Unpopular/Controversial Opinions

[CosmiComic]

Hypocritical in the way that it's okay to end Bruce's story NOW... because 'we're bored' and it doesn't make sense that stories never end. However, they liked Batman, they enjoyed Batman, and if people followed THAT mentality, then people reading today NEVER would have experienced Batman. If 'comics are better aging in real time' then Batman would have ended around 1945. Hypocritical because 'WE' have the idea, it must be sound, but only now that we've grown tired of it... if other had that idea 70 years ago, it would have sucked.

'Generational' and Legacies don't work. Nobody cares about someone who just picks up a costume and does his thing. They want the people who originated that costume They want the planet Krypton exploding, and they want the Waynes dead in an alley and Bruce swearing vengeance on their graves...

Phantom, Shadow, Zorro... They're from the same eras as Batman started... and writers TRIED to end their story and 'move it forward' with legacies... and nobody cares. they don't last. We always end up back with Don Diego and Kit Walker in the 30's and 40's... because the origin and the drive to create the costume is lot more compelling than just putting on something becasue your great, great great gradparents were killed in an alley.

Still doesn't make sense. People can enjoy something while saying it can be better. I like Batman but that doesn't mean I have a problem with him retiring and handing it off to the next generation. And people 'don't care' because some fans are notoriously averse to change

[ed2962]

Hypocritical in the way that it's okay to end Bruce's story NOW... because 'we're bored' and it doesn't make sense that stories never end. However, they liked Batman, they enjoyed Batman, and if people followed THAT mentality, then people reading today NEVER would have experienced Batman. If 'comics are better aging in real time' then Batman would have ended around 1945. Hypocritical because 'WE' have the idea, it must be sound, but only now that we've grown tired of it... if other had that idea 70 years ago, it would have sucked.

'Generational' and Legacies don't work. Nobody cares about someone who just picks up a costume and does his thing. They want the people who originated that costume They want the planet Krypton exploding, and they want the Waynes dead in an alley and Bruce swearing vengeance on their graves...

Phantom, Shadow, Zorro... They're from the same eras as Batman started... and writers TRIED to end their story and 'move it forward' with legacies... and nobody cares. they don't last. We always end up back with Don Diego and Kit Walker in the 30's and 40's... because the origin and the drive to create the costume is lot more compelling than just putting on something becasue your great, great great gradparents were killed in an alley.

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan. But I do agree with your earlier point. It's interesting that some fans now want certain heroes to retire now that they've had their fill of them. Nevermind other folks who might still enjoy them.

[Tony Stark]

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan. But I do agree with your earlier point. It's interesting that some fans now want certain heroes to retire now that they've had their fill of them. Nevermind other folks who might still enjoy them.

Well said. Agree wholeheartedly.

[Baron of Faltine]

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan. But I do agree with your earlier point. It's interesting that some fans now want certain heroes to retire now that they've had their fill of them. Nevermind other folks who might still enjoy them.

Exactly is kind if egotistical and uncaring for next generation. Is like saying"well I had my filling with chocolate ice cream, no one more on earth shall never eat chocolate ice cream"

[Midnight_v]

Still doesn't make sense. People can enjoy something while saying it can be better. I like Batman but that doesn't mean I have a problem with him retiring and handing it off to the next generation. And people 'don't care' because some fans are notoriously averse to change

Well I get it. ...

Exactly is kind if egotistical and uncaring for next generation. Is like saying"well I had my filling with chocolate ice cream, no one more on earth shall never eat chocolate ice cream"

Something like this is how I consider it as well.

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan.

I'm really not a fan of this line of thought. The reason no one cares about Jay or Alan is more because the comic industry stopped telling super hero stories/stopped existing for about 10 years or so and the golden age heroes
didn't got replace in the 60's when the Silver age started.

So not YOU, but the most of the time someone trots out that there was a Golden Age version of a character thats popular to defend legacies it a bad faith argument. The golden age characters that didn't make the silver age no one cares about because there were no superhero comics for 10 or so years. Hell Green Lantern isn't even remotely the same thing as Alan Scot Green Lantern, they don't share the same mythos. For what they did with Alan Scott and Hal Jordan they honestly didn't have to call him by that same name at all. Thats a biiiig difference between Hal and Simon/Jessica or the new girl. Those char's are kinda partaking in the same mythos but derivative.

[Nomads1]

Hypocritical in the way that it's okay to end Bruce's story NOW... because 'we're bored' and it doesn't make sense that stories never end. However, they liked Batman, they enjoyed Batman, and if people followed THAT mentality, then people reading today NEVER would have experienced Batman. If 'comics are better aging in real time' then Batman would have ended around 1945. Hypocritical because 'WE' have the idea, it must be sound, but only now that we've grown tired of it... if other had that idea 70 years ago, it would have sucked.

'Generational' and Legacies don't work. Nobody cares about someone who just picks up a costume and does his thing. They want the people who originated that costume They want the planet Krypton exploding, and they want the Waynes dead in an alley and Bruce swearing vengeance on their graves...

Phantom, Shadow, Zorro... They're from the same eras as Batman started... and writers TRIED to end their story and 'move it forward' with legacies... and nobody cares. they don't last. We always end up back with Don Diego and Kit Walker in the 30's and 40's... because the origin and the drive to create the costume is lot more compelling than just putting on something becasue your great, great great gradparents were killed in an alley.

You make a lot sense, sir. I agree.

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan. But I do agree with your earlier point. It's interesting that some fans now want certain heroes to retire now that they've had their fill of them. Nevermind other folks who might still enjoy them.

Don't think that's a good exemple. First, there are a lot of people who care about Alan and Jay, and recently they have been seen in other media, which means that it not just die-hard fans who know about them. Second, I don't think the Golden Age/Silver Age transition can be comparable to what is/may be happening now. Alan, Jay, Al, Carter, Shiera, etc... were out of the spotlight for about a decade, and their replacements all basically had different motivations, backgrounds, sometimes even powers (Alan mystical lantern, Hal the whole scientific alien corps. Al was a short guy with a powerful punch, Ray could shrink, Carter and Shiera the reincarnation angle, Katar and Shayera alien cops...). Plus, Wally West is the exception that proves the rule.
Replacements/legacies nowadays are basically the same hero (minus a great deal of the initial motivation), but with a different gender, etnicity, etc... Plus, no transition period involved. Opposite to what they tried to do in the late 50's, when they were trying to recapture an audience that had already left (that they had already lost anyway), and bring in new interest, nowadays you are putting in jeopardy the audience you have (by telling them that the character they know and love is not good enough, and that they are going to be given something better, which, most of the times, is not), in hopes of bringing in a crowd that has not shown much interest in the medium before (maybe for not feeling represented, I don't know). IMHO, a risky move, but in big business it doesn't pay much to play it safe. Of course, plenty of arguements could be made that it's not just risky, it's dumb. I'll leave that decision to each one of you. Just to be clear, I'm not against replacements, but I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. For exemple, if you have two Captain Americas, two Spider-Men, two Black Panthers, two Supermen, two Batman, etc... in my opinion, you have none of these characters. Characters should be unique, not interchangeble (that can be my controversial opinion for the day).
Odd that so much DC is being discussed in a Marvel forum.

Peace

[PCN24454]

Well...I'd say it depends. Nobody cares about Jay Garrick or Alan Scott, but people love Barry Allen, Wally West and Hal Jordan. But I do agree with your earlier point. It's interesting that some fans now want certain heroes to retire now that they've had their fill of them. Nevermind other folks who might still enjoy them.

You’re right. Which is why all complaints about comic books having no stakes or never changing are stupid because it would deprive later generations of reading those stories.

/s

Real-talk, comic books feel like a Ship of Theseus. The change so much about the characters and then still claim to be the same character. Why not replace them by that point?

[phonogram12]

Stop reading them. Come back later. Stories like these are not intended for one audience to read for 80 years straight. They're meant for people to read 5-10 years, grow up and find other hobbies. Then come back when they have kids and introduce a new generation to them.

When I got into comics in the 90's I was utterly amazed when I found out that somehow Daredevil was BOTH mine and My Dad's favorite marvel character. Him and Spider-man. Dad and I could have tons of conversations about comic characters even though he bought them in the late 60's, but at their core the characters are the same.

That's not the kind of things that I'm able to do with my nephews... The push to retire/kill 'classic' characters and replace them breaks that chain.

I always find it hypocritical when people say they want characters to age... because nobody alive today would have read about Batman then. Maybe Batman VI... but Bruce Wayne would have been dead or retired back in the 40's

Ding! Ding! Ding! Exactly. All of this.

[Baron of Faltine]

You’re right. Which is why all complaints about comic books having no stakes or never changing are stupid because it would deprive later generations of reading those stories.

/s

Real-talk, comic books feel like a Ship of Theseus. The change so much about the characters and then still claim to be the same character. Why not replace them by that point?

Your comparison with the ship of Theseus is pignat, I'm that is a question without real answer.
If you switch every piece but is looking and feeling the same, is the same stuff?
But do look and feel the same? Because if answer is yes, then why not checking the original stuff that is still around? If not, then could not appeal, or if the change is too drastic, then why not making something new completely.
Is more like. " look we need to change the ship, there is this new ship, don't know if its better but is more in line with new sailing style, but Theseus will make problem so we just paint it like his previous ship and claim it is the same ship we changed some piece"
Yeah.
Now is not always bad as sadi we have to think to transmit this characters for new generation
But apparently is either "sell other stuff painted as old" or "Bury me with my old stuff, like ancient kings!"

[CosmiComic]

How is keeping the same characters forever uncaring to the next generation? If anything, it's just saying 'Never innovate. We don't to hear anything new'.

[Baron of Faltine]

How is keeping the same characters forever uncaring to the next generation? If anything, it's just saying 'Never innovate. We don't to hear anything new'.

As the discussion was going that fundamentally the main issue.
Either you change it so much that at that point you are pulling a "die hard 5" where it is only in name the same character, missing all the key part of it. Or on the opposite side, you keep stuck inn an external loop, repeating the same plots in circle.
<add to this that there is a certain, not quite a theory, but more a common feeling amongst authors that some characters have only so much stories before being forced to repeat them>
There should be a balance but no one know if can ever be reached.
So far damned if you do damned if you don't.

[The Negative Zone]

Keep the original characters active in roles but also establish some legacies for them in order to create spin-offs and thus make more money and appeal to different people. Tokusatsu does this all the time.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

The multiverse in the MCU really gives them the chance to explore Hela being Loki's daughter. I hope they get around to that in Loki's show at some point.

Even with the Multiverse, I doubt the movies would go there.

Hypocritical in the way that it's okay to end Bruce's story NOW... because 'we're bored' and it doesn't make sense that stories never end. However, they liked Batman, they enjoyed Batman, and if people followed THAT mentality, then people reading today NEVER would have experienced Batman. If 'comics are better aging in real time' then Batman would have ended around 1945. Hypocritical because 'WE' have the idea, it must be sound, but only now that we've grown tired of it... if other had that idea 70 years ago, it would have sucked.

'Generational' and Legacies don't work. Nobody cares about someone who just picks up a costume and does his thing. They want the people who originated that costume They want the planet Krypton exploding, and they want the Waynes dead in an alley and Bruce swearing vengeance on their graves...

Phantom, Shadow, Zorro... They're from the same eras as Batman started... and writers TRIED to end their story and 'move it forward' with legacies... and nobody cares. they don't last. We always end up back with Don Diego and Kit Walker in the 30's and 40's... because the origin and the drive to create the costume is lot more compelling than just putting on something becasue your great, great great gradparents were killed in an alley.

Not everyone cares about these characters that in-depth. Most people probably don't care about the history before they started reading or passing it on to their kids. So it's not hypocrisy, it's just you making a broad assumption about everyone else.

I grew up with Batman Beyond. Legacy characters can work outside of comics because of its a different audience without those biases or nostalgia. The Champions will get their due in the MCU more than the comics currently would give them.

[PCN24454]

Not everyone cares about these characters that in-depth. Most people probably don't care about the history before they started reading or passing it on to their kids. So it's not hypocrisy, it's just you making a broad assumption about everyone else.

Trust me, I grew up with Batman Beyond. Legacy characters can work outside of comics because of different audiences. The Champions will get their due in the MCU.

I think you bring up a good point about "depth".

Even if everyone knows the origins of the characters, they rarely ever know anything past that. They may know one or two events, but a majority of the stories go unremembered.

I never knew about characters like Betty Brant and Gwen Stacy because my first exposure to Spider-Man was the TAS series.

[CosmiComic]

As the discussion was going that fundamentally the main issue.
Either you change it so much that at that point you are pulling a "die hard 5" where it is only in name the same character, missing all the key part of it. Or on the opposite side, you keep stuck inn an external loop, repeating the same plots in circle.
<add to this that there is a certain, not quite a theory, but more a common feeling amongst authors that some characters have only so much stories before being forced to repeat them>
There should be a balance but no one know if can ever be reached.
So far damned if you do damned if you don't.

Honestly, to avoid that, they should just make these characters age naturally. Them getting old doesn't mean they immediately disappear