What major event in DC Comics history caused the most damage?

[NathanS]

Hal is... awkward is so many ways for the narritve he is shoved into. He's legacy... but also not. Like he has zero connection to Alan, and his set up is radically different well Barry is basically just Jay with a new name and costume. (And then there's Ray is he REALLY a legacy of Al? I'd say no.) And "legacy" wasn't yet DC's thing. Only Roy Thomas was really pushing that, and it was confined mostly to Earth-2. Legacy only becomes a thing with Wally and only in the 90s under Waid, the Silver age fanboy and it feels like pushing legacy was a way to try and sneak in as much of the per-crisis stuff as he could by saying "no, this matters." By the time they are phasing out Hal for Kyle.... he's been a GL of the modern era for a decade with a completely revamped status quo in the wake of the crisis. Hal was not seen as "of the past" till sales dip in V3 and hmmm doing something nasty to our heroes and replacing them does wonder for sales" is a thing. Also the higher ups decided "old is bad" At the time of Crisis Hal had been selling okay since the mid 70s and just been given a brand new vibraint status quo by Englehart and sales were real good, he and the other Lanterns seemed at that moment not of the past but of the present. But this is a whole other kettle of fish.

More to the point the "everything happened" thing is what legacy made popular and what a lot of the 90s fans loved. A sense of a world progressing, for them I think you are in fact suggesting "half assing two things" by trying to please everyone.

[blunt_eastwood]

Technically two events - Damian Wayne and Jon Kent. Making Batman and Superman parents was the worst decision ever in DC history, and my feeling on that will never change.

Out of curiosity, why is that?

At the same time I get the sense a lot of fans that came to the DCU in the post-crisis period of the late 80s and the 90s have left, feeling the universe they loved is buried in the detritus of the past, well some older fans who prefer the pre-crisis have manged to stick around, and what newer fans that have come have come into this hybrid era so looking back to the period where pre-crisis stuff was strongly out of vauge just seems strange. At least that's the feeling I get.

I started in 1992 and while I haven't left, I'm really not a fan of the current DCU. In my view it seems like the comics industry refuses to let characters progress and change any more.

They brought back Hal, Barry, and Jason. They keep multiple Robins instead of having Tim take on a new identity. They stopped Batman from getting married.

The only major progression I can think of is creating Damian and Jon, but Jon isn't a kid anymore so that didn't last long.

Without progression the stories are getting boring.

[marhawkman]

Thank you for this insightful and thorough post. One thing I want to suggest in light of your thoughts is that the solution to DC having no vision of a unified DCU wasn't necessarily the destruction of the Multiverse. As you point out, DC/WB execs felt this was the reason for losing to Marvel, but it was really a matter of execution.

For this reason, I believe COIE could have led to a single, unified, and "newer" DCU than the one that was piecemealed from five existing universes. As you point out, Hal Jordan's continuance as GL is a problem in a way; he, like Batman, didn't change as significantly as everything else around them. This wasn't a bad thing for Batman, as Dennis O'Neil used LoTDK to streamline the origin and early years of the character in concert with what was happening in the core titles. Most essentially, Batman isn't a legacy character like GL.

It's just as easy to "permanently" cut off the Multiverse from a new universe as it is to destroy everything and create one universe from five remaining universes that bring the baggage of their respective continuities. There would have been nothing to adjust/correct/fix only a few years later as this would have been an entirely new universe. If TPTB didn't want to use the JSA or the Legion, both could have been ignored completely. Later, both could have been returned fairly easily: the JSA was erased from this Earth's history for some reason, and the Legion's era has simply not been visited yet. Characters like Hawkman and Donna Troy would also not have to be repaired as they would have no precedents to align with in a totally new continuity.

To quote Ron Swanson: "Never half-ass two things. Whole ass one thing." DC has never been good at this with any of their "reboots." The New 52 was close, but it was so rushed, ill-conceived and poorly managed (Diane Nelson and Dan DiDio) that it ultimately failed. The key then and even now is to use the Multiverse concept to shift focus to a new "main DCU" every few decades and allow the previous iterations to continue in their own universes. No killing and replacing, no contrivances to remove core characters from their roles so they can be replaced by their kids, no "everything happened" nonsense.

This is how the non-main U stuff has thrived. DCAU rewrote a LOT of stuff. But they took their ball and ran with it all the way to the 31st century.

[Vakanai]

Out of curiosity, why is that?

Ages them in a way you can't take back. I'm against aging characters, because eventually they age out. If these characters still have stories 100 years from now I still want Superman to be Clark and Batman to be Bruce, not their kids or grandkids.

[NathanS]

This is how the non-main U stuff has thrived. DCAU rewrote a LOT of stuff. But they took their ball and ran with it all the way to the 31st century.

Amusingly a LOT of it was also rewinding the clock as much as they could. Elements of the post-crisis were brought in, but really only when DC forced their hand, and in that sense helped to make the larger changes of the post-crisis feel more like weird outliers. I've seen it argued the DCAU Lex is what helped to cement the return of a more classic Lex over the changes the comics had made to him. And of course there's the nature of comics as idea factories today. Large permanent changes were you take out characters and swap them out are, less than desirable if it sticks around to long. The very higher ups are even less likely to care much for comics cultivating growing worlds, just come up with ideas and then reset to a well known starting base so they can strip out what they like and use in media people actually watch. In that sense story arcs that do huge shake ups, but only for a few months to a year or two are far more desirable.

[marhawkman]

Amusingly a LOT of it was also rewinding the clock as much as they could. Elements of the post-crisis were brought in, but really only when DC forced their hand, and in that sense helped to make the larger changes of the post-crisis feel more like weird outliers. I've seen it argued the DCAU Lex is what helped to cement the return of a more classic Lex over the changes the comics had made to him. And of course there's the nature of comics as idea factories today. Large permanent changes were you take out characters and swap them out are, less than desirable if it sticks around to long. The very higher ups are even less likely to care much for comics cultivating growing worlds, just come up with ideas and then reset to a well known starting base so they can strip out what they like and use in media people actually watch. In that sense story arcs that do huge shake ups, but only for a few months to a year or two are far more desirable.

I disagree. why? well each universe only has one current status quo. You can't do too much creatively to re-interpret things if you're just re-writing the main-universe.

what i was hoping to see, but went absolutely NOWHERE with new 52? Books written in the other 52 universes. but no, they're just background fluff. I R dissappoint.

DCAU had more than one universe and timeline in it, but while it didn't bother trying to adapt everything done in the comics, it did a lot of neat stuff. I personally see that as better than retconning a bunch of stuff.

Ages them in a way you can't take back. I'm against aging characters, because eventually they age out. If these characters still have stories 100 years from now I still want Superman to be Clark and Batman to be Bruce, not their kids or grandkids.

I don't think that is a workable idea.

Also Spider-dad was amazing.

DCAU had the Batman Beyond future which was kinda like MC2. It had Terry McGinnis as a new Batman who had a power armor suit instead of spandex, and new villains because most of the old Batman rogues were too old or too dead to be a threat now. But it also has a new JL that's related to the old JL.... some of whom are still around, just less active.

[NathanS]

Yeah but it only had them in bits in parts. There was A series set in Beyond, most of the series was centered in the "modern day" which mostly conformed to the classic status quo. Oh details varied, the whole John and Shayera is unique to it, but broad strokes, it spent its time on a fairly safe classic take on what the DCU looks like. And of course even with multiple tv series it simply can't build what was built when a whole comic universe is going on. In a given year so much more media comes out for comics, what with the multiple issues spread over various characters rather than everything being in one maybe two series at a time and all.

Or to cut more to the quick I think, the more you do constent "alll new universes" the more its like a lot of resets, your always going to want to start from a recognizable place, so the more you do that the less time you have to really develop away from that classic take in any sort of large way. All of which reinforces what the starting place should be that people expect.

So by the mid 90s with a decade (really a decade + because not all of the development that happened pre-crisis was thrown away, just a lot) of development of a universe over a ton of comics the DCU was looking very different from that expected starting place, and outside media with a much larger reach starting form and not really going to far from what is now the expected starting place made the post-cirise universe it existed along side look like a strange aberration, not a thing to want.

[HsssH]

Earth-2 got close to 100 issues during New 52 and it went a bit into Rebirth I think.

[NathanS]

I started in 1992 .

Likely aorund when I entered, just in time to go "wow I really like Hal!" and then have ET shoved in my face.

So I've spent most of my time in back issues than what was being done in the 90s because oh boy did it leave a baaaaaaaaaaad taste in the mouth of a seven year old to have that happen.

[Vakanai]

I don't think that is a workable idea.

Don't think what is a workable idea?

Also Spider-dad was amazing.

Meh.

DCAU had the Batman Beyond future which was kinda like MC2. It had Terry McGinnis as a new Batman who had a power armor suit instead of spandex, and new villains because most of the old Batman rogues were too old or too dead to be a threat now. But it also has a new JL that's related to the old JL.... some of whom are still around, just less active.

The great thing about Batman Beyond and MC2 is that neither are the main present continuity. They're future "what ifs". Giving superheroes kids in the mainline books is and will forever be a pretty bad move in my opinion.

[marhawkman]

Don't think what is a workable idea?

Having a story that moves forward.... while still staying "evergreen". You can't have a past, and history, when you don't move forwards.

The great thing about Batman Beyond and MC2 is that neither are the main present continuity. They're future "what ifs". Giving superheroes kids in the mainline books is and will forever be a pretty bad move in my opinion.

Enh i'd go alt-U not what if. but yes, neither was the main U.

[blunt_eastwood]

Likely aorund when I entered, just in time to go "wow I really like Hal!" and then have ET shoved in my face.

So I've spent most of my time in back issues than what was being done in the 90s because oh boy did it leave a baaaaaaaaaaad taste in the mouth of a seven year old to have that happen.

I didn't even really know who Hal Jordan was until he showed up in the Death of Superman.

When he was revealed to be the antagonist in Zero Hour I thought his motivation made a lot of sense and so I didn't have a problem with it.

Later I found out that people didn't like the turn because it was inconsistent with Hal's previous characterization.

[blunt_eastwood]

Ages them in a way you can't take back. I'm against aging characters, because eventually they age out. If these characters still have stories 100 years from now I still want Superman to be Clark and Batman to be Bruce, not their kids or grandkids.

That's interesting. Do you think DC will ever actually allow anyone to replace Bruce and Clark?

[TheCasualReader]

Don't think what is a workable idea?

Meh.

The great thing about Batman Beyond and MC2 is that neither are the main present continuity. They're future "what ifs". Giving superheroes kids in the mainline books is and will forever be a pretty bad move in my opinion.

I actually think things like BBeyond and MC2 works a lot better for *legacy characters because it allows them to exist in their own "time zone" with their own cast without having to account for the predecessor's supporting cast and without being subject to disruptive elements like events, non-lore (ex. non-Doctor Fate lore) characters diminishing them etc. There's a lot more freedom to create and shape the legacy character, their cast and their stories.

I love Justice League: Dark and I love that it used Khalid Nassour including because it created a ripple effect that led to awareness of his character, people liking him and even him getting an appearance in animation (I don't believe he would have appeared at all in Young Justice if he hadn't gotten a main cast role in JLD)

That said, JLD still ends up representative of my point because at the end of the series, Kent and Nabu were both dead, so Khalid is deprieved of essential elements to his character. If Khalid ever got his own book again, he'd still be deprieved of those two elements because that book has to be in continuity with the rest of the DC universe. With MC2, it wouldn't have mattered if Peter Parker was dead in the mainline because May's story is independent, so May can still have her dad. What happens in one work does not disrupt the character and its story.

*and for non-legacy characters. I wish Justice Society got to be set in its own universe because then you wouldn't have to account for age discrepancy, continuity events, character deaths etc. After all, I don't want to read comics about them to find out how DC explained away the continuity knots and the age oddities: I want to read stories about their adventures and relationships and personal drama. The current JSA run is a bizarre case of simultaneously being its own continuity while still trying to be a part of the mainline continuity. And that's not a problem unique to the JSA run: I've seen it repeatedly in multiple books.

[The Darknight Detective]

Hal is... awkward is so many ways for the narritve he is shoved into. He's legacy... but also not. Like he has zero connection to Alan, and his set up is radically different well Barry is basically just Jay with a new name and costume. (And then there's Ray is he REALLY a legacy of Al? I'd say no.) And "legacy" wasn't yet DC's thing. Only Roy Thomas was really pushing that, and it was confined mostly to Earth-2. Legacy only becomes a thing with Wally and only in the 90s under Waid, the Silver age fanboy and it feels like pushing legacy was a way to try and sneak in as much of the per-crisis stuff as he could by saying "no, this matters." By the time they are phasing out Hal for Kyle.... he's been a GL of the modern era for a decade with a completely revamped status quo in the wake of the crisis. Hal was not seen as "of the past" till sales dip in V3 and hmmm doing something nasty to our heroes and replacing them does wonder for sales" is a thing. Also the higher ups decided "old is bad" At the time of Crisis Hal had been selling okay since the mid 70s and just been given a brand new vibraint status quo by Englehart and sales were real good, he and the other Lanterns seemed at that moment not of the past but of the present. But this is a whole other kettle of fish.

More to the point the "everything happened" thing is what legacy made popular and what a lot of the 90s fans loved. A sense of a world progressing, for them I think you are in fact suggesting "half assing two things" by trying to please everyone.

A true legacy character is one that takes over another's codename in the same continuity, while Hal and Barry were instead retconned superheroes prior to COIE. Nobody thought of or stated that they were legacies during the Silver and Bronze Ages.