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

[Jim Kelly]

It's a creative problem. At one time, it was difficult for writers and artists to claim ownership of their product, because everything was work for hire. So in the bad old days, when publishers owned everything and creators got nothing--dying in poverty while the publishers made millions off what they created (see Bill Finger)--there were lots of new concepts being created all the time.

But this was clearly a system of exploitation that could not persist. People like Neal Adams fought for creative rights and they won (to some degree) in the late 1970s. Jenette Kahn offered creatives better treatment, which lured many from Marvel and later from Britain, to the Distinguished Competition. Now talent had a share in what they created.

However, if you create a product and you have the potential of making all the money for yourself, when you own it outright, that's a better deal than if the publisher owns a large share of your product. Utlimately, it seems like creators and publishers have gone their separate ways on this matter. Publishers realize that if they just use stuff that was created for them in the bad old days, then they own 100% and they don't have to share (well maybe they have to give some royalties, but only a fraction of their profits). And the creators realize that it's not worth giving up their best ideas to the publishers, when they only get a portion of the profits.

The chances of a creator striking it rich as an independent are very small--but when they do strike it rich the rewards can be great.

[skyvolt2000]

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.

Miles STAYED in his OWN book for 4 years aside from Spidermen vol 1.
His second run had him with his own book and Ultimates and appearing in Ultimate X-Men.
Third run saw him in his own book, Avengers and Champions.

Kamala was NOT expected to make issue 7. Everyone at Marvel including G Willow Wilson EXPECTED failure. They just decided to try something. Then something happened-her book (more trade) attracted girls.

Like Moon Girl and Squirrel Girl it was a book a parent could READ with their kid. The rest is history.
She too also stayed in her book until Avengers and Champions.

Naomi did too. However the hatred for Bendis and especially Ava DuVernay (who produced her show) did her in. All I kept hearing was the show was nothing but identity politics from a certain group. Being on the CW did NOT help-if it was on OWN (Oprah network-who is also suffering from the new WB guy in charge firing folks) different story.

Marvel has at least tried.

DC has at times given up and pandered to certain factions or put folks in hands of writers who do not USE or CARE for them.

Duke Thomas under Tom King. As MUCH complaining about him existing in Batman book-he was OUT of that book in 2018 and even if you count his panels-not enough to fill ONE whole comic book.

Duke getting trashed in Detective Comics leading up to Outsiders and then was a joke in that book. A mini that tell us his father and no follow up? Cameos in everything except Batman Urban.

Meanwhile OUTSIDE of comics-Duke is now on his 3rd figure, the Bat car cartoon and the webtoon.

Outside media has NO issues in using folks. Bumblebee has way more stuff outside of comics. Jace Fox has his figure. Vixen a tv show and other stuff.

Cyborg-what cartoon or show has NOT treated him better than the last 30 years of comics?

[Jim Kelly]

In the first half of the 1990s, comics were making a lot of money thanks to the speculator market. There were plenty of new concepts--although I'd say that was coming from their non-mainstream imprints more than the mainstream comics where trademark character names were being recycled.

The second half of the 1990s, the bottom fell out of the speculator market. Marvel went bankrupt, independent publishers failed.

When comic book companies are flush with cash, they can afford to throw away money on the creation of new characters that might never go anywhere, but just might end up being the new fan favourite.

[Aahz]

Vixen a tv show and other stuff.

If you mean the animated CW series, that was essentially one episode that got chopped up into a couple of 5 minute long parts, I don't think you can really call that a series...

[ultradav]

There have been very very very few new characters (non legacy) created post Crisis that have been successful and even fewer that have had lasting success, unfortunately

[skyvolt2000]

There have been very very very few new characters (non legacy) created post Crisis that have been successful and even fewer that have had lasting success, unfortunately

There have been some however the consistency has NOT been there.

In some case the price of that success led some to being trashed later on or not being used again.

Whose fault is it Steel has had NOTHING since his 5 year solo run?

Impulse had a decent run as did Lobo. Who screwed it up? And NO Crush did not screw up Lobo-New 52 did that.

Because your editors and good old boy network won't use them and others. Except to kill off in crappy events.

Who failed Vixen the fans or DC management?

Yet she can find fans on tv shows.

[Agent Z]

It's a creative problem. At one time, it was difficult for writers and artists to claim ownership of their product, because everything was work for hire. So in the bad old days, when publishers owned everything and creators got nothing--dying in poverty while the publishers made millions off what they created (see Bill Finger)--there were lots of new concepts being created all the time.

But this was clearly a system of exploitation that could not persist. People like Neal Adams fought for creative rights and they won (to some degree) in the late 1970s. Jenette Kahn offered creatives better treatment, which lured many from Marvel and later from Britain, to the Distinguished Competition. Now talent had a share in what they created.

However, if you create a product and you have the potential of making all the money for yourself, when you own it outright, that's a better deal than if the publisher owns a large share of your product. Utlimately, it seems like creators and publishers have gone their separate ways on this matter. Publishers realize that if they just use stuff that was created for them in the bad old days, then they own 100% and they don't have to share (well maybe they have to give some royalties, but only a fraction of their profits). And the creators realize that it's not worth giving up their best ideas to the publishers, when they only get a portion of the profits.

The chances of a creator striking it rich as an independent are very small--but when they do strike it rich the rewards can be great.

So it's less a creative problem and more like a business problem.

[Digifiend]

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.

Ms. Marvel only fell out of use two years prior, when Carol became Captain Marvel. You're right that they certainly had no intention of taking the rank off her (and the other former Ms. Marvels have other codenames, She-Thing, Moonstone), which is why they felt free to give the Ms. Marvel name to a new teenage character.

Jane Thor was phenomenally popular, so no wonder they wanted to keep her as a superhero after giving Odinson Mjolnir back. For synergy, they actually currently have her using both the Thor and Valkyrie powers at the same time (Mjolnir sought her out because Odinson was captured). She must be doing well enough, considering this is by the same writer that written her for most of her time as Valkyrie. They wouldn't keep giving her to the same writer if it wasn't selling enough.

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.

Miles generated headlines upon creation, because people thought he was replacing Peter (who was replaced around that time, but not by Miles - Superior Spider-Man starring Doctor Octopus started soon after), he was actually replacing an AU Peter. Four years later, he'd proven so successful that when the Ultimate Universe was scrapped, he was moved to Earth-616. The only time he's lacked a solo book since was when Bendis moved to DC, and it took them a while to choose a replacement writer.

[chamber-music]

It's all about branding. IP's and franchises legacies now.

It is challenging to get people to pick up a new original superhero comic from the big two these days. The titles cost a lot and people aren't going to take a chance on a new unfamiliar character.

Even some well known B/C-List Justice League and Avengers characters struggle to support a ongoing title now.

Not every new character is an over night success. Some characters don't really catch on until a particular creative team finds a direction that clicks. The X-Men were declining in popularity and cancelled at one point in the seventies. Len Wein and artist Dave Cockrum revived the X-men with Giant Sized X-Men 1. Wein handed over the reigns to Claremont and then the X-Men went on to become one of the most popular and successful comic franchises.

Grant Morrison revived and revitalized existing less popular heroes like Animal and Doom Patrol as well.

I feel like both Marvel and DC need to go back to gambling on some left field up and coming writers that could generate buzz on their original characters.

Both Marvel and DC occasionally still take a punt on lesser known or less popular heroes by giving them limited series they hope will sell enough to lead to an ongoing. Few of these titles rarely do though. Most of them aren't well written and the stories are middle of the road.

[Captain Craig]

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

I know Lobo was created in the 80s but he was really pushed hard with a series of minis and guest turns in other books.

I wish Aztek had taken off from Morrison. That was an underused and underappreciated concept character I feel.

[king81992]

DC's stagnation comes from them constantly rehashing old storylines.

The inability to create new monikers is a sign of DC not being willing to invest in new monikers or legacies and backing down at the slightest amount of resistance from a certain subgroup of fans who despise any character that's not straight or white.

[Waldo]

I can understand the 'they tried with Kamala and Miles' or 'they handled it better'
Kamala is obvious it was a hit and a good one but after a year or 2 she got botched hard, like really hard, and they ignoted her until the whole Captain Marvel film because they know Kamala works better than Boring Danvers and even then the series didn't spike in popularity like mid 10s.
But Miles was pushed hard and never saw his rise as organic as Kamala, and unlike Kamala, he needs spiderfamily member to sorta work, that's why Ultimate spiderman got weird after his introduction, it was all about Peter but barely about Miles.

And I don't know, if we go for those two we can talk about Blue Beetle that I think it was handle better than Miles, BB has his own books , he was a major player in Young Justice S2 and now had a film in development with a well known actor unlike the other two.
In the end is not like Marvel and DC can't have new heroes is that everytime they had one they ruined it.

[phonogram12]

DC's stagnation comes from them constantly rehashing old storylines.

I blame Geoff Johns, personally. He's the king of writing his fanfiction into actual comics.

The inability to create new monikers is a sign of DC not being willing to invest in new monikers or legacies and backing down at the slightest amount of resistance from a certain subgroup of fans who despise any character that's not straight or white.

All of this.

[Konja7]

It's a creative problem. At one time, it was difficult for writers and artists to claim ownership of their product, because everything was work for hire. So in the bad old days, when publishers owned everything and creators got nothing--dying in poverty while the publishers made millions off what they created (see Bill Finger)--there were lots of new concepts being created all the time.

But this was clearly a system of exploitation that could not persist. People like Neal Adams fought for creative rights and they won (to some degree) in the late 1970s. Jenette Kahn offered creatives better treatment, which lured many from Marvel and later from Britain, to the Distinguished Competition. Now talent had a share in what they created.

However, if you create a product and you have the potential of making all the money for yourself, when you own it outright, that's a better deal than if the publisher owns a large share of your product. Utlimately, it seems like creators and publishers have gone their separate ways on this matter. Publishers realize that if they just use stuff that was created for them in the bad old days, then they own 100% and they don't have to share (well maybe they have to give some royalties, but only a fraction of their profits). And the creators realize that it's not worth giving up their best ideas to the publishers, when they only get a portion of the profits.

The chances of a creator striking it rich as an independent are very small--but when they do strike it rich the rewards can be great.

True. I should mention that many comic fans won't appreciate if writers start to create many new characters.

For example: Tynion created many new characters in Batman comic, but many fans hated this.

[king81992]

I blame Geoff Johns, personally. He's the king of writing his fanfiction into actual comics.



All of this.

Johns is grossly overrated. After the hack job, he did with the YJ cast during his Teen Titans run, I find it hard to consider him a good writer.

I will say this, Johns isn't solely responsible for comics tending to rehash old storylines. They were doing that before he started working and (unfortunately) it's likely to continue after he retires from comics.