Is the inability of DC to create new monikers a sign of stagnation?

[mathew101281]

I feel the 90’s were the last decade when new monikers(not new characters using old monikers) had a legit chance at getting over with fans. Now we just have constant reimagining of old concepts. DC (and to a slightly less extent Marvel) really aren’t in the new moniker business anymore.

[Robotman]

I feel the 90’s were the last decade when new monikers(not new characters using old monikers) had a legit chance at getting over with fans. Now we just have constant reimagining of old concepts. DC (and to a slightly less extent Marvel) really aren’t in the new moniker business anymore.

New characters and concepts rarely sell. Comics are $4-5 each and people don’t want to waste/risk their money on characters they’ve never heard of.

[phonogram12]

I think they do, just not at DC. Marvel does it moderately better, but the only place new heroes really thrive are at the indies. And that really depends on your definition of "thrive."

[OOPS]

I feel the 90’s were the last decade when new monikers(not new characters using old monikers) had a legit chance at getting over with fans. Now we just have constant reimagining of old concepts. DC (and to a slightly less extent Marvel) really aren’t in the new moniker business anymore.

I don't know. I think they do create new characters/monikers. However, I think this is an area where their inability to hear fan feedback and respond to sales feedback hurts them. They have good new characters in Robin, who seem to have caught on with those readers....but instead of developing those characters, they are dumping them in favor of a character like Clownhunter, that doesn't seem to get the same response.

Plus, in recent years the many of the characters just aren't that likeable. When Damian was introduced, he was purposefully introduced to be unlikable---but in a way that, unintentionally, he was likeable in his unlikeableness. That writing skill hasn't been nutured in recent years. Instead, they have arrogant characters that are better than everyone else and rude because they are just that great...instead of the arrogance and rudeness being a sign of underlying self doubt and weakness.

Sooo. I think it *can* be done, but it takes commitment from the editorial team, maturity and the ability to hear feedback from the readers, with the willingness to allow the character to be really vulnerable and maybe even get hurt and need other characters (ex Superman coming as a baby, Batman needing Robin).

Also, I feel like they need to step away from creating characters to fill the slot of existing characters in different relationships. For instance, I don't think every Batman-stand in character needs a Robin. Robin fulfills a specific need in response to Bruce's area of weakness. Most of the Batman-stand in a characters lack that particular weakness (ie orphans raised alone in a mansion separated from relationship, but seeking family/the light). When it came to Dick Damian the mirror worked, but because it was a mirror. Damian was the big raised alone who needed family/the light. In most other Batman-stand in relationships the Robin is there mainly because *we* need Batman to have a Robin. It should be ok to have characters have their own unique weaknesses and needs. It's ok to change the formula.

[Restingvoice]

isn't the one that sells in the 90s also The Flash II Batgirl II Robin III Green Lantern... IV?

[Zero Hunter]

I think it is they lack the patience to do it right these days. They just want to throw something out and hope it hits. In the old days they would introduce a character and then gradually build them up through guest apperances and then making them members of big teams. If fans showed interest then they might give them a mini series or two to gauge over all interest. If the minis did well then they would go to a full series. Birds of Prey, Robin, and even Deadpool all started that way. Now they just throw it out with no real build up hoping someone will like it.

It is a failure of a business model.

[Stanlos]

New characters and concepts rarely sell. Comics are $4-5 each and people don’t want to waste/risk their money on characters they’ve never heard of.

They are 5.99 -- not sure when it happened but my goodness

[Buried Alien]

I think it is they lack the patience to do it right these days. They just want to throw something out and hope it hits. In the old days they would introduce a character and then gradually build them up through guest apperances and then making them members of big teams. If fans showed interest then they might give them a mini series or two to gauge over all interest. If the minis did well then they would go to a full series. Birds of Prey, Robin, and even Deadpool all started that way. Now they just throw it out with no real build up hoping someone will like it.

It is a failure of a business model.

I was going to say something similar. When new characters were introduced during the Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ages, they weren't all outfitted with their own title immediately. That sometimes happened, but just as often, a character would be introduced as a supporting character or even antagonist and, if the character built a following, would eventually be promoted to headliner status. Successful characters who followed this route include Wolverine and the Punisher. DC is bigger on legacies than Marvel is, however, so new characters tend to have much closer ties to established favorites.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[MajorHoy]

They are 5.99 -- not sure when it happened but my goodness

Depends on what you buy and where you are.

U.S. cover price is still $3.99 for quite a few regular-size (32 pages) comic books with non-card stock covers; they go up to $4.99 when more pages or a card stock cover are added. For this coming week, DC has a bunch of annuals and specials being offered, and those have more pages / a higher cover price.

Which books are you talking about that are $5.99?

[WonderNight]

Also with so many legacy characters it hard for non legacy characters to get the spotlight they need to grow.

[Aahz]

isn't the one that sells in the 90s also The Flash II Batgirl II Robin III Green Lantern... IV?

The only really 90s characters with new mantles that had successful solo runs I can think of are Azrael and Hitman.

[Aahz]

Also with so many legacy characters it hard for non legacy characters to get the spotlight they need to grow.

I think with the number of legacy characters we already have, there is also not really much room for new legacy characters at least not without going at the expense of an other legacy character.

[Digifiend]

isn't the one that sells in the 90s also The Flash II Batgirl II Robin III Green Lantern... IV?

Flash III and Green Lantern V, you forgot about Jay and Alan. Barry and Hal are legacy characters themselves.

Also, Batgirl started in 2000, Cass only debuted in 1999. The Batgirl mantle was vacant in the 90s.

[MakeNightwingGreatAgain]

So with DC, half of their roster is full of characters they didn’t actually create but acquired through buying the parent company (Shazam or Flash). Combine that with the fact that many new characters are legacies, you don’t hVe much creative freedom happening at DC. And yes I feel like this is a problem that leads to stagnation. New mantles/characters will always be a thing to invest in.

1. Relying on legacy characters is a problem because generally people like the OG mantle holder a lot more and prefer to support them. Most legacy characters either exist solely to prop up the OG. Very rarely due to legacy characters surpass the OG for the long term. I think Captain Marvel (Marvel) is really a rare example of that happening because not even Wally to keep the Flash mantle despite his popularity. Nightwing is a character that should be solo but DC continues to its him to prop up Batman mythos and batfam content. These legacy characters don’t exist to stand on their own, they exist to give the OG more content.

2. Most of the new mantles are being created by indie creators for indie comics. In invivible or Spawn were in DC proper thatd be awesome but they arnt and that’s because DC doesn’t offer incentive anymore. They don’t go out looking to add to their roster anymore. They are too reliant on characters from 80 years ago and their legacies to prop them up. DC needs to start buying IP or integrating more IP into their universe again. It worked out great for them in the past. I don’t see why they shouldn’t Atleast try to make some good deals on getting indie comic creators to add their content to DC shared universe. all you need is a good contract to get the ball rolling. Batman can only interact with Superman soo many times before it becomes redundant. How many Wonder Woman legacy characters do we need?

The unfortunate fact here is that new is always better. New IP allows for more experimentation and less room for error. It gives you a better chance to land big hits and turn it into a billion dollar franchise. It gives new content to old characters. So now instead of Flash only interacting with Green Arrow. You now have him interacting with the new mantle. If you want Batman to stick around, you give him new content to interact with and more chances to be important in other IP. And for that to happenDC needs new mantles/character.

[dornwolf]

I think they do, just not at DC. Marvel does it moderately better, but the only place new heroes really thrive are at the indies. And that really depends on your definition of "thrive."

I don’t think Marvel does any better of a job of creating new characters. They do however do a fantastic job of moving someone in to an empty slot ala Miss Marvel for example. A name that hadn’t been in use for ages, they were never going to downgrade Carol, or moving Jane from Thor to Valkyrie.

They also throw there all behind backing characters. I mean it’s obvious that they do it to tie to MCU but still they are at least giving different people and groups books.