Why Create A New Character When You Could've Used...?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

What would have happened?

Charlton Actions heroes would have been Who's Who instead of Who's That!

Watchmen had a movie and a tv series! Oh, and a somewhat successful graphic novel, too.

Charlton action heroes are obscure also-rans.

Why would they need characters to fill their old roles? DC has 100s of minor characters on the shelf in Limbo.

P.S.

Maybe Alan Moore would still be speaking to DC also.

I feel like the Charlton character would be the government heroes and the successors of the JSA. They'd be the connective tissue between the JSA's retirement in the 50s and the JLA's emergence. I liked the show and Doomsday Clock's additions so it would've worked out better for them.

The last bit would be the most important thing.

[skyvolt2000]

All true.

Charlton Action heroes have had Zero movies, Zero television series and Zero graphic novels that are famous or infamous. (Peacemaker may be an exception depending on what you think about the show.)

Who's worse off?

Would Blue Beetle fit under that???

While it's a different version of Blue Beetle-they did try to link Jaime to the others.

And when we look at some of those guys=

Ted Kord
Cap Atom
Question
Nigthshade
Peacemaker

are they in better shape than Bumblebee and a lot of other DC folks?

Some how Cap Atom got over 50 solo issues. Vixen can't say that.

Question got more out of Justice League Unlimited than Vixen and some others who were more popular on that show.

[LifeIsILL]

Isn't this the trap of every Justice League, Green Lantern or Wonder Woman story?

Why would ever need to create new villains for the Justice League when every possible villain of every variety is probably right there.....

[Riv86672]

I feel like the Charlton character would be the government heroes and the successors of the JSA. They'd be the connective tissue between the JSA's retirement in the 50s and the JLA's emergence. I liked the show and Doomsday Clock's additions so it would've worked out better for them.

The last bit would be the most important thing.

^^^That'd be pretty fascinating.
They fit pretty seamlessly in that time frame.

[phonogram12]

I can. You sell products continuously by providing value and being customer first.

Bendis has a long history of making changes to a degree of almost ruining characters or concepts for cash grabs and then just disappearing afterwards leaving things broken or unusable. (Or creating characters who in the end cause the destruction or get to a point of being unusable later)

Where is Naomi now? What writer is going to actually pick her up to a usable degree in universe that isn’t Bendis?

If you take the time and do things the write way both the company and Bendis/any other creator will make money on the same characters and concepts on-going. Bendis has a few hits where this helps him but if you look at all the things as a whole he has done at Marvel and DC there are so many nearly broken things that are just wasted.

Sorry. I guess I'll just take real people trying to make a living over a company's bottom line, fan outrage, and fictional characters any day (even if they are some of my favorites). As much as I disliked Tynion's Batman run, I have to say I admire the fact that he was in and out and created a few new characters along the way to help make more of a buck in an industry that's notorious for underpaying it's creatives (I mean, Larry Hama still has to work at an age that most people are at least a few years retired at for Christ sake).

[phonogram12]

Not all writers get anything for those characters.

Not everyone get royalties and if they do it's not to a level some would think.

Trevor Van Eden got $500 for Season 1 of Black Lightning.

Larry Hama gets NOTHING for GI Joe. Now think of how much HE has done from 300+ comics, scripts to all those bios on the back of the packages. He has to keep working despite not feeling well. And he's a war vet.

Tynion's table is NOT getting that much food from DC. It's getting from his Boom Studios work. Wynd, The Woods, Backstagers, Something is Killing Children and House of Slaughter are paying the bills.
Those are what got him the Batman gig.

Unless your contract promises you to get something then sure but even THEN guess what I wouldn't do it. How many characters DESPITE having folks wanting to write them beyond guest spots are sitting in limbo because of their creator.

Blue Marvel and Ultraverse says HI.

Fair enough. That said, I still don't blame creators for trying to get what they can. As for GI Joe, weren't most (if not all) of those characters created by Hasbro and simply handed off to Hama to try and do something with? I remember reading somewhere that he liked some more than others, which is why he ended his original run with Serpentor with an arrow to the head lol!

[phonogram12]

Grant Morrison created Zaueriel for their Justice League run because they couldn't use Hawkman. So often times a new character is formed because they can't use an existing one.

Supposedly the same reason Scott Snyder created Bluebird during the nu52 because he couldn't use Cassandra Cain.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Supposedly the same reason Scott Snyder created Bluebird during the nu52 because he couldn't use Cassandra Cain.

Bluebird reminded me of Steph more than Cass. I'm curious what Snyder's original plans were.

[DragonsChi]

Sorry. I guess I'll just take real people trying to make a living over a company's bottom line, fan outrage, and fictional characters any day (even if they are some of my favorites). As much as I disliked Tynion's Batman run, I have to say I admire the fact that he was in and out and created a few new characters along the way to help make more of a buck in an industry that's notorious for underpaying it's creatives (I mean, Larry Hama still has to work at an age that most people are at least a few years retired at for Christ sake).

I get what your saying but...no one is forcing ANY creators to create comics. They know or at the very least were told before getting the job what they would make. Not only that but no one is forcing any creator to stay in a job that is not profitable for them. So I can not agree with you on the point of making a ton of , what most would call, bad characters to turn a buck.

I do however, think that if a character turns out to be popular and is used in other mediums (toys, movies, tv, ect) they should get royalties that reflect the "success" of the characters. This would incentivize the right things when creating verses what seems to be going on now.

Edit:

To add further these character from Marvel and DC Comics were at one point integral part of what most would consider American Culture. The job in of itself should come with a modicum of respect and diligences that reflects that. But currently its obvious that those ideas are lost and mottled, which is just another reason why comics are in the state that they are in.

[Slaughter]

Faora came first so Ursa would be the redundant one.

Ursa pretty much replaced Faora defacto, which is a bit sad.
I would like the return of Faora as a distinct character. Have Faora go back to the martial artist slash Serial Killer Misandrist, then have Ursa be General Zod's XO and wife.

[Agent Z]

Because he lends himself to the story and there's nothing being done with the Doom Patrol or Immortus currently.

The Doom Patrol recently had a series where they dealt with Immortus last year, which was released around the same time King's Wonder Woman was getting started. Besides the fact that Immortus and the Sovereign are similar in only the most superficial ways (the main issue with this question by the way), Immortus could not have been used in the Sovereign's place because he was being used as a villain elsewhere.

And the same question could be asked about using Joker in a Superman arc, Solomon Grundy in a Justice League arc, etc. It's stupid to relegate a villain strictly to a single hero/team if they can be used well in a different hero's story.

"If" being the key word here. And even then, it's not like the question of "why not use this other character" won't apply then (why use the Joker in a Superman arc when you've got Toyman or the Prankster).

[Alpha Male]

Why would you use a Doom Patrol villain for a major Wonder Woman arc?

During John Byrne's run, General Immortus made an appearance in Wonder Woman but as a prisoner of another villain that was kidnapping immortals.

[Kaijudo]

The Doom Patrol recently had a series where they dealt with Immortus last year, which was released around the same time King's Wonder Woman was getting started. Besides the fact that Immortus and the Sovereign are similar in only the most superficial ways (the main issue with this question by the way), Immortus could not have been used in the Sovereign's place because he was being used as a villain elsewhere.



"If" being the key word here. And even then, it's not like the question of "why not use this other character" won't apply then (why use the Joker in a Superman arc when you've got Toyman or the Prankster).

This is clearly a discussion of opinion, not fact, and I'll give you Immortus was in the Unstoppable Doom Patrol while the King WW series was starting up. But I'd also argue that the Sovereign is an old man who is the latest in a series of men who were secretly ruling the US from it's creation, after having come over from Europe. Immortus is a seemingly immortal being whose history has him vaguely European who could certainly have been a figure calling the shots on America from jump street, and could be doing so in a way that doesn't negate his DP appearances from the Silver Age forward. You say "similar in only the most superficial ways," I say the character's history and background make him a natural fit to the story King is telling, simply taking out the descendant element and making it one guy running the show all along.

And in response to the other comment, I'd argue that, for example "Emperor Prankster" or "Emperor Toyman" lacks the same kick as "Emperor Joker" does. Neither of those characters are full-blown psychotics (despite the hamfisted "Toyman killed Cat Grant's kid" story from the 90s)...I don't think Superman even has one of those in his Rogues Gallery (and if he does, they're certainly not A-list enough to hinge a storyline around).

[Riv86672]

This is clearly a discussion of opinion, not fact, and I'll give you Immortus was in the Unstoppable Doom Patrol while the King WW series was starting up. But I'd also argue that the Sovereign is an old man who is the latest in a series of men who were secretly ruling the US from it's creation, after having come over from Europe. Immortus is a seemingly immortal being whose history has him vaguely European who could certainly have been a figure calling the shots on America from jump street, and could be doing so in a way that doesn't negate his DP appearances from the Silver Age forward. You say "similar in only the most superficial ways," I say the character's history and background make him a natural fit to the story King is telling, simply taking out the descendant element and making it one guy running the show all along.

^^^Agreed across the board, for what it’s worth.
And as for the timing w. Immortus being in Unstoppable DP…so what?
Thats never stopped anyone from using a character.

It’s funny how in comics, some characters can lead multiple solo books, be a member of multiple teams, guest star in other ppl’s books and have adventures that see them fighting villains in their own City, someone else’s City, going into outer space, lost in time, and in some other Country all in one month’s worth of issues and nobody blinks, but some other character being in two unrelated storylines more or less concurrently is seen as bad somehow.

[marhawkman]

This is clearly a discussion of opinion, not fact, and I'll give you Immortus was in the Unstoppable Doom Patrol while the King WW series was starting up. But I'd also argue that the Sovereign is an old man who is the latest in a series of men who were secretly ruling the US from it's creation, after having come over from Europe. Immortus is a seemingly immortal being whose history has him vaguely European who could certainly have been a figure calling the shots on America from jump street, and could be doing so in a way that doesn't negate his DP appearances from the Silver Age forward. You say "similar in only the most superficial ways," I say the character's history and background make him a natural fit to the story King is telling, simply taking out the descendant element and making it one guy running the show all along.

And in response to the other comment, I'd argue that, for example "Emperor Prankster" or "Emperor Toyman" lacks the same kick as "Emperor Joker" does. Neither of those characters are full-blown psychotics (despite the hamfisted "Toyman killed Cat Grant's kid" story from the 90s)...I don't think Superman even has one of those in his Rogues Gallery (and if he does, they're certainly not A-list enough to hinge a storyline around).

Emperor Joker was also a cross-title event so Joker wasn't as weird as if it was a solo Superman story.

Also... the event created NEW characters! Granted only one had any real longevity(Scorch got used in JLA stuff later)... and one had a mystery box we never got to see play out(Ignition). Joker had the "big bad " role, but not all the screen time.