Generations of Heroes

[BohemiaDrinker]

Except I agree with John Bryne on post crisis, there was a point where it felt like Batman was still 30 and Dick was getting 30. It's a bad idea if you want Wayne to be a hero while Dick is BatMan.

Aging characters while the older one is stunted is an error most don't see when it comes to Post Zero Hour.

I "kind of" agree; if anything else, it should be done with some consistence. Not because of the Batman thing, that was nitpick. When post-crisis ended, Bruce was a little over 35 and Dick was 27. Totally workable. But stuff like Billy Batson, who had the age of the youngest Titans, no matter which line-up, or Animal Man's kids, who never aged despite everyone else, were complicated.

That sort of continuity ****-up happens regardless of generational heroes or time-passage by whatever rule, though. There are stuff like that in the New 52, and it's only 3 and a half years old.

[Gordonstar]

They deaged most though in 52. All robins have short careers too, not a problem.

[Pharozonk]

I suppose that the only person who would experience that uniformity/boredom would be someone who starts reading and continue to read long enough to experience it. Which there certainly are people who do so.

But at the same time, the main target should always be new readers, and those readers don't really know or care about the difference between Barry Allen and Wally West, other than knowing that Barry Allen came first, which gives him a bit more of a mystique.

I think it also comes down to how the new reader sees the previous one. Sometimes the previous one comes across as "your father's version" and that's bad; but sometimes it comes across as the "real" version.

Man, those new readers need to get off my virtual lawn.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think the problem of expecting the characters to age is due to people reading these characters when they're young and continuing to read them when they grow older, expecting the comics to change along with them. Batman, Dick as Robin, the Joker and all the classic characters were all brand new to me when I first started watching B:TAS when I was a child. And by that point, in 1993, Batman had already been a household name for decades.

If I ever get tired of the Batman vs. Joker conflict, it's not really the fault of the characters, but my continued interest when I can just move on to other things. Those type of stories are always going to be new to somebody. I love all this stuff to, but their comes a time when you need to stop expecting too much from these family/children oriented characters and let younger generations enjoy the characters as they are meant to be, and maybe new (non-legacy) heroes that they can call their own.

[BohemiaDrinker]

I suppose that the only person who would experience that uniformity/boredom would be someone who starts reading and continue to read long enough to experience it. Which there certainly are people who do so.

I can't say. We are both long-time readers, and we do see this differently. But my understanding - which of course comes from a lot of informed assumptions - is that consumers that are interested in the larger picture will want the universe to not feel the same all across. And as said "geeky" forms of entertainment are becoming more and more mainstream, there's more of this type of people. And if you consider that big flagship titles are usually ensemble ones, like JL, uniformity becomes an immediate issue. Every single JL founder/big gun right now is a 24 to 27 year old orphan; and yes, I can see this getting old rather quickly, even for a new reader.

But at the same time, the main target should always be new readers, and those readers don't really know or care about the difference between Barry Allen and Wally West, other than knowing that Barry Allen came first, which gives him a bit more of a mystique.

Well, as you say yourself bellow, the "mystique" part is kind of debatable.

I think it also comes down to how the new reader sees the previous one. Sometimes the previous one comes across as "your father's version" and that's bad; but sometimes it comes across as the "real" version.

See, the "sometimes" is keyword here. Miss Marvel is, right now, a digital hit; it's assumed by everyone that a lot of it's buyers are new readers, people that wouldn't be caught dead in a comicshop in order to "sample" something. Yet, that is the consumer that might later "graduate" to the larger Marvel Universe. And even if they don't see Carol Danvers as the 'your father" version, I doubt she'd hold the same appeal to those people as Kamala. And that's part of my point here; versions are a good thing. You ask why we'd need multiple generations of a character instead of a good one; but who's to say what is a good character? You like "the original" Flash, I like the legacy one. They both sell the same on their own. So which one adds more to the larger DC universe? (We'd disagree again on this answer, but I guess you get my point about the "why")

[colonyofcells]

I agree with dc on focusing on only 1 hero for the less popular properties like Flash. If Flash becomes more popular, can think about adding other characters and or generations.

[BohemiaDrinker]

I agree with dc on focusing on only 1 hero for the less popular properties like Flash. If Flash becomes more popular, can think about adding other characters and or generations.

What are you using to measure "popularity"? Because Flash is a strong seller; it tends to stay above the water even with no noteworthy creative team, and that regardless which one is leading.

[GlennSimpson]

I can't say. We are both long-time readers, and we do see this differently. But my understanding - which of course comes from a lot of informed assumptions - is that consumers that are interested in the larger picture will want the universe to not feel the same all across. And as said "geeky" forms of entertainment are becoming more and more mainstream, there's more of this type of people. And if you consider that big flagship titles are usually ensemble ones, like JL, uniformity becomes an immediate issue. Every single JL founder/big gun right now is a 24 to 27 year old orphan; and yes, I can see this getting old rather quickly, even for a new reader.



Well, as you say yourself bellow, the "mystique" part is kind of debatable.



See, the "sometimes" is keyword here. Miss Marvel is, right now, a digital hit; it's assumed by everyone that a lot of it's buyers are new readers, people that wouldn't be caught dead in a comicshop in order to "sample" something. Yet, that is the consumer that might later "graduate" to the larger Marvel Universe. And even if they don't see Carol Danvers as the 'your father" version, I doubt she'd hold the same appeal to those people as Kamala. And that's part of my point here; versions are a good thing. You ask why we'd need multiple generations of a character instead of a good one; but who's to say what is a good character? You like "the original" Flash, I like the legacy one. They both sell the same on their own. So which one adds more to the larger DC universe? (We'd disagree again on this answer, but I guess you get my point about the "why")

But again, I don't think Kamala is a real example. Follow me here, as I know this is going to seem contradictory, but it's not intended to be. In the *real world* Kamala needed the "Ms. Marvel" name in order to get attention, as a safety net because new characters don't often take off. But within the STORYLINE it's been a very long time since the fact that she is the next generation of anything has been pertinent. Kamala Khan is a popular character who just happens to technically be a generational thing - it's not BECAUSE of that.

So if one wanted to make the point that a generational setting is good because it enables new characters to be created that have a built-in audience in the people who like the franchise they are a part of, that would be one thing. But that's almost a marketing issue, not a storytelling one. Otherwise she could just be a new character with no ties to any other.

That said, "generational" doesn't have to mean passing down the same names, I guess - it could just mean a world that is constantly having new (sometimes younger) heroes come along. But I assume the OP meant one where they do pass them down.

[Gordonstar]

I agree with dc on focusing on only 1 hero for the less popular properties like Flash. If Flash becomes more popular, can think about adding other characters and or generations.

No..........

[colonyofcells]

I have to agree being part of generations and legacies is no guarantee of popularity. Dc's marketing research seems quite sure that no legacies and no generations will sell better to younger customers.

[Gordonstar]

Wally sold. kyle did and was popular in the 90s.

It's actaully d listers and c listers with no legacy name that do bad sales.

[colonyofcells]

Right now, dc needs only 1 Flash and there's probably no evidence that Wally will sell better than Barry so Dc probably has no reason to replace Barry with Wally right now. New 52 sidekick Wally probably won't help with Flash sales so maybe dc can just kill off the new 52 sidekick Wally.

[Gordonstar]

They don't need one Flash. They have 52 something eh? I got one in my city, ok?


But srs, They're not gonna kill off Wally because he is Black now. That would be legit bad media, and strange.

[BohemiaDrinker]

But again, I don't think Kamala is a real example. Follow me here, as I know this is going to seem contradictory, but it's not intended to be. In the *real world* Kamala needed the "Ms. Marvel" name in order to get attention, as a safety net because new characters don't often take off. But within the STORYLINE it's been a very long time since the fact that she is the next generation of anything has been pertinent. Kamala Khan is a popular character who just happens to technically be a generational thing - it's not BECAUSE of that.

Sure Kamala is a real example. She works just like Jaime Reyes did; the fact that she's a legacy character can be used as often as necessary, but it doesn't need to be the main focus at all the times. It's, again, a tool.

So if one wanted to make the point that a generational setting is good because it enables new characters to be created that have a built-in audience in the people who like the franchise they are a part of, that would be one thing. But that's almost a marketing issue, not a storytelling one. Otherwise she could just be a new character with no ties to any other.

I really don't think that comic Book publishers have to luxury to separate marketing and story-telling completely right now, but even then: suppose that it's a marketing issue, mainly. Part of a publishers revenue comes from trades, and now, with digital, a part that will only grow comes from back issues. Someone that never read a comic and discovers Kamala today can read all of her back issues. If this person happens to be interested in the woman that inspired Kamala, they will click "download" in some Carol Danvers issues, later. From then, who knows?

A current Flash reader, OTOH, just won't get interested on Wally's issues by the Flash book alone.

On another take, let's say that "Joe New Reader" actually, like me, likes the legacy angle (ThunderCats and StarWars as a little kid had a huge impact in my storytelling preferences), but his budget only allows two books. One of these books is Justice League because he liked the cartoon, the other he hasn't decided. He picks up Morrison's JL as his first book, there's a great chance that second book will be Flash or Green Lantern. If he picks Johns, there's none of that, so he goes sample All New Captain America.

That said, "generational" doesn't have to mean passing down the same names, I guess - it could just mean a world that is constantly having new (sometimes younger) heroes come along. But I assume the OP meant one where they do pass them down.

Well, yes, that's what the OP meant. What I advocate is both models, though, and more.

[colonyofcells]

In the new 52, if the generational sidekick half black Wally helps with Flash sales, maybe we will see more generations in New 52 in addition to Zatanna. The mickey mouse model seems to do fine with Disney so maybe that is why there are no generations in properties like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Popeye, etc.