When do character reboots go too far?

[LordUltimus]

Characters are often changed over and over again in the DCU. When does it go too far? What makes the nu52 Superman a better reboot that's closer to the original than, say, the nu52 Lobo? How do you define rebooting a character while still keeping said character recognizable?

[kingkasara]

I haven't been following comics long enough to have seen many reboots to compare, but for the examples you gave, I think it may be that Superman is still supposed to be the same character. He's largely intact in terms of powers, supporting cast, concept, and role, though details, even significant ones, may have changed.

Lobo on the other hand became a new character, literally, and dropped many of his previously defining traits. This includes, to my knowledge (I haven't read anything with the new version, or the old for that matter) his concept as a parody of over the top 90s characters. The new Lobo might be fine in his own right, but doesn't carry over anything that makes him Lobo. If Superman had been reinvented as a low-powered, raised as an alien, supporting character in a different book, that might be similar, since you've abandoned some core themes, concepts, and elements.

[tako]

Wally West's New 52 incarnation was a reboot 'gone too far'.
It's a pointless change, doesn't bring anything interesting to the character.
Much like Lobo's New 52 incarnation. Nothing like the original, completely unlikable, and boring stories.

[colonyofcells]

All sorts of reboots are ok as long as profits will go up.

[Jim Kelly]

Most of the reboots in recent years have gone too far, in my book.

If you're going to totally reinvent a character, you can do that as long as you make it clear this is a new character. In the '50s and '60s, most of the revivals showed how this was done--at DC, Marvel, Archie and Charlton. You could do a new Human Torch, Blue Beetle, Green Lantern or Shield--but you had to make it clear that this wasn't the original character (in fact at all these companies the original characters also showed up).

The Earth-2 super-heroes from the new 52 go very far over the line. I wouldn't mind if all these characters were different in their secret identities--such as Thomas Wayne, Jr. rather than Bruce Wayne--but it's wrong to have an Alan Scott who isn't the original Alan Scott. Especially with Green Lanterns--where we identify them mainly by using their other names.

It's the same deal with the Legion of Super-Heroes, where we often talk about the characters using their real names (Lyle Norg and Jacques Foccart for Invisible Kid). A rebooted Legion can use the same code names, but I'd prefer the new characters had new civilian names to make it clear that this is a different character and not meant to be the classic version.

I'm not as busted up about the Wally West Kid Flash as some people--mainly because the whole new 52 thing itself is already out of line, so Wally is just one more instance of this. But if they had just given the character a new civilian name, they would have avoided that whole mess. If Barry Allen can replace Jay Garrick then Chet Walker can replace Wally West in the new 52.

[superduperman]

I would say a reboot goes too far when the personality of the character changes. To use Superman as an example, is his personality all that different than it was before the reboot? Is Batman's? I would argue no. Compare this to someone like Donna Troy. She murdered all the men on Paradise Island and is clearly a man-hater. Now, obviously she is going to be redeemed but that's kind of a long way around making her a better person. And she will have the blood on her hands forever. That's a bridge too far for some people. Or Wally West. Visually he's nothing like his predecessor. Superman has been rebooted a million times. As a person, he more of less stays the same. I would also say a reboot goes too far when it removes something most of the audience agrees with. Like the Spider-Marriage. The Super-Marriage was a divisive issue even before the reboot so I'm not sure it falls entirely into the same category. I think it's a matter of what your personal standards are. Is Nightwing's costume change "too far"? Is giving Barbara the use of her legs again "too far"? Some characters get rebooted so many times that people tend to become numb to the idea of another reboot. How many versions of Spider-Man are out there where he's still in high school? Whereas the comics were the only place he was ever truly married. In the post-Crisis universe, Steve Trevor was no longer WW's love interest whereas before she built her life around him. Today they are ex-lovers. It's a combination of both versions. Everybody got a reboot after Flashpoint and lost most of their histories except Batman who got to keep most of his only "compressed" into a five year time frame.

[Sacred Knight]

The longer I've been around the more I've come to believe that there is no universal benchmark to cite as an answer to this question. Its HIGHLY relative. An incredibly major change has the opportunity to have staying power, while minor changes in detail could massively flop. What it depends on most is the execution of said change, the story that supports it, or doesn't support it.

[Lee Stone]

I think I prefer reinvention over rebooting.

For instance, take the Tangent Nightwing title with Wildcat, Hex and Black Orchid. All three of them were radically different from the characters they were based on. Yet, if these was the versions going forth into a new universe I would not mind at all.

And keeping a character essentially the same and erasing or rewriting all their history is fine with me, too.

What bothers me is when they erase or rewrite some history and keep some history, but then most of the history kept didn't happen the way it did because some characters involved didn't exist...

[Lightning Rider]

When the core essence of the character is removed and you no longer recognize them. Sounds vague, but I'd say it's something you can sense as if they were actual people. Real people have layers, and you can show different sides of characters without betraying their core essence.

For example, Superman can be written in many different ways. He can be serious, he can be campy. He can be aloof and godlike, he can be personable and human. But he should never not be someone with the purest will to do good, a symbol of hope for humanity.

Batman can also be many things. He can be mean, or he can be fatherly. He can be paranoid, or he can be comradely. He can be hi tech & gadgety or hands-on and ninjaesque. But he should never be anything other than a morally rigid detective driven by the pain of loss to save people.

I could go on and less iconic characters may be harder to pinpoint, but I think most people can see what I'm getting at. And the dialogue is important in communicating that. I started a similar thread when I arrived here to complain about the CW and New 52. After a certain point, when you can't imagine a character saying lines you used to think "that's typical ____". Or you (consistently) read lines you swear you'd never imagine them saying. At that point, they're a different character. Just like a real person.

[joybeans]

I would say a reboot goes too far when the personality of the character changes. To use Superman as an example, is his personality all that different than it was before the reboot? Is Batman's? I would argue no. Compare this to someone like Donna Troy. She murdered all the men on Paradise Island and is clearly a man-hater. Now, obviously she is going to be redeemed but that's kind of a long way around making her a better person. And she will have the blood on her hands forever. That's a bridge too far for some people. Or Wally West. Visually he's nothing like his predecessor. Superman has been rebooted a million times. As a person, he more of less stays the same. I would also say a reboot goes too far when it removes something most of the audience agrees with. Like the Spider-Marriage. The Super-Marriage was a divisive issue even before the reboot so I'm not sure it falls entirely into the same category. I think it's a matter of what your personal standards are. Is Nightwing's costume change "too far"? Is giving Barbara the use of her legs again "too far"? Some characters get rebooted so many times that people tend to become numb to the idea of another reboot. How many versions of Spider-Man are out there where he's still in high school? Whereas the comics were the only place he was ever truly married. In the post-Crisis universe, Steve Trevor was no longer WW's love interest whereas before she built her life around him. Today they are ex-lovers. It's a combination of both versions. Everybody got a reboot after Flashpoint and lost most of their histories except Batman who got to keep most of his only "compressed" into a five year time frame.

The thing that really bugs me about Wally and Donna is that they've basically closed the door on bringing those characters back closer to their traditional forms. Donna Troy didn't have to be named Donna Troy (other than as a publicity stunt), and Wally West certainly did not have to be named Wally West. Now it looks like Dan Abnett is try something with Donna (it wouldn't be Donna Troy if her backstory was coherent), but Wally's kind of a dead end.

[Conway]

When I read the title of the thread Wally West was the first thing that came to my mind. It was an attempt to pander to a minority crowd. The problem with that is that people know when they're being pandered to. If DC wanted more minorities, they should use some of the ones they already have in their bigger books. Batwing in Eternal and Mr Terrific in Future's End were a good start. Earth-2 Superman is working but making an iconic classic character black is not the same thing.

The only other one that came to mind was the brief attempt to make Joker into the Heath Ledger version. He lost everything that made him a great character. He lost the humor and the mystery that made him one of the reasons DC was great.

[Doctor Bifrost]

The thing that really bugs me about Wally and Donna is that they've basically closed the door on bringing those characters back closer to their traditional forms. Donna Troy didn't have to be named Donna Troy (other than as a publicity stunt), and Wally West certainly did not have to be named Wally West. Now it looks like Dan Abnett is try something with Donna (it wouldn't be Donna Troy if her backstory was coherent), but Wally's kind of a dead end.

Yeah, this is a point for me too. Some people say, "Well, it's all about the story" - and a really spectacular story can cover a multitude of sins - but if it's just about "the story" and nothing about the pre-existing characters, then why not use new names?

The truth is, DC leverages the familiarity and nostalgia of the readers, using established names and established code names and hinting at similar histories, relationships, and so on. And then when some readers react negatively to the character being too different from the established one, then the company (or other readers with a different viewpoint) say, "hey, what are you complaining about? Just read the story and don't think about anything else!" But I think the company creates the expectations, and do it on purpose to draw some readers in (because those readers want to read about that character) - and then pull the rug out. There's an air of bait-and-switch about it.

Again, if the resulting stories were really, really great - and could be done no other way - then I suppose I buy it. But that's rarely the case. I'm very glad that for The Watchmen they invented characters that were evocative of established characters, but with new names (both superhero and civilian) and fully realized new backstories.

Of course, everyone will draw the line in a different place. For me most of the current Teen Titans - and the idea of the Teen Titans themselves - have been retconned too far. Particularly Kid Flash, but also Wonder Girl. And Beast Boy/Changeling - by cutting him off from any family history (really, any specific backstory to speak of) at all, they've really created a different character.

The constant and major changes to the origin of the Creeper used to get on my nerves. Science gone wrong; no, Lord of Chaos; no, half-demon; no.... He wasn't a particular favorite of mine, but I wish they would have eventually stuck to a theme.

[Captain Smith]

Great thread topic. I agree that with some characters the reboots have been crap. I'll give two examples - Dr. Fate and Darkseid. Both are ridiculous.

[stephens2177]

Superboy has been rebooted more than once,first from a human super clone with TTK then to a hybrid clone with a mix of kryptonian and watered down TTK,and now a clone of a possible futures Lois and Clark with TTK that's off the charts.so I know about reboots,and no I don't like them,BUT I do like "some" additions to the makeup of kon being kon,so it's never been a total 100% hate of the new version.i just wish they would take the things they are important about kon and add the new cool additions to that.if I can think of ways to do it,then they should be able to

[upgrayedd]

I agree, why not just make a whole new character if your going to go to such extremes?