New characters Vs Old characters

I like both personally. I think new characters are good way to get new readers in. Like the new avengers title. It has a alot new characters. I also like older characters brought back and made slightly cooler and better. Like Luke cage.

As always, it depends on how their written. While I prefer old characters due to the fact that since there is a back story on them already so I can go back and read about them, I don't mind new characters since I find them exciting. My one gripe with old characters is that writers tend to treat continuity like a disease and run screaming from it, and my gripe with new characters is when they make such characters out to be a "Mary Sue" or forcefeed a character no one is interested in on people.

When it comes to superhero books, old characters by default of quality, which is assured and self-evident in that they are a mainstay. Not to say new characters haven't hit it off right away (Jaime Reyes, Simon Dark). But even those examples are only critically acclaimed by readers, not successful. Um, your point on old characters being rehashed or rebooted seems to be the major playing card in DC and MU. I mean, look at Secret Six.

BlueMaxx wrote:When it comes to superhero books, old characters by default of quality, which is assured and self-evident in that they are a mainstay. Not to say new characters haven't hit it off right away (Jaime Reyes, Simon Dark). But even those examples are only critically acclaimed by readers, not successful. Um, your point on old characters being rehashed or rebooted seems to be the major playing card in DC and MU. I mean, look at Secret Six.

like Catman?

Sure, like Catman. He was someone that was attempted to be put up there with at least Catwoman's status, by feeding off of her fame, and then turned into a couch-potato look-a-like, then, finally, into a respectable character that you could get behind. That sounds like something Gail or Nicola...or SuperDoug would say.

But yeah, never cared for Bane and Simone has made him interesting.

I think revitalizing old characters is just as important as creating good new characters. There are so many characters in comic purgatory that just need the right creator and opportunity to shine. Bendis is somebody that has done this really well. Plus at this point in comics, there really isn't much room for purely new and fresh themed characters. Most of the great new characters created today are built off of already established creations. And no matter what, comic fans tend to gravitate to the already well-established characters that they're familiar with so its hard for brand brand new characters to really catch on.

Bigtymin504 wrote: And no matter what, comic fans tend to gravitate to the already well-established characters that they're familiar with so its hard for brand brand new characters to really catch on.

That's true. Even if it is a legacy character. Poor Jaime Reyes. Great character, but everyone is still P.O.'ed over Kord's death. Now he's been cancelled...again.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Bigtymin504 wrote: And no matter what, comic fans tend to gravitate to the already well-established characters that they're familiar with so its hard for brand brand new characters to really catch on.

That's true. Even if it is a legacy character. Poor Jaime Reyes. Great character, but everyone is still P.O.'ed over Kord's death. Now he's been cancelled...again.

Kord was a great character though and his death one of the more tragic ones I've seen in comics. I don't blame people for being irrate over his death because it was unnecessary and done for shock value more than anything. Reyes could have been easily introduced without Kord's death. The scarab that Reyes uses wasn't even working for Kord and was more of a neat artifact at home than anything else really. In short, it was non-essential to his day to day functions. Kord was an integral part of the DCU so it seemed odd and unneceassry to suddenly take him out (Maxwell Lord of all people). I think another thing is that people who grew up with JLI/JLA were familair with him and hated to see him go and people not familiar with him, went back to read about him out of curiosity and found a character that both hilarious and wonderful but riddled with forgivable faults. Overall, he was a great character that got the shaft.

Maxwell Lord was a shadey guy, involved in Checkmate, which is connected to all the shadow-government things, including OMAC. And the connection between the two, Kord being leader of JLI and Lord considering himself to be, makes sense that it would culminate into that confrontation. The guy wasn't given spotlight for years, he dies, and some get irrational. I understand the love of characters. I loved Vic Sage, he died of cancer. Most would consider that a ridiculous way for a comic character to go out, but I thought it was humbling for a character to die so realistically. And then he was replaced by a latina cop, who is also a lesbian. I didn't complain. She's a fantastic, well-written character, just like Jaime Reyes.

But, I will say, that I'd wondered about DC's licensing of the Charlton characters. Being that they've killed off or only have the original characters from Charlton in reference at times, it seems they were running out of the limit, and killed them to maybe get the rights to the mantle by forming an entirely new character. They seemed to do that with Nathaniel Adam (Captain Atom) right off the bat (the original, Charlton one was Allen Adam), although he has Allen's memories in his 80's series. Nightshade seems to be the only one untouched. Maybe because Charlton was fine with fully selling her license without a time-limit or whatever the red-tape may be with the contracts. Speculation, of course.

BlueMaxx wrote:Maxwell Lord was a shadey guy, involved in Checkmate, which is connected to all the shadow-government things, including OMAC. And the connection between the two, Kord being leader of JLI and Lord considering himself to be, makes sense that it would culminate into that confrontation.

Did a confrontation that would have had to result in someone dead have been needed? Did a confrontation that resulted in Lord being a metahuman that has been trying to gain control over Superman for a good long while have been needed? I honestly don't think so. It all seemed very forced. Kord was thrust into the situation because no one would listen to him this time around, thus them having the confrontation they did not make much sense when the past is taken into consideration.

BlueMaxx wrote:The guy wasn't given spotlight for years, he dies, and some get irrational.

Kord had been plenty in the spotlight. Just because he did not share the stage with the likes of Superman does not mean that he was not an integral part of DC at the time and before that. I don't think people were being irrational about their dislike for his death. To suggest that he not being in the spotlight as a justification for his death goes against much of what is being pointed out in this thread. In any case, people were not being irrational about disliking how he died or the fact that he died. he was a perfectly viable character who had multiple uses, who was entangled with many other characters (Oracle, Batman, Booster Gold, to name a few) and whose company has to this day, play a part in many storylines, even if such are mere holdings in such. The character had an impact while alive, and he served, in less serious moments, as a great form of comic relief, something not entirely present in mainstream or in-continuity DCU titles. I think he was a fairly important character without being a frontline company icon. The problem the new Blue Beetle presented is that this was a character who was different in virtually every way and was similar to Kord in superhero name. Everything else was different. Instead of presenting a truly new character, DC killed off someone so they could present another. Aside from rubbing the fans of the old character the wrong way, it was a silly move on DC's part (Hal Jordan and Kyle Raynor come to mind). I did not grow up a Kord fan. I'll be honest, I became aware of him long after his death and realized what a bad move it was for DC to kill him off.

BlueMaxx wrote:I understand the love of characters. I loved Vic Sage, he died of cancer. Most would consider that a ridiculous way for a comic character to go out, but I thought it was humbling for a character to die so realistically. And then he was replaced by a latina cop, who is also a lesbian. I didn't complain. She's a fantastic, well-written character, just like Jaime Reyes.

I've always disliked how they handled that. The new character could have been introduced as her own character, as opposed to being tied to some "what is the answer to the question" schitk that even Vic himself did not ties himself strongly to. Montoya was fine as a seperate character as was Vic. It didn't make sense to kill him off other than as a means to promote Montoya, which is weak story-telling. I don't think it is any coincidence that neither Reyes or Montaya can support a book themselves. This could have been avoided if Dc avoided angering a fanbase to try and make a new one, when a new one could have been created without the alienation of the other fanbase. Common sense tactics simply not followed.

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
Did a confrontation that would have had to result in someone dead have been needed? Did a confrontation that resulted in Lord being a metahuman that has been trying to gain control over Superman for a good long while have been needed? I honestly don't think so. It all seemed very forced. Kord was thrust into the situation because no one would listen to him this time around, thus them having the confrontation they did not make much sense when the past is taken into consideration.

Forced? Man, something had to be the catalyst for the crisis. They chose a conspiracy that breaks out of its secret by choosing a character that correlates well with that theme. And it was, sadly, Ted Kord. His death would echo the future casualties of the crises and other going-ons. Starting a world-destroying event is appropriately started with a death or destruction of someone or something. And they thought a known character would be the way to go. Which, it worked. People took notice. It immersed readers in the event. And, again, it worked for the story, coming to a head like that. No pun intended.

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
I've always disliked how they handled that. The new character could have been introduced as her own character, as opposed to being tied to some "what is the answer to the question" schitk that even Vic himself did not ties himself strongly to. Montoya was fine as a seperate character as was Vic. It didn't make sense to kill him off other than as a means to promote Montoya, which is weak story-telling. I don't think it is any coincidence that neither Reyes or Montaya can support a book themselves. This could have been avoided if Dc avoided angering a fanbase to try and make a new one, when a new one could have been created without the alienation of the other fanbase. Common sense tactics simply not followed.

Vic nor Ted only briefly had ongoings in the 80s, a time where everyone had a comic because publishers could afford it. Something that can't be done today, with sales and publishers focusing more on ads. Montoya taking the controlled path of Vic, I thought, was genius. She was just like Vic used to be, Charles Victor Szasz. He was headstrong, quick to anger, and not focused. So giving her the mantle of The Question, while Vic--who could've lived in Nanda Parbat to sustain his body against the cancer, which was what I thought they were going to do, but didn't--Vic wanted that final question answered, and that worked for his character.

Some readers seem to forget that they aren't creating the stories. I don't exclude myself from this at times, but always try to take in a story for what it is and not what I want it to be. I find it makes the reading more enjoyable. Us comic fans can get very jaded with our entertainment. I think moreso than other mediums.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
Did a confrontation that would have had to result in someone dead have been needed? Did a confrontation that resulted in Lord being a metahuman that has been trying to gain control over Superman for a good long while have been needed? I honestly don't think so. It all seemed very forced. Kord was thrust into the situation because no one would listen to him this time around, thus them having the confrontation they did not make much sense when the past is taken into consideration.

Forced? Man, something had to be the catalyst for the crisis. They chose a conspiracy that breaks out of its secret by choosing a character that correlates well with that theme. And it was, sadly, Ted Kord. His death would echo the future casualties of the crises and other going-ons. Starting a world-destroying event is appropriately started with a death or destruction of someone or something. And they thought a known character would be the way to go. Which, it worked. People took notice. It immersed readers in the event. And, again, it worked for the story, coming to a head like that. No pun intended.

Again, it was a cheap stunt that was unnecessary overall. Considering the number of events that occurred, it could easily have been someone else, anyone less important and it would have had a similar effect. I think it was DC simply banking on the fact that it was a character big enough to attract attention that led to his death. It could be an editor that did not understand the character (Didio and his constant noting of how he wanted Dick Grayson dead--not understanding a character is a poor reason to kill a character anyways) to poor planning. It also does not take away from the fact that Kord's death was a bad move and was handled poorly esecially with the introduction of another Blue Beetle so soon afterwards. It's safe to say that part of Reye's problems with his title has been from the animosity that Kord fans feel towards him. The series had good writing and the characters was a good character in itself. I have a hard time believing that everyone up and went full stupid, so one can imagine that his hand played a part in all of that. Are the feelings irrational? No. Who is to say that one's feeling are irrational, especially when it is based on the fact that both characters can co-exist.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
I've always disliked how they handled that. The new character could have been introduced as her own character, as opposed to being tied to some "what is the answer to the question" schitk that even Vic himself did not ties himself strongly to. Montoya was fine as a seperate character as was Vic. It didn't make sense to kill him off other than as a means to promote Montoya, which is weak story-telling. I don't think it is any coincidence that neither Reyes or Montaya can support a book themselves. This could have been avoided if Dc avoided angering a fanbase to try and make a new one, when a new one could have been created without the alienation of the other fanbase. Common sense tactics simply not followed.

Vic nor Ted only briefly had ongoings in the 80s, a time where everyone had a comic because publishers could afford it. Something that can't be done today, with sales and publishers focusing more on ads. Montoya taking the controlled path of Vic, I thought, was genius. She was just like Vic used to be, Charles Victor Szasz. He was headstrong, quick to anger, and not focused. So giving her the mantle of The Question, while Vic--who could've lived in Nanda Parbat to sustain his body against the cancer, which was what I thought they were going to do, but didn't--Vic wanted that final question answered, and that worked for his character.

Again, there's no reason why they can't co-exist at the same time as different characters. Thanks to JLU, alot of people were aware of The Question. Nobody knew nor cared for Renee who's only real attention grabbing trait was being a near alcoholic lesbian. Yes, the series showed us who she can be, and revealed a complexity of emotions that turned a more or less unfairly made superficial character into something more complex. But we haven't seen that much of that. Outside the Crime Bible, there hasn't been much introspection from her. Her comics read like some parody of Vic's old series. This does a disservice and simply adds to the feelings of her being an inferior Question. A no win situation due to a poorly thought out set-up.

BlueMaxx wrote:
Some readers seem to forget that they aren't creating the stories. I don't exclude myself from this at times, but always try to take in a story for what it is and not what I want it to be. I find it makes the reading more enjoyable. Us comic fans can get very jaded with our entertainment. I think moreso than other mediums.

True, but writers often forget that they are writing for other people and not for themselves. Writing is not a process of throwing stuff together you think is cool and expecting people to like it. It's putting something together that has to keep other people in mind. If you don't take people into consideration, they may feel as if you are force-feeding them a story they don't care for. And how can someone enjoy something if they don't care for it? Yes, comics and such will not have exactly what we want. Natrually. But when the amount of things we don't want or care for outnumber or overwhelm the things we do care for, we get a story we don't like. We get a story that no one wants to read. We get titles that don't sell well enough and get cancelled, maybe twice or even thrice so. Personally, I am pretty distant from comic characters and stories. I don't form emotional attachments, in spite of all my rhetoric and comments. I do take issue with things that don't make sense, though, and alot of things that occurs in comics makes me scratch my head in wonder because often times alot of things they do is silly or unnecessary. I feel alot of how some characters are handled are unnecessary and this hurts some new characters. This is no fault of the fan since the response is natural and rational and easily forseen.

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
Again, there's no reason why they can't co-exist at the same time as different characters. Thanks to JLU, alot of people were aware of The Question. Nobody knew nor cared for Renee who's only real attention grabbing trait was being a near alcoholic lesbian. Yes, the series showed us who she can be, and revealed a complexity of emotions that turned a more or less unfairly made superficial character into something more complex. But we haven't seen that much of that. Outside the Crime Bible, there hasn't been much introspection from her. Her comics read like some parody of Vic's old series. This does a disservice and simply adds to the feelings of her being an inferior Question. A no win situation due to a poorly thought out set-up.

I actually dislike when same characters have the same mantle. Plus, the DCAU Question was more like a lite-note Rorschach, not that he wasn't cool. Renee came from the DCAU, and was written very well in Gotham Central long before she became The Question. Didn't think Crime Bible needed to be more than 3 issues, but I thought it was a worthy story, and Revelations and her backstory in Detective Comics is fun.

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
True, but writers often forget that they are writing for other people and not for themselves. Writing is not a process of throwing stuff together you think is cool and expecting people to like it. It's putting something together that has to keep other people in mind. If you don't take people into consideration, they may feel as if you are force-feeding them a story they don't care for. And how can someone enjoy something if they don't care for it? Yes, comics and such will not have exactly what we want. Natrually. But when the amount of things we don't want or care for outnumber or overwhelm the things we do care for, we get a story we don't like. We get a story that no one wants to read. We get titles that don't sell well enough and get cancelled, maybe twice or even thrice so. Personally, I am pretty distant from comic characters and stories. I don't form emotional attachments, in spite of all my rhetoric and comments. I do take issue with things that don't make sense, though, and alot of things that occurs in comics makes me scratch my head in wonder because often times alot of things they do is silly or unnecessary. I feel alot of how some characters are handled are unnecessary and this hurts some new characters. This is no fault of the fan since the response is natural and rational and easily forseen.

\
Writers do make that mistake. A very big mistake.
But man, that's your opinion against many's enjoyment. How do you know what the readers in general wanted? They thought up a universe encompassing event that was only natural to have happened, being that DC is renowned for its Crises. Savor the character. Not everything last forever anyways. I mean, the character'll live on due to the fact that he's part of history. It's not like a cool concept is gone, it just came to an end/changed. I'd rather see fresh idea than fadeout or burning away. Which is usually the problem with entertainment. Milking something for all it's worth. The goal of Blue Beetle's death didn't come off as cheap death, but as a to upset the reader. "A good, wholesome character has just been murdered! What does this mean for everyone else?" That's, in a nutshell, the reaction they wanted and recieved. Not too bad of writing, I'd say. Is it shock-writing, weak writing, good writing. Subjective, but it sold and people ate up that event. I personally enjoyed I.C. And Countdown to I.C.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Dr. Wade Fucking McNasty wrote:
True, but writers often forget that they are writing for other people and not for themselves. Writing is not a process of throwing stuff together you think is cool and expecting people to like it. It's putting something together that has to keep other people in mind. If you don't take people into consideration, they may feel as if you are force-feeding them a story they don't care for. And how can someone enjoy something if they don't care for it? Yes, comics and such will not have exactly what we want. Natrually. But when the amount of things we don't want or care for outnumber or overwhelm the things we do care for, we get a story we don't like. We get a story that no one wants to read. We get titles that don't sell well enough and get cancelled, maybe twice or even thrice so. Personally, I am pretty distant from comic characters and stories. I don't form emotional attachments, in spite of all my rhetoric and comments. I do take issue with things that don't make sense, though, and alot of things that occurs in comics makes me scratch my head in wonder because often times alot of things they do is silly or unnecessary. I feel alot of how some characters are handled are unnecessary and this hurts some new characters. This is no fault of the fan since the response is natural and rational and easily forseen.

\
Writers do make that mistake. A very big mistake.
But man, that's your opinion against many's enjoyment. How do you know what the readers in general wanted? They thought up a universe encompassing event that was only natural to have happened, being that DC is renowned for its Crises. Savor the character. Not everything last forever anyways. I mean, the character'll live on due to the fact that he's part of history. It's not like a cool concept is gone, it just came to an end/changed. I'd rather see fresh idea than fadeout or burning away. Which is usually the problem with entertainment. Milking something for all it's worth. The goal of Blue Beetle's death didn't come off as cheap death, but as a to upset the reader. "A good, wholesome character has just been murdered! What does this mean for everyone else?" That's, in a nutshell, the reaction they wanted and recieved. Not too bad of writing, I'd say. Is it shock-writing, weak writing, good writing. Subjective, but it sold and people ate up that event. I personally enjoyed I.C. And Countdown to I.C.

This is why I don't have any emotional attachment to characters these days. The good thing about fiction is that what was done can be undone. I still feel that Kord's death was more or less unnecessary. His continued death is furthermore pointless since his initial death has served its "purpose". Yes, there are ramifications of the actions taken, but there are ramifications of Barry Allen's actions as well that lead to his death or Hal Jordan's. In short, killing off Kord to begin with seemed cheap stunt given how it was handled. And then, giving his title to Reyes when he could have been a seperate character all to himself, seemed like a bad move overall and didn't really serve any purpose in itself. This harkens back to what you said earlier about characters and mantles: I am different in that I prefer the same characters to the same mantles mostly because I don't see mantles as mantles but as who they are. I don't see someone else becoming Reed Richards. There is only one. The title of Mr. Fantastic is as his as his own name. Much how I see Superman, Batman, and so forth. The whole comparing oneself to the original holder seems fairly hackneyed since it has been done to death, even if they keep trotting out new characters for this.

^ Aren't you contradicting yourself? Wouldn't that be a cheap(er) stunt by bringing ANOTHER comicbook character back to life? I think he should definitely RIP. I mean, Booster Gold/Rip Hunter know he's not able to come back, it seems (or maybe Rip does know, and that's why he wanted to get Ted back as soon as possible, unlike keeping him around like Michelle). They've went through enough goodbye's in that title alone. Then again, Brightest Day is happening. I honestly doubt Ted'll be back, but who knows. I hope not.

BlueMaxx wrote:^ Aren't you contradicting yourself? Wouldn't that be a cheap(er) stunt by bringing ANOTHER comicbook character back to life? I think he should definitely RIP. I mean, Booster Gold/Rip Hunter know he's not able to come back, it seems (or maybe Rip does know, and that's why he wanted to get Ted back as soon as possible, unlike keeping him around like Michelle). They've went through enough goodbye's in that title alone. Then again, Brightest Day is happening. I honestly doubt Ted'll be back, but who knows. I hope not.

Bringing someone back to life is not a cheap stunt (generally). Whether or not something is a cheap stunt is dependeant on the story and if everything makes sense or is being done for lulz. People say things like that because they dislike people being brought back to life, forgetting that the comic book medium is one of fiction built on fantasy, thus coming back from death should not surprise nor bother anyone. So no, I'm not contradicting myself. In Kord's case, his death was one that could have played out much the same way with anyone else of JLI fame. That would have been contingent on Maxwell Lord turning villain, a move that in itself has been debated by people as to why it even occurred in the first place other than to make a story work, not that it made sense. Add that people ignoring Kord and not even bothering to look into his claims, despite his pleas, despite his connections, despite being attacked twice before going after Lord and the heroes being well aware of these fairly uncharacteristic attacks, despite Kord going off half-cocked without any back-up or a decent contingency plan, it's hard not to look at this and think that alot of it was mere stunts made to grab people's attention as opposed to more logical story-telling. Logical story-telling has thrilling points where they make sense and everything, from motivations to purposes, makes sense. This was not the case with Kord's death. It only made sense when ignoring os many other things. That's one of the reasons why I feel Kord's death was cheap. As for Brightest Day or Kord being brought back, I never hinged any hope on that. Look how long it took them to bring back Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, or even Ollie Queen. They were easily higher market, higher tier, greater following characters and DC dragged their feet withthem. Even Superman and Batman took a long time out, so I'm not holding my breath for anything. I'd be better off waiting for Reyes to bite it tha nanything, seeing how he can't sustain a title and is not very appealing in Teen Titans either.
In any case, we'll agree to disagree, since I don't want this to go on forever.

^ Can't vouch for Teen Titans, and the backstory and crossover in Booster Gold was just so-so, but the main title was great. Lasted 3 years. While in the eyes of fans, that's way too short, in the whole of comics' ongoings, that's a successful series.

But yeah, will agree to disagree. We've basically looped back with these two last posts.