Is the "shared universe" concept a vital part of the Superhero genre?

[mathew101281]

How many Superhero books that are being published right now would be able to survive past 20 issues without taking place in the DCU or the Marvel universe? I've noticed that some people believe that it would be better for the genre if shared universes didn't exist. I'm not sure about that though. To me the biggest draw of modern comics is seeing different heroes and villains interacting with each other. To me breaking each character into different universes lessons these interactions, and would actually hurt a lot of characters. Some of the bigger characters (Batman, Superman, etc.) might survive independent of their respective universes, but in the case of those characters they have so many spinoffs and related books that they are essentially universes onto themselves. I look at a lot of indie Superhero books and notice that a lot of them are self contained non shared universe books, But yet you'd be hard pressed to find any indie superhero that have really lasted. and the few that have (Invincible for example) have adopted at least some of the trappings of the shared universe concept.

[lancerman]

Well put it this way. In the big two, the traditionally best selling heroes have been Batman (relatively well defined corner of his universe that could exist on it's own), Spider-Man (well defined corner of his universe that could exist on it's own), Superman, (same), X-Men (traditionally the same at it's peak). Then you have the fact that Green Lantern hit it's zenith as it cultivated it's own well defined mythos and backdrop, Daredevil at his peak was similar, and so were the Titans under Perez and Wolfman. And way back in the day the Fantastic Four was very similar.

So I think forcing the characters to stand on their own helps them in the long run. I think it hurts the weaker characters. In some cases it's a crutch that keeps them in stagnation, in others it allows characters that should have been dropped to live past their shelf life and limits creativity and the failure that forces creators to reload with better concepts.

[Paradox]

It can be interesting, but it's not "vital". A shared universe, much like continuity, is a tool that can be used well or poorly. It's not about your tools, it's what you do with them.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Not vital at all, but it can be fun, i just feel that Marvel and DC are too big for my taste. I like Valiant because it has a reasonable size.

[Marvel_Is]

Yes, vitally important. I couldn't imagine capes without it. But, I'm a Marvel fan. I believe DC could forego the concept. Batman'd be just fine on his own.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Nope, a great superhero universe could easily be contained to one title.

[Dylan Davison]

I like how Dark Horse is doing their heroes they are in there own titles, with no real interaction, some mentions and talks about here and there, some times a guest staring now and again (in Skyman for example). Then they did a cross over mini series. I enjoy that a lot more.

I feel like a shared universe is really cool and I love it. But I agree that there are better ways to do it. And there are ways to not do it at all. All 3 can be good and fun.

[People Of The Earth]

"Vital" is a bit extreme, but it's really fun seeing how various characters from different corners/genres interact, especially when you've been following their adventures for a while.
Except for stories tackling a very specific thematic/concept that actually need for the heroe(s) to be written in a self-contained bubble, I think a shared universe is more of an asset to the superhero genre than a liability.

Not vital at all, but it can be fun, i just feel that Marvel and DC are too big for my taste. I like Valiant because it has a reasonable size.

I like that too with Valiant, it's one of their strongest point imo.

[WillieMorgan]

Very important for me. The shared universe concept adds tremendous depth to comics (only talking about DC here, I don't read Marvel) and I can't imagine them without it.

[Carabas]

It seems more like it's a vital part of marketing DC and Marvel to me.

[MOOT]

not really, shared universes, like continuity, were an interesting concept back in the silver age, now they are just a burden for writers that often gets in the way for good stories.(how do you write Green Arrow when Star city is so close to Metroplis, how neccesary is Oliver Queen in a shared world with Superman ?talking about low self steem....)a6dLWYm_460s.jpg

[FanboyStranger]

It can be interesting, but it's not "vital". A shared universe, much like continuity, is a tool that can be used well or poorly. It's not about your tools, it's what you do with them.

This is the answer. A shared universe can be a lot of fun-- I certainly have enjoyed them over the years-- but there is a point where a shared universe can be burden to creativity.

I'd argue that was the case with the DCU before the New 52-- so much seemed to refer to past stories and other books. The best DC books at that time were those that had little to do with the overall universe: Xombi, REBELS, Doom Patrol. Marvel also seemed to have that problem a few years ago when every book was in a constant cycle of events. For every gem like Gillen's Journey into Mystery that used the event as its launching pad, there were many other titles choked off from any forward momentum by the event. I think the NOW! initiative has moved away from that.

[Tupiaz]

Well put it this way. In the big two, the traditionally best selling heroes have been Batman (relatively well defined corner of his universe that could exist on it's own), Spider-Man (well defined corner of his universe that could exist on it's own), Superman, (same), X-Men (traditionally the same at it's peak). Then you have the fact that Green Lantern hit it's zenith as it cultivated it's own well defined mythos and backdrop, Daredevil at his peak was similar, and so were the Titans under Perez and Wolfman. And way back in the day the Fantastic Four was very similar.

So I think forcing the characters to stand on their own helps them in the long run. I think it hurts the weaker characters. In some cases it's a crutch that keeps them in stagnation, in others it allows characters that should have been dropped to live past their shelf life and limits creativity and the failure that forces creators to reload with better concepts.

Hulk had his pocket universe at his peak as well. Both Flash and WW from DC worksfine on their own as well. The better the character works on his own with his own supporting characters (villains and friends) the better the character is. Yes, it can be nice to have a bigger sorry but it limiteds the character if you can't make stories without the character needs to be dragged into other characters.

Yes, vitally important. I couldn't imagine capes without it. But, I'm a Marvel fan. I believe DC could forego the concept. Batman'd be just fine on his own.

Both Spider-man and Daredevil and Hulk works best in their own pocket universe. So it is not an exclusive thing for Marvel even though it happens more at DC since DC has bought more characters and universes than Marvel (or so it seems). Marvel when it started again in 61 was focused on being a shared universe.

not really, shared universes, like continuity, were an interesting concept back in the silver age, now they are just a burden for writers that often gets in the way for good stories.(how do you write Green Arrow when Star city is so close to Metroplis, how neccesary is Oliver Queen in a shared world with Superman ?talking about low self steem....)a6dLWYm_460s.jpg

Well, Star City doesn't really exist in the new 52.

[GOLGO 13]

Guys like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, The FF have enough bad guys in their individual worlds to tell plenty of stories without the need for a "team-up" The problems lies in those with lesser than interesting bad guys.

[heretic]

Vital? Not Quite. Useful and interesting? Very much so if only for the occasional Outside Context Villain and general Fantasy Kitchen Sink aspects, although micromanaging by editors can get to be a problem.