much can you change a character before it’s no longer said character?

[John Venus]

Sounds like a Ship of Theseus problem.

If Bruce Wayne 'died' the same night his parents and Batman was the real guy then who was he between the period after his parents death and the bat crashing through his window? The latter event is what prompted the idea of becoming Batman. Him falling into the cave at six may have seeded the bat imagery in his mind but bat crashing through his window is what inspired him to create the suit. The only logical explanation is that he was always Bruce Wayne and that the Batman identity is a shell, a coping mechanism and an instrument Bruce Wayne uses to deal with the tragedy that robbed him of his parents and to ensure nobody else goes through what he did.

For Clark Kent, he was raised by Martha and Johnathan, he grew up in the US all his life, his values, outlook on life and perspective were all shaped by his parents. By all accounts he is a descent man but with God like abilities. His powers make him 'alien'. Yet if he were to display those same powers on Krypton in front of an average Kryptonian, they would be just as in awe of him as any human would be. Thus his powers aren't his connection to his heritage. Wait, this is getting off topic.

I think this debate would be more interesting with characters like Wonder Woman, Green Arrow and Black Canary. These characters have had some wild changes over the years. WW seems to get one almost ever decade or so with mixed reception. The Zeus origin did not go down well. Changing one key element flips your entire perspective on the character. The Green Arrow of today is almost unrecognizable from his Golden Age counterpart. His personality has changed from the GA Batman rip off to Denny O'Neil's bearded hotheaded liberal to Mike Grell's lethal vigilante to Dixon's play boy to the Nu52 version to Jeff Lemire's take on the character then you have adaptations like Smallville and the Arroweverse which only have the barest similarities to Green Arrow of the comics but are still popular nonetheless. Black Canary, similarly have undergone multiple changes.

[Jackalope89]

Here's one;
At one point, we had a comics Batman that, to a degree at least, was reflected by Adam West's version. Even in the darker moments, he was still a guy trying to do the right thing. Then the 1980s roll around, Killing Joke comes out, Robin gets canned, and Bruce becomes a sociopath that only grows worse (along with plot armor) up until the present day.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think that's not the original Superman, either. He wasn't an alien god - he was superpowered, certainly, but nowhere near god-level the first few years. And, of course, originally, he had no idea of his origins, and was very human in behavior and did have a normal mentality. I much prefer that to the silver age version.

Yes but there wasn't a lot of depth of characterization for the Golden Age characters because that's just not how the stories were told. That goes for Batman as well. Wonder Woman represents a lot of interesting things in the Golden Age, but is also herself still a static character used more as a mouthpiece for Marston's ideas.

The Silver/Bronze age stuff is when more depth of character started to take shape, and that model for Superman is more psychologically interesting IMO. It's the same for how the Bronze Age found the middle ground for Batman by bringing back some of his Golden Age roots without going full dark (before giving in and gradually making him darker and darker). Morrison's New 52 Superman meshing the Golden and Silver Age Superman was an excellent model for Superman that unfortunately didn't get the support it needed and went right into bad writing once Morrison left.

And arguably, Silver Age Superman was very human by how neurotic/weird he was. Him struggling to be human without realizing how human that made him was interesting. If anyone can even really pin down what "being human" actually means, because it seems like it's vaguely thrown around without much thought put into it.

[Jim Kelly]

I think the Theseus' Ship problem in comic books is that few of us start reading at the same time--especially with characters that have been around for decades. When we start reading, we think that's the character and have an attachment to that iteration--however, by the time we've read it, several parts have been replaced--so it's not really the authentic Ship of Theseus.

Whether you happen to like the new character, with all the replacement parts, is neither here nor there, in terms of the topic question. The fact is the character you like stopped being the original character a long time ago.

Ones attachment to the later replacements gets in the way of admitting they aren't really the authentic article. But the original comic books still exist and are the genuine Ship of Theseus.

[Zero Hunter]

That is a thing with comics though. Most of the time one creator is not responsible for how popular a character becomes. It is creator after creator adding little things to the mythos. Take Wolverine over at Marvel. Len Wien created the character, but without the lore added by Claremont and Miller he would probably have just been a forgotten one off. So many characters are like this.

Once a character has been around a few decades it just kinda becomes set that certain things are at their core. When you start messing with their core stories you better have one hell of a good reason. Otherwise you get garbage like what Bendis did over in Superman in regards to its destruction. It was unneeded and unwanted and will be forgotten with time. Same with changing Tony Starks parents over at Marvel. No one liked it and it will be forgotten. The important stuff sticks will the bad retcons fade away.

[BatmanJones]

I think the Theseus' Ship problem in comic books is that few of us start reading at the same time--especially with characters that have been around for decades. When we start reading, we think that's the character and have an attachment to that iteration--however, by the time we've read it, several parts have been replaced--so it's not really the authentic Ship of Theseus.

Whether you happen to like the new character, with all the replacement parts, is neither here nor there, in terms of the topic question. The fact is the character you like stopped being the original character a long time ago.

Ones attachment to the later replacements gets in the way of admitting they aren't really the authentic article. But the original comic books still exist and are the genuine Ship of Theseus.

This. Exactly.

[I'm a Fish]

This thread is for all characters, right?

I though the Superman/Batman was just examples (or did I misinterpret?)

[Jim Kelly]

It's for all characters, but more obvious with the older characters.

I imagine the people watching RIVERDALE believe the Archie Andrews on that series is the authentic character. But he's nothing like the Archie I've known all my life. I think of the classic Archie as a character that never changes; however, the truth is the original was rather different from what he later became.

The problem with a lot of super-heroes is they've been revamped so many times that it's taken all the life out of them. It gets harder and harder to generate new interest in these guys, because they've been all over the place. Characters like Hawkman, Supergirl, the Flash, Wonder Woman, the Spectre, Martian Manhunter, Donna Troy, the Legion of Super-Heroes, Firestorm have been put through the mill.

[sunofdarkchild]

To use the New Mutants movie as an example, every character is different from their comics counterpart in some way, but one character is so different that she should be classified as a completely different character. Cannonball, Sunspot, Wolfesbane, and Mirage did not kill anyone with their powers in the original comics, but that change doesn't ruin them or change their core personalities that much, though Mirage should not be an 'everygirl' and lost the edge she has in the comics. However, they literally took the magic out of Magik. Everything that makes her who she is is gone. She never learned any sorcery. Her mutant power has changed from teleportation to reality warping for no reason. Her struggle against the evil implanted in her is nonexistent since she was never kidnapped or trained by a dark sorcerer. She's inexplicably a racist and a bully when she was never a racist in the comics and was the one who was bullied for being a sorceress. The visuals of her sword are the only thing they got right about her.

[charliehustle415]

According to DC it's when a hero gets married.

Joke's aside, I think a character is no longer a character when their core values are changed.

Take Clark for example, he is pure of heart and kind and stands for Truth & Justice and if you pluck Clark from Kansas and say throw him in the Soviet Union (Red Son) he is still all those things but through the lens of the U.S.S.R.

I think that's why Elseworlds are so compelling its taking said character with their core values intact and putting them in an alien setting and see how they react.

This is also why I think why the DC Cinematic Universe is panned (I am not getting into a debate about this so please don't @ me) the characters are there in name only; but the core values are gone.

Clark is not pure of heart nor is he kind and he definitely does not stand for Justice and Bruce is a straight up psychotic killer; so these depictions are in discordance with the audience because those core values transcend time and space. You ask a kid from Yemen about Superman and they will tell you what he stands for, you ask a kid about Batman in Argentina and they will tell you.

Now what are these "core values" well that's always up for debate (for example, Batman using guns in his earliest appearances)

[Powerboy]

What are the fundamental elements that make Superman, “Superman!” ?

What core, parts of Batman can be removed without turning the character into something unrecognizable?

It depends on the reader and the character, of course. And, sometimes, not really being "that character" anymore is okay if what is created is good.

[John Venus]

Is there a character that you guys liked but not particularly a huge fan of until you came across a writer that completely revolutionized the character in your eyes?

Or is there a character you always like but a different writer or a reboot happened and the next writer changed or removed an aspect of the character you thought was crucial? I.e they took a piece of the ship and replaced it with something else. The ship is still the same but you can not accept this change to the ship.

[DrNewGod]

This thread is for all characters, right?

I though the Superman/Batman was just examples (or did I misinterpret?)

Good point. I suspect it's just that Supes and Bats have had the dual identity thing more extensively examined than any other characters in comics (with an honorable mention, perhaps, going to Spider-Man).

However, Green Arrow is probably a better example for this thread's question. In the late 1960s, he was given so extensive a makeover that his name (both costumed and "real") and his use of trick arrows were about all that stuck. His attitude, goals, motives, supporting players, everything else were completely divorced from what had gone before. That said, none of those components of the earlier incarnation have fully been jettisoned from the character, just ignored, or regarded as something in the past.

Jim Kelly's point is probably correct: Whether you regard a character as having changed into something unrecognizable probably depends on the version that either you first encountered, or that first anchored itself in your mind.

[DrNewGod]

Is there a character that you guys liked but not particularly a huge fan of until you came across a writer that completely revolutionized the character in your eyes?

Or is there a character you always like but a different writer or a reboot happened and the next writer changed or removed an aspect of the character you thought was crucial? I.e they took a piece of the ship and replaced it with something else. The ship is still the same but you can not accept this change to the ship.

Providing a definite origin to either The Joker or The Phantom Stranger takes half the power from the characters to me. Technologically freezing the Amazons somewhere the Bronze Age lessened Wonder Woman in my eyes.

Progressing Nightwing into an ex-Robin was good for the character.

[Lightning Rider]

It's funny, my first thread here was asking whether DC heroes were becoming unrecognizeable in other media. From the CW's Arrow to Barry Allen's Retcon and Wally's erasure/racebend, I was so annoyed. I've since learned to accept a certain level of change, but still yearn for that feeling of "that's the ____ I know." Because when it hits, it's amazing.

I'd say it's actually pretty hard to make a character utterly unrecognizeable. Real life people are often multi-dimensional and I don't mind different takes on characters, as long as the changes feel natural and attributable to their context rather than a stark and jarring change in personality.

Side note, was early Green Arrow really that different? Or just more generic?