What Would It Take For You To Accept A Replacement Hero ?

[Hollowpoint]

Tons of heroes die or quit and are replaced, but they always come back (e.g. Hal Jordan) what would it take for you to accept a replacement hero permenantly ?

[Parademon]

Respect paid to the previous hero, a reason why the new guy/gal has taken on their identity and strong writing of the new hero.

That's it really.

I have no issue accepting Jaime as the new Blue Beetle, Montoya as The Question or Wally as Flash amongst others.

[SouthtownKid]

I think Wally has been the most successful attempt, and the reason it worked is because we got to see him grow into the role, as opposed to what they tried to do with Bart.

The other successful case is Tim as Robin. And half the reason for that success is that Jason blazed the trail of resentment for him, and by the time Tim came along, he wasn't replacing anyone. No one expected or wanted Grayson to put the pixie boots and green scaly underwear back on by that point.

But other than that, why replace heroes? People have pointed out that a company like DC (or WB) makes it's big money through licensing... toys, tv shows, t-shirts, whatever. They spend all this money and effort building up something iconic that can be recognized by the general public. Why should they piss it away and force themselves to start over from scratch? What purpose does it serve for them as a company?

[SevenSoldier]

It would take absolutely nothing. Things should move forward. I understand people's reluctance to accept change, but as long as the replacement is well written, I don't care if he goes and craps on the former hero's gravestone at the beginning of every issue.

[md62]

I think Wally has been the most successful attempt, and the reason it worked is because we got to see him grow into the role, as opposed to what they tried to do with Bart.

But other than that, why replace heroes? People have pointed out that a company like DC (or WB) makes it's big money through licensing...

1). I totally agree. A replacement hero has to grow into the role. The abrupt change with Bart felt wrong. And many of the "new" heroes were not brought into the books over a period of time like Tim Drake.

2). It doesn't make sense. They do it for a spike in sales that only lasts a short time. And the fans want the original back - and that spikes the sales again for a short time when the original is brought back.

[MoneyMelon]

Respect paid to the previous hero, a reason why the new guy/gal has taken on their identity and strong writing of the new hero.
I agree with this 100%

[md62]

Respect paid to the previous hero, a reason why the new guy/gal has taken on their identity and strong writing of the new hero.

I agree with this. That is the reason I enjoyed & accepted Ryan as the new Atom. He had respect for Ray Palmer.

[Juggling man]

Some balls from thee publisher to stick to their guns. If editors and creators get insecure about their decision it shows and fans pick up on it and whine and complain. Have some backbone to stick to your decisions!

[SouthtownKid]

It would take absolutely nothing. Things should move forward. That sounds nice, but really, these kinds of decisions are almost always based on some type of marketing need.

Flash died in CoIE to provide impact, BUT -- there's marketing to consider... so, they put Wally in the Flash suit. They can keep on churning out merchandise and the Flash "brand" stays alive, no problem.

Jason Todd was created because Dick Grayson was getting older and no longer hung out with Batman, and they wanted to be able to continue marketing "Batman & Robin"... so they created a new, young Robin (with an almost identical origin to Dick Grayson). Marketing problem: solved.

Same with Tim. Jason's gone, and not long after they decide again that they actually DO need a Robin for licensing and marketing purposes. They make a new one.

More recently, DiDio talks about the lack of diversity in comic characters, and so we get a crop of replacement characters that add diversity to the DCU.

None of these things really grew organically out of story, no matter what you may want to believe. They all happened in response to marketing concerns. If a good story comes out of the change, that is just a happy, accidental side-effect. They are decisions that satisfy some outside problem first, story second.

[Punchy]

Rocking tits.

[cynic79]

Respect paid to the previous hero, a reason why the new guy/gal has taken on their identity and strong writing of the new hero.

That's it really.

I have no issue accepting Jaime as the new Blue Beetle, Montoya as The Question or Wally as Flash amongst others.
I'd agree with that, although I would add that a good exit for the previous hero may be a prerequisite as well. Ted Kord and Barry Allen both died as heroes, the Question got an emotional send-off, and Ray Palmer had a compelling reason to lay low for a while.

I think some people have had trouble accepting Jason Rusch as Firestorm because of the arbitrary way in which Ronnie Raymond was killed. Subsequent writers tried to pay some respect to Ronnie, but I can still see why his fans are bitter.

And let's not even get into what became of Hal Jordan! At least he remained a central character in the DCU in the years to come after his fall.

[cynic79]

Rocking tits.
So, you're saying that Bucky would get more respect as the new Cap if he looked like this?

http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/july00/images/0700/bb_1.jpg

[Kid Impulse]

My favourite DC characters are the replacement Kid Flash, the replacement Captain Marvel, the replacement Green Lantern and the replacement Green Arrow. I just want a fun, relatable character with engaging stories.

[red-maverick]

Good writing. That's it for me.

[Insidious]

Good writing. That's it for me.

Same for me. A good story ending the previous hero's character and a good story setting up the new hero and then decent stories afterwards.

[JohnNah]

I accepted Kyle Rayner. So I guess in that case, no history with the character being replaced and a strong interest in the new character.

Being written by Marz in GL and Morrison in JLA for such a long period of time also helped.

I'm sure this doesn't work for everyone and every hero but I really got into Kyle as the GL and all the new mythos he brought with it.

[Kikaider]

There shouldn't be replacement heroes (IMHO). Jaime could have been a Blue Beetle or Blue Scarab or something similar without having to do in the Ted Kord Beetle to make room. Ryan Choi could have been another size changing hero without the Atom name. If DC wants new heroes then they should create them, not kill off others to make room for the replacements. It isn't like the DC or Marvel Universe have a quota on how many super powered people are running around at any one time. At times Marvel seemed like they had more mutants than ordinary people. If DC can't keep an ongoing Hawkman or Aquaman title on the stands, what chance does a new character have?

If I had to accept a new character as a replacement? I would go the Hourman route where the character had ties to the old hero (have them appear and be used as supporting cast in the book), new expanded powers, updated costume, and have a top name writer, and top name artist.

[Juggling man]

More recently, DiDio talks about the lack of diversity in comic characters,



Care to share a link where he talks about this? I'm interested.

[-domino-]

Tons of heroes die or quit and are replaced, but they always come back (e.g. Hal Jordan) what would it take for you to accept a replacement hero permenantly ?

most if not in all circumstances i welcome the change of character-and i do not like how the other character comes back , making the creators of the new characters hard work quite redundant, and leaving multiple vrsions of essentially the same character

[SouthtownKid]

Care to share a link where he talks about this? I'm interested.About a hundred written, audio, and video interviews over the past couple years. Throw a rock and hit one.


most if not in all circumstances i welcome the change of character-and i do not like how the other character comes back , making the creators of the new characters hard work quite redundant, and leaving multiple vrsions of essentially the same characterby your definition, isn't the work of the new characters' creators redundant to begin with? They are the ones creating multiple versions of the same character.

What about the hard work of the original creators? Doesn't that count for anything? And how "hard" IS the work of the new characters' creators? Aren't they just building off the work -- the REAL hard work -- of the original creators? The new guys are just adding things on. In a lot of cases, you can barely call it creation. Often, they are just adding a twist to an established concept, not actually creating a new concept.

I've liked a lot of the replacement heroes over the years... Ryan is cool, I've always liked Wally, I'm perfectly fine with Montoya as Question, Tim's a good character, I like Cassie more than Donna, and I like Connor as much as (if not more than) Ollie. But come on. There's creating and then there's creating.

When you have something like the Hal Jordan GL or the Jaime Blue Beetle, I can get behind it as an actual new creation. Less so, some of the others. You take Flash or Atom, and the heavy lifting has already been done decades ago.

[Herald]

Rocking tits.

Hasn't helped the new Phantom Lady. :p

[captcleghorn]

Hasn't helped the new Phantom Lady. :p

Please, use the proper tense. HAVEN'T helped the new Phantom Lady. We're talking two here.

[Herald]

Please, use the proper tense. HAVEN'T helped the new Phantom Lady. We're talking two here.

THIS NOTION hasn't helped the new Phantom Lady. :p

Anyone else want to try teaching grammar?? It isn't even a school day!! :D

[Kid Kamikaze]

If I had my way, Phantom Lady would have been like Doc Samson, the Phantom, and the Shadow (before he was revamped in the 80s or so), and stayed within her original time period.

[ouvidizer]

Inovation.

Choi is cool because he is different than Palmer.
Jaime is interesting because he completely steps away form Kord.
Jack is good because he leads Ted behind (couldn't go Knight Knight on this one)

[Kikaider]

I agree with a lot of what SouthtownKid said. But, everyone would say changes/ replacements are okay to a character (s) they don't care about (see "What Characters Should Winick Write" thread). I don't want to see a new Negative man, Rac Shade the Changing Man, Captain Comet, Black Lightning. Every character is a favorite or fondly looked upon by someone.

DC is trying to do is sponge off the original creators work to try and draw fans to the new series starring the all new, culturally diverse version that is replacing your favorite, and taking his/ her name! I don't buy the excuse that the market is too saturated to accept new characters on their own merits. I just don't think anyone has nailed down how to do it right, yet.

[Herald]

I agree with a lot of what SouthtownKid said. But, everyone would say changes/ replacements are okay to a character (s) they don't care about (see "What Characters Should Winick Write" thread). I don't want to see a new Negative man, Rac Shade the Changing Man, Captain Comet, Black Lightning. Every character is a favorite or fondly looked upon by someone.

DC is trying to do is sponge off the original creators work to try and draw fans to the new series starring the all new, culturally diverse version that is replacing your favorite, and taking his/ her name! I don't buy the excuse that the market is too saturated to accept new characters on their own merits. I just don't think anyone has nailed down how to do it right, yet.

Ah, finally, the completely correct answer.
Especially the part about "changes/ replacements are okay to a character (s) they don't care about"...

[Kikaider]

Ah, finally, the completely correct answer.
Especially the part about "changes/ replacements are okay to a character (s) they don't care about"...

Ahh, pats self on back. Thanks Herald! I have always been more of a fan of c-list characters, so I feel pretty slighted when a writer comes along and writes them any way he/she pleases because they figure they are a blank slate, or there aren't enough fans of the character(s) to make it matter.

[Action Ace]

DC is trying to do is sponge off the original creators work to try and draw fans to the new series starring the all new, culturally diverse version that is replacing your favorite, and taking his/ her name!

Like these people...

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/1/1c/Batgirl_cassandra_cain.jpg/200px-Batgirl_cassandra_cain.jpg
Batgirl can't get out of her chair, let's get an Asian replacement

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/WildcatYM.jpg/160px-WildcatYM.jpg
Wildcat can't walk thanks to a big event comic, let's get a Latina replacement

http://www.comictreadmill.com/images/Dr.%20Midnight.bmp
Dr. Mid-Nite is too old, let's get his student to replace him who just happens to be a better speller. :D

http://members.aol.com/thefightingfury/whoclix/jsgl.gif
Guy Gardner gets put into a coma for over a decade to make room for this diversity replacement. Didio's anti JLI conspiracy goes back to the early 1970s! :eek:

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/img/i/Invisible_Kid_II.jpg
Invisible Kid's been dead for years, let's replace him with a diverse character in a great story. A decade later, we'll make his sister a legacy character too.

http://hqmaniacs.uol.com.br/img/materia/06_guardiao_malduncan.jpg
It just happened to be the Guardian's turn that day. Mal Duncan was out of control!

[SouthtownKid]

In the case of Invisible Kid, I don't consider it a replacement because the old Kid had died and left the slot vacant almost a decade earlier (1974, I think). They didn't remove him in order to put someone else in his place. And if any Legion fan had a problem with Jacques replacing Lyle, they probably would have had an even bigger problem with the original story getting nullified by bringing Lyle back.

And about John Stewart: he was just the replacement for the replacement. It wasn't really a big thing. At that time, neither one of them was meant to actually ever really take over for Hal. It was just a story.

[Action Ace]

In the case of Invisible Kid, I don't consider it a replacement because the old Kid had died and left the slot vacant almost a decade earlier (1974, I think). They didn't remove him in order to put someone else in his place. And if any Legion fan had a problem with Jacques replacing Lyle, they probably would have had an even bigger problem with the original story getting nullified by bringing Lyle back.

And about John Stewart: he was just the replacement for the replacement. It wasn't really a big thing. At that time, neither one of them was meant to actually ever really take over for Hal. It was just a story.

The point is DC replaced characters for diversity purposes before Dan Didio and I'm pretty sure will do so again after he's left DC.

[Lemurion]

Nobody likes to see their favorite character replaced. Even changes to a favorite can have problems because any change might remove the one thing that made a character someone's favorite.

Having said that, some changes work better than others. Tim Drake is a perfectly viable Robin and Cassie works as Wonder Girl. Conner worked too.

I think for it to work the new character has to be seen as NOT supplanting the previous one with the same name. That's a recipe for disaster. I think it works best when the previous character moves on, and a new person comes into the same "slot."

Just my two cents.

[YDLM]

I know this is a DC question, but as a Marvel guy I pretty much have readily accepted replacement heroes. I liked Jim Rhodes as Iron Man more than Tony.I liked Eric Masterson more than Thor. I even thought that Johnny Walker was a fresh take on Cap, at least for awhile. The character that I have never accpeted as a replacement was Ben Reily.

[Kikaider]

I might suspect Didio' involvement if all those changes had taken place in one year!

I don't blame Dan for any of the changes in characters. I would need to see a widespread memo from him demanding the characters be killed and replaced before I would be willing to pin anything on him. This isn't just about killing off characters to replace them with minorities. I would have the same objection if they killed off Batman and replaced him with Robin. DC has tried to integrate ethnic heroes for years. They just don't do a very good job of it.

Killing off a character, and bringing him back bring in sales, so that is never going away. Unfortunately, you end up with five Flashes because people become fans of the place holder, but want the original (and/ or second guy, and/ or third guy) back in fold.

I don't know what the answer is but as it stands, if DC wants a minority character to hold up as their diversity trophy, they are going to have to take a loss on the publishing end and let some of the big sellers subsidize the title to keep him/ her around for years.

[Henker]

Most of my favorite characters are legacies, so I don't mind replacement heroes at all. Mostly, I prefer it when the old hero sticks around in some form. Batgirl and Robin replacements work because the original characters are still around with newer, more mature identities.

[Weiser_Cain]

Well I like john Stewart better than Hal Jordan anyway. Tell all the guys story then kill or retire him and move on with a new guy.

[heffison]

I think for it to work the new character has to be seen as NOT supplanting the previous one with the same name. That's a recipe for disaster. I think it works best when the previous character moves on, and a new person comes into the same "slot."


I think that's the main problem. A lot more people would have been open to Montoya as the new Question if Vic Sage had retired and chosen her to take over with his continuing guidance, as opposed to killing him off to make room for her. (Although I think covering her with the Question's mask and identity makes her somewhat less of an ethnic contribution to the DCU than letting her be herself.)

Sure, I would have been a lot less hacked off over the appearance of Chris Kent if it didn't look like DC wanted to have him around to grow into a replacement for Conner as Superboy. Let Conner move on in life, change his Supername or even retire, then bring in the new kid. Then Chris isn't a bad trade for a better character, and the only real knock against him is that he'd still be a reminder of the recent movie. (I know there's differences, but considering the timing, he's a little too close.)

So the rule is, if you want us to except a new person behind the mask, let the previous person stick around. DiDio doesn't like to leave people running around all alive and everything, but it'll sell more books.

[pojoman]

John Rogers

[freakybatman]

look at my sig and thats the answer to the whole thread

[breakfast]

Just good writing, really. While I really like some characters, I'm not so attached that I can't move from hero to replacement hero wwithout a problem (for the most part) as long as they've got good stories and they're an interesting character.

I don't care so much if the predesscor gets killed, but it might make a lot more people (or few dozen who actually cared. . . ) give the book a chance due to not being blinded by hatred (but they'll be that anyways).

[E-MAC]

There is really nothing DC could do to make me accept a replacement hero, the only one that I can honestly say that I like is Tim as Robin but that's only because Dick graduated to being Nightwing. The only other replacement hero I even tolerate is Wally but that is only as a stand in until Barry takes back his mantle as The Flash. Most of these replacement heores faiil and only end up breaking up fanbases of different characters the only thing worse is minority replacement hero but that's whole other story.

[johnnyrocket]

90% of the time I'm against replacement. IMO, if you're replacing a hero it means you've failed to understand what made that character work to begin with. In other words, you're failing creatively if you have to change the ID under the mask which should be as much a part of the character as the hero persona. If Morrison puts someone else in the bat mask in six months will it really be Batman anymore? Who here yearns for Thunderstrike? Anyone long for Ben Reilly?

It worked when Julie Schwarz re launched the Silver Age becasue the DC characters had been out of circulation for ten years AND he tapped in to the Sci Fi zietgeist of the late 1950's. It worked with Wally West because he was already an established hero with very personal connections.. and it was written very, very well. But that kind of magic is rare.

It did NOT work when DiDio tried this just two years ago with One Year Later. It looks like the same is about to happen to J'onn J'onzz and its a real shame.

To bring home my point:

As good as Bru's writing is does anyone really look at Bucky America as the 'real deal?' One of the reasons Cap works so well right now, is that the 'ghost' of Steve Rogers still hangs over the story. Things keep going from bad to worse and we are seeing the results of a world where Steve Rogers is not around to stop the Red Skull. But, in the end there's really only one person who can save the day and it's Steve Rogers. The fun in the story is not seeing Bucky pull a Wally West. It's seeing just how bad it will get before Steve thwarts the Skull in the end. So in essence the story works because, subliminally, Bucky is NOT permanent.

[Juggling man]

look at my sig and thats the answer to the whole thread

I'll agree with that. There should be some sort of policy. "Mr. writer, if you kill off a character it stays for dead a minimum of __ years. Screw it up and you're fired for a minimum of __years."

[TelFie]

It depends who it is. For example: Batman. If it was Dick that was to become Batman...no problem. He deserves it and is the right choice. But if it was Tim (too young), Jason (villain) or Little Ras (too young and villain), well then we have a problem.

It all depends on who is the replacement.

[palpatine17]

I think some people have had trouble accepting Jason Rusch as Firestorm because of the arbitrary way in which Ronnie Raymond was killed. Subsequent writers tried to pay some respect to Ronnie, but I can still see why his fans are bitter.

Would the solution to this then be to give Firestorm another series in which Ronnie's death can be properly dealt with and his fans offered "closure" on the matter??

[carl kolchak]

90% of the time I'm against replacement. IMO, if you're replacing a hero it means you've failed to understand what made that character work to begin with. In other words, you're failing creatively if you have to change the ID under the mask which should be as much a part of the character as the hero persona. If Morrison puts someone else in the bat mask in six months will it really be Batman anymore? Who here yearns for Thunderstrike? Anyone long for Ben Reilly?

It worked when Julie Schwarz re launched the Silver Age becasue the DC characters had been out of circulation for ten years AND he tapped in to the Sci Fi zietgeist of the late 1950's. It worked with Wally West because he was already an established hero with very personal connections.. and it was written very, very well. But that kind of magic is rare.

It did NOT work when DiDio tried this just two years ago with One Year Later. It looks like the same is about to happen to J'onn J'onzz and its a real shame.

To bring home my point:

As good as Bru's writing is does anyone really look at Bucky America as the 'real deal?' One of the reasons Cap works so well right now, is that the 'ghost' of Steve Rogers still hangs over the story. Things keep going from bad to worse and we are seeing the results of a world where Steve Rogers is not around to stop the Red Skull. But, in the end there's really only one person who can save the day and it's Steve Rogers. The fun in the story is not seeing Bucky pull a Wally West. It's seeing just how bad it will get before Steve thwarts the Skull in the end. So in essence the story works because, subliminally, Bucky is NOT permanent.

Nicely stated. Agreed on all points.

[Kid Kamikaze]

90% of the time I'm against replacement. IMO, if you're replacing a hero it means you've failed to understand what made that character work to begin with. In other words, you're failing creatively if you have to change the ID under the mask which should be as much a part of the character as the hero persona. If Morrison puts someone else in the bat mask in six months will it really be Batman anymore? Who here yearns for Thunderstrike? Anyone long for Ben Reilly?

It worked when Julie Schwarz re launched the Silver Age becasue the DC characters had been out of circulation for ten years AND he tapped in to the Sci Fi zietgeist of the late 1950's. It worked with Wally West because he was already an established hero with very personal connections.. and it was written very, very well. But that kind of magic is rare.

It did NOT work when DiDio tried this just two years ago with One Year Later. It looks like the same is about to happen to J'onn J'onzz and its a real shame.

To bring home my point:

As good as Bru's writing is does anyone really look at Bucky America as the 'real deal?' One of the reasons Cap works so well right now, is that the 'ghost' of Steve Rogers still hangs over the story. Things keep going from bad to worse and we are seeing the results of a world where Steve Rogers is not around to stop the Red Skull. But, in the end there's really only one person who can save the day and it's Steve Rogers. The fun in the story is not seeing Bucky pull a Wally West. It's seeing just how bad it will get before Steve thwarts the Skull in the end. So in essence the story works because, subliminally, Bucky is NOT permanent.

I completely agree... On all points.

[Tomwaitsfan]

Hasn't helped the new Phantom Lady. :p
Or Batwoman.

[Caramuru]

I think Wally has been the most successful attempt, and the reason it worked is because we got to see him grow into the role, as opposed to what they tried to do with Bart.

The other successful case is Tim as Robin. And half the reason for that success is that Jason blazed the trail of resentment for him, and by the time Tim came along, he wasn't replacing anyone. No one expected or wanted Grayson to put the pixie boots and green scaly underwear back on by that point.

But other than that, why replace heroes? People have pointed out that a company like DC (or WB) makes it's big money through licensing... toys, tv shows, t-shirts, whatever. They spend all this money and effort building up something iconic that can be recognized by the general public. Why should they piss it away and force themselves to start over from scratch? What purpose does it serve for them as a company?

I think Wally has been the most successful because at the time he became the Flash the idea of legacy heroes wasn't cemented in the DCU, and Wally being the most prominent example of it (I'm not counting Hourman II, Dr. Mid-Night or Wildcat II) he got a unique motivational hook. In the end he became a victim of his own success, as many writers since then have taken what made him unique and applied that concept all over the DCU. Now people seem more enamored of the idea of legacy than of the character itself and automatically expect legacy heroes to pop up every few years.

I think the concept of legacy heroes today is to Wally West what the grim 'n' gritty 80s and 90s are to Watchmen and DKR. Writers misinterpreted what made the original concepts work and went to produce superficial copies of it which eventually became a fad.

[Caramuru]

It would take absolutely nothing. Things should move forward. I understand people's reluctance to accept change, but as long as the replacement is well written, I don't care if he goes and craps on the former hero's gravestone at the beginning of every issue.

You know, I like some legacy heroes. Blue Beetle is probably my favorite DC book right now. But I don't understand why replacing heroes is the same as things moving forward. It isn't. Ted Kord isn't moving forward. Cause he's dead. Aside from time-traveling his story ended. Jaime's story is a new one. Jaime's story could have worked just the same if he was called Silver Scarab or Black Bug or whatever. That's not "change" either for the same reasons I mentioned before, unless we are talking about the change of a trademarked name is if it was itself a character.

[SevenSoldier]

You know, I like some legacy heroes. Blue Beetle is probably my favorite DC book right now. But I don't understand why replacing heroes is the same as things moving forward. It isn't. Ted Kord isn't moving forward. Cause he's dead. Aside from time-traveling his story ended. Jaime's story is a new one. Jaime's story could have worked just the same if he was called Silver Scarab or Black Bug or whatever. That's not "change" either for the same reasons I mentioned before, unless we are talking about the change of a trademarked name is if it was itself a character.

It's less about moving forward at this point than an active attempt not to keep going back. What's so important about Ted Kord that he has to be kept alive until the sun swallows the earth? Why is it that Batman needs to keep fighting the Joker until humanity is long since dust? Why do comics fans hate change so much? I know that not all change is good, but is stagnation better than bad change? How long can Batman fight the Joker before even die-hards get sick of it and give up? And what happens to the industry then?

I suppose it has to do with us forming such huge attachments to the characters. Which is natural, I suppose. People do it in every medium. I just don't understand the concept of forming these attachments to the point where we no longer accept that these characters can grow and change. After all, just because Ted is dead doesn't mean that you can't go read your old Ted Kord stories? I still love reading Young Justice, despite the hell-hole those characters have fallen in to. And I know I wouldn't be particularly satisfied if the characters were all magically brought back and de-aged and had their memories wiped of everything that's happened since.

I am speaking this as, very probably, a minority opinion. All I want is good writing, and I think that constantly bringing characters back from the dead is bad writing...and I think that completely ignoring all aspects of life, from death to love to growing up, is bad writing, too.

Ah, finally, the completely correct answer.
Especially the part about "changes/ replacements are okay to a character (s) they don't care about"...

I disagree. I like Ted Kord. I like Ray Palmer a lot. I like Scott Free. I loved The Question. I've also greatly enjoyed Jaime Reyes, Ryan Choi, Shilo Norman, and Renee Montoya. I think it has to do more with why you're reading. If all you want is a good story, you probably won't care about the changes/replacements. If what you're looking for is just that set of stories with that one character over and over, then yes, you are probably right.

[GrundyPants]

Respect paid to the previous hero, a reason why the new guy/gal has taken on their identity and strong writing of the new hero.

That's it really.

I have no issue accepting Jaime as the new Blue Beetle, Montoya as The Question or Wally as Flash amongst others.


WINNAH!!! Exactly. I love me some Renee as she seems very true to Vic's motives and seems to be honoring his memory rather than pooping all over it.

[Herald]

It's less about moving forward at this point than an active attempt not to keep going back. What's so important about Ted Kord that he has to be kept alive until the sun swallows the earth? Why is it that Batman needs to keep fighting the Joker until humanity is long since dust? Why do comics fans hate change so much? I know that not all change is good, but is stagnation better than bad change? How long can Batman fight the Joker before even die-hards get sick of it and give up? And what happens to the industry then?

I suppose it has to do with us forming such huge attachments to the characters. Which is natural, I suppose. People do it in every medium. I just don't understand the concept of forming these attachments to the point where we no longer accept that these characters can grow and change.

There are ways to change without destroying what already exists.
But the DiDio regime will never learn how to do that... :rolleyes:

After all, just because Ted is dead doesn't mean that you can't go read your old Ted Kord stories?

Just because DC ran out of ideas doesn't mean that I'd like to see Ted railroaded into being killed off, and then replaced.

I still love reading Young Justice, despite the hell-hole those characters have fallen in to. And I know I wouldn't be particularly satisfied if the characters were all magically brought back and de-aged and had their memories wiped of everything that's happened since.

I would.

I am speaking this as, very probably, a minority opinion. All I want is good writing, and I think that constantly bringing characters back from the dead is bad writing...and I think that completely ignoring all aspects of life, from death to love to growing up, is bad writing, too.

Going to the bathroom is an aspect of life, too. Anyone other than urination/defecation fetishists want to buy a TPB of nothing but that??

I didn't think so.

Not ALL "aspects of life" need to be covered in what is supposed to be fantasy fiction.

I disagree. I like Ted Kord. I like Ray Palmer a lot. I like Scott Free. I loved The Question. I've also greatly enjoyed Jaime Reyes, Ryan Choi, Shilo Norman, and Renee Montoya. I think it has to do more with why you're reading. If all you want is a good story, you probably won't care about the changes/replacements. If what you're looking for is just that set of stories with that one character over and over, then yes, you are probably right.

And I disagree with your disagreement.

If "all you want is a good story", then the character involved, by definition, is just a secondary concern for you, if it's a concern at all. Therefore, why should someone who thinks the character should come first have to lose their favorite character because of someone who doesn't care about character quite so much anyway?? You can get the good story that is your primary concern from our old favorite as much as any newbie, so, really, you shouldn't even care.

You try to undermine our preference for character with that line about "that set of stories with that one character over and over", which proves to me that you don't get it.

1. If the writers put thought into their work, they can vary the stories better.
Don't want Batman fighting the Joker?? Come up with a new villain!
Constant replacement is NOT the answer.

2. And this is something everyone who prefers story needs to keep in mind:
Tropes Are Not Bad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreNotBad)

To wit:

"There is nothing new under the sun. Including that very statement. And the book (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBible) it comes from. Completely ignoring the possibility that one's favorite show just might not be hewn from the very essence of the universe by Thor himself and placed in the periodic table under Or for 'Originalium' doesn't change the fact that it wasn't."

None of these stories are "NEW!!"
NONE.
EVER.

Always remember that you are just reading the same "7 basic plots of literature" repeated over and over again until the end of time. So, even with a new character, you're really just getting a variation on the usual, anyway.

Therefore, why not let those of us who are more concerned with character have our favorite characters in the same old 7 plots?? And if you happen to be tired of reading it, you can go get your slight variations on the same old 7 plots someplace else.

You like change?? That's great!!
Find a way to make the story variations truly change...

[Caramuru]

It's less about moving forward at this point than an active attempt not to keep going back. What's so important about Ted Kord that he has to be kept alive until the sun swallows the earth? Why is it that Batman needs to keep fighting the Joker until humanity is long since dust? Why do comics fans hate change so much? I know that not all change is good, but is stagnation better than bad change? How long can Batman fight the Joker before even die-hards get sick of it and give up? And what happens to the industry then?

I suppose it has to do with us forming such huge attachments to the characters. Which is natural, I suppose. People do it in every medium. I just don't understand the concept of forming these attachments to the point where we no longer accept that these characters can grow and change. After all, just because Ted is dead doesn't mean that you can't go read your old Ted Kord stories? I still love reading Young Justice, despite the hell-hole those characters have fallen in to. And I know I wouldn't be particularly satisfied if the characters were all magically brought back and de-aged and had their memories wiped of everything that's happened since.

I am speaking this as, very probably, a minority opinion. All I want is good writing, and I think that constantly bringing characters back from the dead is bad writing...and I think that completely ignoring all aspects of life, from death to love to growing up, is bad writing, too.

I would take it further though. What is it that it's so important about the Blue Beetle that we need to see a replacement for him after he dies? Same thing for Batman. Why is it that there must be a Batman is Bruce Wayne is dead or incapacitated? This has less to do with comics fans not dealing well with change than it has to do with them not dealing well with finality. Because someone else becoming Batman if Bruce Wayne dies wouldn't be a change in the character, since Bruce Wayne's story would end, and someone else's story would begin. It's the illusion of change, which emphasizes how the only thing that it's important about the characters are their trademarked names, and maybe also powers and costumes, since they can easily discard the people behind the masks. Replacement heroes can't even be counted anymore as being a shake up of the status quo because the status quo is all about replacement heroes. It's taken for granted that at some point in time all these heroes will have a legacy. The so-called change that is brought about by legacy heroes is actually the reinforcement of the expectations of the readers, who accept change only in their own terms. I used to love the concept of legacy heroes, but grew to despise it because it's a crutch that the companies use to prevent real change that fans would have more trouble accepting.

[vbartilucci]

Nineteen thousand five hundred dollars.

(Johnny Dangerously...great film...)

[Herald]

I would take it further though. What is it that it's so important about the Blue Beetle that we need to see a replacement for him after he dies? Same thing for Batman. Why is it that there must be a Batman is Bruce Wayne is dead or incapacitated? This has less to do with comics fans not dealing well with change than it has to do with them not dealing well with finality. Because someone else becoming Batman if Bruce Wayne dies wouldn't be a change in the character, since Bruce Wayne's story would end, and someone else's story would begin. It's the illusion of change, which emphasizes how the only thing that it's important about the characters are their trademarked names, and maybe also powers and costumes, since they can easily discard the people behind the masks. Replacement heroes can't even be counted anymore as being a shake up of the status quo because the status quo is all about replacement heroes. It's taken for granted that at some point in time all these heroes will have a legacy. The so-called change that is brought about by legacy heroes is actually the reinforcement of the expectations of the readers, who accept change only in their own terms. I used to love the concept of legacy heroes, but grew to despise it because it's a crutch that the companies use to prevent real change that fans would have more trouble accepting.

Another bullseye! This is fake change, not real change.

And one of the major problems with DC is that they've reduced every single character they own to merely their hero names, costume, and power set, as if the ACTUAL PERSON didn't matter in the least!! :rolleyes:

I remember when they announced Jason Rusch's series with "Firestorm is back!" Uhhhh... NO. Jason Rusch is clearly new, so the only thing that was "back!" was the name, the suit, and the powers. (And arguably, not even them, since they wouldn't even get around to killing off Ronnie Raymond in Identity Crisis until 5 months after Jason debuted. :rolleyes:)

If the costume and powers are all that matters to DC, why not just have the empty suits star in the books?? It all amounts to the same thing... :rolleyes:

[ThePinkPeril]

If the replacement hero was named after me! :D

[SouthtownKid]

I would take it further though. What is it that it's so important about the Blue Beetle that we need to see a replacement for him after he dies? Same thing for Batman. Why is it that there must be a Batman is Bruce Wayne is dead or incapacitated? This has less to do with comics fans not dealing well with change than it has to do with them not dealing well with finality. Because someone else becoming Batman if Bruce Wayne dies wouldn't be a change in the character, since Bruce Wayne's story would end, and someone else's story would begin. It's the illusion of change, which emphasizes how the only thing that it's important about the characters are their trademarked names, and maybe also powers and costumes, since they can easily discard the people behind the masks. Replacement heroes can't even be counted anymore as being a shake up of the status quo because the status quo is all about replacement heroes. It's taken for granted that at some point in time all these heroes will have a legacy. The so-called change that is brought about by legacy heroes is actually the reinforcement of the expectations of the readers, who accept change only in their own terms. I used to love the concept of legacy heroes, but grew to despise it because it's a crutch that the companies use to prevent real change that fans would have more trouble accepting.Your post should be stickied at the top of the DC forum.

[GrundyPants]

What is it that it's so important about the Blue Beetle that we need to see a replacement for him after he dies? Same thing for Batman. Why is it that there must be a Batman is Bruce Wayne is dead or incapacitated?

There must be a Batman cos Batman = Dollars.

You point was well thought out though. Kudos!

[GregoryD]

It depends who it is. For example: Batman. If it was Dick that was to become Batman...no problem. He deserves it and is the right choice. But if it was Tim (too young), Jason (villain) or Little Ras (too young and villain), well then we have a problem.

It all depends on who is the replacement.

No. Bruce Wayne MUST be Batman over the long haul. Clark Kent MUST be Superman. Peter Parker MUST be Spiderman.

These 3 are immutable as far as the long term is concerned. Dick can be Batman in the future, he can even be Batman for a short period of time, but he can never truly be Batman in the status quo.

The numbers don't corroborate with the idea that replacing characters is good business. The reason that they're there to be replaced in the first place is that there's enough memorable story and background around them to make it worth the effort to do anything with them. If a writer isn't talented enough to work with what is there, then he isn't talented enough to take bits and pieces of it and create a new character to work with, and he should probably be writing crock pot manuals, not comic books.

[Michael Hawk]

I think the biggest hurdle replacement heroes face is the fans. Every fan is so caught up in their own personal world where comics are their way and no one else's, that DC and Marvel are forced to do one thing that will make one group happy and piss off another group. Just look at the Hal vs. Kyle fiasco or Herlad's rants against current replacement heroes. DC and Marvel will never satisify everyone.

[kamikazi]

No. Bruce Wayne MUST be Batman over the long haul. Clark Kent MUST be Superman. Peter Parker MUST be Spiderman.
I'd read about other people taking up those titles.

[Kikaider]

Reading through the posts on this thread it is fairly evident that some folks "get it", and some folks don't. I would be interested in hearing DC' take on why they do the things they do. I understand the Kill a Hero/ Bringing Back = Sales, but the logic behind the replacement heroes is what baffles me.

[heffison]

No. Bruce Wayne MUST be Batman over the long haul. Clark Kent MUST be Superman. Peter Parker MUST be Spiderman.

These 3 are immutable as far as the long term is concerned. Dick can be Batman in the future, he can even be Batman for a short period of time, but he can never truly be Batman in the status quo.

True, the person behind the mask, and their story for putting it on, is an integral part of the character that fans become attached to. DC acts like it is only the mask and the name, and the Flash costume has probably been the worst abused lately. Even if there was a long term plan to get Bart into the rod, it was horribly executed, and gave the appearance that DC thought all they needed was a fast guy in a red suit to have a Flash comic book.
Does DC know that readers will care who they end up calling "Superboy" once they use the name again? I keep thinking that someone will actually have to point out to DiDio why it can't be Clark Kent in the current Teen Titans. After all, it's the codename that counts, right?
"Aquaman's a guy that talks to fish. Doesn't matter what guy."
"Wonder Woman is a strong chick. Probably has bracelets and a rope."
"Superman's a guy who's really strong and flies and has heat vision. He might have a cool job or something, but as long as he has heat vision, we're good."
No, not so good after all.

[Herowatcher]

Some replacement characters I can accept because they were written with thought and care (think Tim Drake, Wally West, Micheal Holt, Pieter Cross). However, replacements for Ted Kord and Vic Sage (among others) were not. What was the need to off them in a blink of an eye and stick someone new in their place? Makes no sense to me. Today's writers could've given them fresh stories just like Superman, Batman, etc. are having done now.

It worked when Julie Schwarz re launched the Silver Age becasue the DC characters had been out of circulation for ten years AND he tapped in to the Sci Fi zietgeist of the late 1950's. It worked with Wally West because he was already an established hero with very personal connections.. and it was written very, very well. But that kind of magic is rare.This statement is worth repeating. The original JSofA members came from the WWII era (a fixed time period connected to them) and the reason most of their "legacy" replacements are working for me now. Ted Kord and Vic Sage were great characters that didn't need to be killed off and why I see no need for their "replacements" to be permanent.

[johnnyrocket]

No. Bruce Wayne MUST be Batman over the long haul. Clark Kent MUST be Superman. Peter Parker MUST be Spiderman.

These 3 are immutable as far as the long term is concerned. Dick can be Batman in the future, he can even be Batman for a short period of time, but he can never truly be Batman in the status quo.

The numbers don't corroborate with the idea that replacing characters is good business. The reason that they're there to be replaced in the first place is that there's enough memorable story and background around them to make it worth the effort to do anything with them. If a writer isn't talented enough to work with what is there, then he isn't talented enough to take bits and pieces of it and create a new character to work with, and he should probably be writing crock pot manuals, not comic books.


you speak the truthiness.

[monthly fan]

Tons of heroes die or quit and are replaced, but they always come back (e.g. Hal Jordan) what would it take for you to accept a replacement hero permenantly ?

For some, having the previous version come back to life/reclaim the mantle, etc etc.

[SouthtownKid]

However, replacements for ... Vic Sage (among others) were not. What was the need to off them in a blink of an eye and stick someone new in their place?It took a year. That's a hell of a long blink.

Vic Sage, I didn't mind at all...because the O'Neil/Cowan series is one of my favorite DC books of all time, and to be honest, every appearance Vic/Charlie made after about the second Question Quarterly was cheapening it. The 36-issue O'Neil/Cowan series moved the character forward -- NOT cheap change for change's sake -- but ACTUALLY moved the character forward. Unfortunately it moved him forward into a place where he was no longer really usable as a hero character, so they had to start reversing course or flat out ignoring the series. Having him die and pass the identity to a new face allowed the character to exit with dignity before everything good about his DC series was undone.