Your DC-Only controversial opinions (part II)...

[DrNewGod]

If there was a period where they could have started this trend and gotten it to stick, we are long since passed it. Dick taking over as Batman should have happened in the Silver Age if it was gonna get cemented. Or instead of doing COIE, they should have followed the train of logic of NTT being their biggest property and gradually phased out the JL generation and have the adult Titans take over as the main superhero team. "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" would have been the last canon Superman story, and I can think of worse notes for him to go out on. In some ways, a part of me wishes that had been it for Superman (and we had gotten similar stories for others in his generation), end his story on a high note instead of rebooting him over and over again, resulting in periodic low points.

But that time has passed. The OG generation has acquired new fans over the decades. It's not just older fans who are attached to them. And as far as the comics are concerned, the Titans' star has fallen pretty far. From a narrative perspective, it's the most logical path for them to follow, but we can't do it now. Not everyone is a fan of Dick's generation, or even if they are, they may be fans of the older characters as well and don't want to lose them in favor of the next group down. It's not fair to Batman's fans to lose him to make way for a character they may or may not even be fans of in the first place.

Plus, DC has made plenty of lousy business decisions, but I think retiring all of their big name money makers and marketable characters in favor of the unproven next generation would be a completely stupid and unnecessary risk. They'd only have two characters (Dick and Wally) who might be worth the investment. With Aquaman and Wonder Woman's movies, it'd be totally bonkers to retire them in favor of Garth and the hot mess that is Donna Troy.



Yeah, I love the idea of a sprawling shared universe that actually ages and shows developments. But in practice, it's not really possible with the Big Two, at least at this point. Way too many properties, some of whom have sub-properties/spin offs, a big fanbase that cannot agree on anything and has different desires, and different writers and artists who all want to do different things. And since all of this is going to go on indefinitely with no end in sight, you have to factor in future generations of creators/fans-turned-creators who are going to have their own views on what needs to happen that may be different than the current setup. How do you coordinate all that?

Maybe the respective shared universes should have come to a close a long time ago and both publishers branched out to do different things. Everything is nostalgia or brand driven these days, either regurgitating things or changing them up so they are no longer recognizable. People don't want their icons to be messed with, which is perfectly understandable, but at the same time they are not receptive to new ideas. And creators are not putting much energy into creating new icons, both in comics and elsewhere. And I mean legit NEW stuff, not repackaged/legacy stuff. Stan and the Marvel artists created the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Avengers, and the X-Men in the 60s, and it was all brand new and never seen before.

I'm not sure that aging the most prominent characters out was ever really viable. As well as the legacy characters were doing between 1980-1985, their brand power simply never eclipsed that of the Big Timers. There's an iconic quality to the stories of The Big Eight that a legacy replacement would have a hard time replacing.

I've offered an opinion in the past that NTT and The Legion were DC's best selling titles for a period of time because they had some DC's best writers at the time on them, and because there was less pressure for them to remain as child-centric as the other DC titles. Marvel had long since realized that the median age of the reader had gone way up, and was writing accordingly. NTT and The Legion were some of the only DC titles following that trend in the early 1980s. Once DC adopted that approach across the board, it was only a matter of time before the big timers surpassed their understudies again.

On an earlier point, an Earth where the heroes age out would be fine by me. (Wasn't that Earth 2 before COIE?)

Precisely. A Legacy world might also make for a good Elseworld, or a potential-future reality like Batman Beyond, but it's really not sustainable for the main continuity.

[josai21]

I disagree.

I think we are reaching an over saturation point with the iconic heroes and the only way to grow storytelling is to let those characters move on. Soon, all the possible good stories that can be told with these characters at their current age will have been told. DC writers are simply rehashing old stories with the illusion of being new.

If DC/Marvel want to last another 50 years as comic books they have to grow and change.

[Arsenal]

Bruce shoulda killed Joker after Death in the Family

Jason shoulda been the last Robin (not that Tim or Damian shouldn’t exist, just that they never shoulda been “Robin”)

[byrd156]

Bruce shoulda killed Joker after Death in the Family

Jason shoulda been the last Robin (not that Tim or Damian shouldn’t exist, just that they never shoulda been “Robin”)

Then Bruce's character would be broken. He would go off the deep end and never come back. It kinda flies in the face of what Batman is.

[TheBatman]

I disagree.

I think we are reaching an over saturation point with the iconic heroes and the only way to grow storytelling is to let those characters move on. Soon, all the possible good stories that can be told with these characters at their current age will have been told. DC writers are simply rehashing old stories with the illusion of being new.

If DC/Marvel want to last another 50 years as comic books they have to grow and change.

I don't buy the idea that pushing aside the most iconic characters will allow DC to last 50 more years. If anything, it'll do the opposite.

[SilverWarriorWolf]

I don't buy the idea that pushing aside the most iconic characters will allow DC to last 50 more years. If anything, it'll do the opposite.

Agreed. Really, only intense fans are interested in newer characters. Very often, more casual fans prefer known characters and ignore newer ones. Most everyone I know in real life only know icons and have no interest in anyone else. While it’s nice to think Marvel/DC cater directly to old fans, they really are primarily interested in money.

[josai21]

I don't buy the idea that pushing aside the most iconic characters will allow DC to last 50 more years. If anything, it'll do the opposite.

It should be clarified that I'm not arguing you kill them off right now.

I'm saying you let them grow old. You phase them out over time. Naturally.

It's not about old fans/casual fans. It's about entertainment. It's about telling quality stories.

DC stories are low quality because they are stagnant. Stagancy eventually kills.

[Arsenal]

Then Bruce's character would be broken. He would go off the deep end and never come back. It kinda flies in the face of what Batman is.

It might, but I’ve always felt Bruce should be willing to cross some lines when people specifically target/hurt his kids or partners.

[Raijin]

I'd disagree on the basis that his irrational hatred of character's is affecting buisness. Theres also his incredible lack of PR savvy.

No comment. But when you throw death threats and nasty insults to the guy over people who don't exist. Then that's a huge problem.

[Jim Kelly]

It should be clarified that I'm not arguing you kill them off right now.

I'm saying you let them grow old. You phase them out over time. Naturally.

It's not about old fans/casual fans. It's about entertainment. It's about telling quality stories.

DC stories are low quality because they are stagnant. Stagancy eventually kills.

I get the feeling there's a one-way street here. I can understand all of that sentiment and see why readers would feel that way. But if I try to explain why the publishers don't do that--because of economic reasons, etc.--that answer isn't heard. It's like I'm the teacher in a Peanuts cartoon.

[josai21]

I get the feeling there's a one-way street here. I can understand all of that sentiment and see why readers would feel that way. But if I try to explain why the publishers don't do that--because of economic reasons, etc.--that answer isn't heard. It's like I'm the teacher in a Peanuts cartoon.

I hear ya. :P

I understand the economic reasons and such...but that’s partially why I’m against the decision to keep the stagnancy. Forgive my sentimentality, but story telling shouldn’t be about maintaining a business. It should be about crafting art. When it becomes solely about money, something is lost.

[SilverWarriorWolf]

It should be clarified that I'm not arguing you kill them off right now.

I'm saying you let them grow old. You phase them out over time. Naturally.

It's not about old fans/casual fans. It's about entertainment. It's about telling quality stories.

DC stories are low quality because they are stagnant. Stagancy eventually kills.

I’d agree with the sentiment, but DC (and Marvel) aren’t in the industry to tell quality stories. They’re in it to make money. While innovation has a chance of making higher money, it also carries the risk of making no money, and industries want to play it safe. The only way old characters cease to be useful is when they cease to be easy money.

Batman Beyond is an example of what you want. Bruce aged and Terry was in. A number of Batman villains were allowed a graceful exit. They even tried making a new series with Zeta Force (which I loved). Batman Beyond was great. Terry has yet to completely replace Bruce.

Known characters are guaranteed money. New ones risk making nothing, and that’s a risk Big corporations don’t like to take. Call me cynical, but that’s how I see it.

To clarify, I’m not talking about writers and artists, who I do believe want to innovate. I’m taking about the advertising and accounting departments, and the high up suits. They ultimately decide what goes to print because they provide the funding, and that’s money they want back at least fourfold.

[BlackClaw]

Damian should’ve stayed dead after he got killed in Batman Inc.

John Stewart should be the face of the green lantern franchise.

DC should just go ahead and give Wonder Woman that per tiger she was originally going to have in the movie. It would be a lot cooler than the Kangaroo she used to have.

[SilverWarriorWolf]

Damian should’ve stayed dead after he got killed in Batman Inc.

John Stewart should be the face of the green lantern franchise.

DC should just go ahead and give Wonder Woman that per tiger she was originally going to have in the movie. It would be a lot cooler than the Kangaroo she used to have.

Agreed on the John Stewart front, though I’d also like Kyle. Maybe make it a team series?

Why stop at a tiger?

https://66.media.tumblr.com/313bedc9...qmslb3_540.jpg

[Agent Z]

Then Bruce's character would be broken. He would go off the deep end and never come back. It kinda flies in the face of what Batman is.

If that was all it took to make Bruce go off the deep end, then his character is a sham and he really is as twisted as the villains he fights.