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

[sifighter]

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.

Yeah I got to agree with Robotman here, it’s more a strike against readers when it comes down to it. Because DC has tried new characters in the past, new teams, or even revamping some older properties they have into fresh new ideas. And unfortunately sometimes they just don’t sell, heck there are a couple of long lasting characters who have problems selling (when was the last Firestorm book exactly)

Sometimes it’s a little hard to sell characters like Sideways, Brimstone, Silencer, Talon, Telos, Pandora, Naomi, and etc. when we fall back on the old standbys or maybe we just aren’t interested enough to sustain the book. I know I’m not interested in every little new character dc announces. Heck if I want something new and exciting I’ll just go to an indie publisher who can do whatever they want.

Sometimes it’s even hard for new legacy characters carrying on the name, such as one of my recent favorite Khalid Nassour as Dr. Fate who got an ongoing was lucky to be carried on in Justice League Dark and proceeding books. So yeah it’s a little hard to say DC has stopped trying and maybe more like they don’t do something often that hasn’t been a big success for them.

[9th.]

Kinda hard to invest in new properties if not enough people are supporting and the books cost $5

[Psy-lock]

Does it really matter what they're called if the new characters are still very distinct from their predecessors?

[Captain Nostalgia]

There are mutiple hurdles these days as people have stated....but I still think it can be done.

As previous posters have stated they need to nurture new heroes but putting them on super teams, and then if they show signs of popularity and only then.....do they get a one shot or a mini.

Naomi bombed because they pushed her way too soon, granting the character a mini when they showed no signs of popularity. Rome wasn't built in a day. Unless a character is as cool as Wolverine or Deadpool, it can take a while for a characters popularity to build, sometimes decades....but the long game often pays off.

[Aahz]

In invivible or Spawn were in DC proper thatd be awesome but they arnt and that’s because DC doesn’t offer incentive anymore.

Some thing like Invicible (like the Boys or Watchmen) simply doesn't work within the main DC and Marvel continuities.

maybe DC und Marvel could actually be a bit more successful if they were do some stuff outside their main universe and would keep in sperate, in stead of folding everything that is somehow successful directly into the main universe, where it is directly overshadowed by the classic characters.

[Konja7]

There are mutiple hurdles these days as people have stated....but I still think it can be done.

As previous posters have stated they need to nurture new heroes but putting them on super teams, and then if they show signs of popularity and only then.....do they get a one shot or a mini.

Naomi bombed because they pushed her way too soon, granting the character a mini when they showed no signs of popularity. Rome wasn't built in a day. Unless a character is as cool as Wolverine or Deadpool, it can take a while for a characters popularity to build, sometimes decades....but the long game often pays off.

The thing is DC can't really nurture new heroes, because there isn't really a place to do that.

Most team books don't really sell good, while fans don't really want new characters in teams which sell good (since they "stole" the focus from their favorite characters).

[Aahz]

while fans don't really want new characters in teams which sell good (since they "stole" the focus from their favorite characters).

That's understandable since those old characters are the reason they are buying the book in the first place...

Building up a character in an existing franchise tricky, since you have to get the readers to embrace that character, without them feeling that the characters gets forced on to them, or that their favourites have to job for him.

I think back up stories or anthologies like Urban legends could offer a space for than, but in that case DC can't charge extra for these stories, since otherwise people feel like they have to one dollar extra for a story they don't want.

[thefinalguy]

It just boils down to comics not selling as they used to (in print), and DC hasn't found a way to market these newer characters to a new audience that has to be engaged in through different means.

Patience is a big thing. Sometimes these characters have to be pushed even if people complain. Kamala Khan and Miles Morales are big examples of this. In 11 years, Miles has been playable in two AAA games and was the protagonist in one of the more popular animated movies in recent years (a good movie at that).

It's been nine for Kamala, and she just got her show and was the player's POV in the Avengers game. Both are "legacies", so in some form that feeds into the opposite, you can't build new characters, but both of them had people who wanted to see them fail; time worked in their favor, along with being pushed until they were stuck. Being legacies was hurting them at one point if anything.

This is why outside media matters also. Sideways may not have been able to sustain a book, but where is he now? Not saying it has to be movies, but we're straying away from animation, and even someone like Jamie Reyes was highly visible in two different cartoons back-to-back within a few years of his introduction. DC isn't doing that for most characters. Peacemaker just rose to prominence last year because of a well-received movie and show. It can't just be comics being used to test new characters; sometimes, they need backing in other forms.

Noami could've been a hit with her show, but they chose the CW, and the quality sucked; that's also a big thing. Now she might struggle more because they failed to give her something that would stick in people's heads as good.

Stargirl has better quality, its first season was fantastic, and her profile could've been even higher if DC gave her or any of those characters some type of book. Synergy has been sucking in recent years, characters don't need to shift to fit a TV version radically, but they do a terrible job at letting you know they exist in the comics. Vibe was on the Flash for how many years? And, he's been a ghost in the comics during it.

Does it really matter what they're called if the new characters are still very distinct from their predecessors?

I agree. Damien isn't any of the previous Robin, Tim wasn't Dick or Jason, Jason was a little like a younger Dick but at least they eventually fixed that and that's moreso DC just lacking faith in a new Robin.

Wally wasn't Barry wasn't Jay.

All the GLs are different.

Characters like Jace Fox, Jon Kent, and Yara Flor open the door for the next generation to grow up on these mantles that apply more to the next generation of readers. Same way who was Robin, Batgirl, GL etc. shift depending on when you started reading comics.

[Konja7]

It's been nine for Kamala, and she just got her show and was the player's POV in the Avengers game. Both are "legacies", so in some form that feeds into the opposite, you can't build new characters, but both of them had people who wanted to see them fail; time worked in their favor, along with being pushed until they were stuck. Being legacies was hurting them at one point if anything.

They being "legacies" bring some hate, but this also bring recognition and marketeability. That's why Marvel gave Miles and Khamala these identities.

It's difficult a new character without a recognized identity will become pretty popular.

[Captain Nostalgia]

The thing is DC can't really nurture new heroes, because there isn't really a place to do that.

Most team books don't really sell good, while fans don't really want new characters in teams which sell good (since they "stole" the focus from their favorite characters).

Point taken....nothing outside of Batman related titles seems to sell well these days including the JLA, which is a far cry from how things were when I was growing up.

Still putting new characters on teams would seem like the best option. Those who don't want new characters on the team may want to take pause when the alternative could be there favourite being replaced for a legacy hero.

[ZuLuLu]

They being "legacies" bring some hate, but this also bring recognition and marketeability. That's why Marvel gave Miles and Khamala these identities.

It's difficult a new character without a recognized identity will become pretty popular.

Yep, for all the criticism both Marvel and DC receive for not creating new characters both companies have created lots of new characters over the years but it is more likely that a legacy character will stick around than a new character, as you said a legacy character is more likely to get more media attention than a new character if they are a 'diverse' legacy they will also get a lot of hate from certain groups which also helps increase awareness about them.

Also, legacy characters also have the benefit of ready-made connections to other characters.

Another big hurdle for new characters is that unless the character is a big hit and editorial mandates the use of the character writers have minimal incentive to use a new character they didn't create.

As for sticking new characters on a team, the problem is that DC has few team books that can sell but a lot of characters that are not being used, so anytime a new character is placed on a team they often receive a negative backlash from fans who see it unfair that a new character being given the spotlight while many of their favs are in limbo.

[thefinalguy]

They being "legacies" bring some hate, but this also bring recognition and marketeability. That's why Marvel gave Miles and Khamala these identities.

It's difficult a new character without a recognized identity will become pretty popular.

I agree. I do think it can a slippery slope, easier to market once you brave through the hate. Either way, Marvel has done a better job making their legacies consistent figures.

Blue Beetle is a good example of a legacy who took off, despite now being nowhere; Khalid Nassour hasn't had much of a moment, despite being a year behind Kamala Khan in appearance. It's all about push.

DC barely pushes newbies who take over a mantle; newer characters suffer bigger loses.

I did try with Naomi tho. She went from her mini to Action Comics w/ an appearance in Bendi's YJ to a show within a few years around the time of her joining the League and getting a second season. The show should've been the moment, and they fumbled that hard.

You can't make these characters work only in comic form, they need to be somewhere else. Superhero media is being viewed and noticed by everybody, you want to get a character out there? Put them in a show or movie; just make sure it's good. Naomi didn't get that luxury.

[Aahz]

I agree. I do think it can a slippery slope, easier to market once you brave through the hate. Either way, Marvel has done a better job making their legacies consistent figures.

Blue Beetle is a good example of a legacy who took off, despite now being nowhere; Khalid Nassour hasn't had much of a moment, despite being a year behind Kamala Khan in appearance. It's all about push.

Not sure about that.

Blue Beetle and Dr. Fate are not particularly strong legacies to begin with, and the way they killed of Ted Kord was also not helping to get the new one accepted.

Spiderman is on the other hand currently after Batman the second strongest solo franchise, with the advantage of not allrewady being that crowded with Legacy characters like Batman.

Kamala Khan was afaik a surprise hit out of the gate (without much push and build up) , but sales dropped pretty massivly after the first 1 and a half years and have never really recovered.

Marvel has also for the most part not nearly as many legacy characters, which leaves a bit more space for new ones.

[Captain Nostalgia]

Not sure about that.

Blue Beetle and Dr. Fate are not particularly strong legacies to begin with, and the way they killed of Ted Kord was also not helping to get the new one accepted.

Spiderman is on the other hand currently after Batman the second strongest solo franchise, with the advantage of not allrewady being that crowded with Legacy characters like Batman.

Kamala Khan was afaik a surprise hit out of the gate (without much push and build up) , but sales dropped pretty massivly after the first 1 and a half years and have never really recovered.

Marvel has also for the most part not nearly as many legacy characters, which leaves a bit more space for new ones.

Legacy heroes are a slippery slope, you have to pick your battles with them otherwise you risk a fan backlash.

There are some people who want to politicalize the legacy debate, (Whether they are on the left or right of the spectrum) because it suits their interests to do so, ....

but what it really comes down to for the bulk of fans who are non political is really ...."Don't touch or replace my favourite f'n hero"

As far as the diversity debate goes, for me personally, I've always stated I could care less if 90% of the DCU are replaced, so long as my favourite heroes are intact, diverse or otherwise it's all good. '' Problem is, everyone has their favourite heroes.

I think a mixture of legacy and new heroes is probably the best route.

[daBronzeBomma]

Sales of brand new IP characters is half the equation.

The other half is the utter lack of incentive for any creatives to gift the Big Two with any kind of truly new idea.

It has been well-known since the cautionary tale of Siegel & Shuster in the 1930s that creatives usually have zero control, zero recognition, and zero royalties from anything done on a work-for-hire contract (unless you're Bob Kane whose involved dad made sure his son got that rare favorable context that made him a millionaire).

So, if I have an awesome new idea for a superhero or supervillain, there is no way I'm giving it to DC or Marvel, knowing full well how poorly they compensate most of their creatives. No, I self-publish or gain enough clout to go over to Image where control stays with me and me alone.

That's the real reason why you rarely see brand new non-legacy characters at the Big Two.

Most creatives have wised up.