DC needs to develop new characters
black...@aol.com
Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
like Dick Grayson becoming Batman. Once in a great while DC will
develop a totally new character, but then immediately start that
character off with their own series, which usually fails after 12-24
issues. How about developing some new heroes? Batman, Superman, and
Wonder Woman may be able to be published in perpetuity, but eventually
people get tired of the other heroes. The Golden Age Green Lantern and
Flash titles were canceled due to poor sales. Sales were so poor with
their replacements that Barry Allen "died" and Hal Jordan went crazy.
Then the public got bored again and Kyle and Wally were out and Barry
and Hal were back in. The point is that Flash, Green Lantern, and most
of the other characters are not as strong as Batman and Superman. At
some point you run out of interesting stories and have to resort to
gimmicks. DC needs new heroes and has to stop relying on the same old
characters again and again. It works with the Big Three, but that's
it. Bring back More Fun Comics or Adventure Comics with five stories,
five pages each, every month of all new heroes. Some will be great,
some will be terrible. But you could very well find the next Flash or
Green Lantern instead of reinventing the wheel.
Duggy
> DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
> Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
> Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
> like Dick Grayson becoming Batman.
DC produces many, many completely new characters.
However, people prefer the familar elements and are more likely to buy
them.
You'd have to be a moron not to know that.
===
= DUG.
===
Marty
Hmm, what original characters created in the last 25 years or so have
actually stuck around?
Offhand, I can only think of Lobo, Hitman and maybe Magog.
Actually, is Hitman still alive?
Sean MacDonald
.
> How about developing some new heroes?
You've answered your own question. You know why DC doesn't bother?
Read what you wrote:
> Once in a great while DC will
> develop a totally new character, but then immediately start that
> character off with their own series, which usually fails after 12-24
> issues
Why should DC invest time and effort into characters that are doomed
to fail since nobody will be interested in them?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I think the key point here is the "but".
You don't throw new characters out there in their own books and hope
people will be pick it up without knowing anything about them. You have
them guest-star in Superman, you feature them in Brave and the Bold,
maybe you make them a second feature in a popular (and thematically
related) bookp. And once the readers think "Yes, I like this guy", *then*
you give them their own book.
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
grinningdemon
One of the things that makes DC (and Marvel, to an extent) stand out
is interconnectivity of their universe...while I don't necessarily
appreciate the constant replacement characters, I do like that most of
the characters are connected to each other in various ways...DC has
got a ton of characters so I prefer they hold off on creating new ones
for when they genuinely have a good idea...to me, that is far more
preferable to seeing them toss out new character after new character
due to some editorial policy and watching the vast majority of them
fail and end up as cannon fodder in the next big event.
Have you forgotten Bloodlines? Out of all those characters created
that year, only ONE of them (Hitman) was any good and amounted to
anything...Marvel actually did something similar with their annuals
around that time and NONE of those went anywhere.
grinningdemon
No...but he still appears from time to time...incidentally, Magog
isn't alive either.
Mike Hall
> Have you forgotten Bloodlines? Out of all those characters created
> that year, only ONE of them (Hitman) was any good and amounted to
> anything...Marvel actually did something similar with their annuals
> around that time and NONE of those went anywhere.
Hitman was a crap character written brilliantly. Garth Ennis could
have changed Booster Gold into a critically-acclaimed favourite at
that time in his career.
Mike Hall
Bill Steele
<61eae743-f20d-40b4...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
"black...@aol.com" <black...@aol.com> wrote:
> The Golden Age Green Lantern and
> Flash titles were canceled due to poor sales
Nearly the whole comics business went down in the 50s. It wasn't the
fault of GL or Flash. They were just as interesting, but people only had
enough time and money for the big three.
There was also a sort of sociological shift: During WWIIm there was a
lot of bad stuff going on. We needed fantasies where someone bigger,
stronger, faster would come and save us, where the bad guys would always
lose. After the war everyone was optimistic. We didn't need
superheroes, we could do it ourselves with technology. Ordinary humans
could fly and swim underwater and whatever. Comic publishers changed to
human stories: Westerns, romance, war, etc. Kept the trademarks but
changed the insides. Johnny Thunder became a gunslinger. The big three
were, fortunately, just big enough to survive all that. Then came the
cold war and we needed help again, and the Silver Age started.
Apparently we haven't had an optimistic time since.
plausible prose man
> In article
> <61eae743-f20d-40b4-b273-ee1eac3e5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "blackje...@aol.com" <blackje...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The Golden Age Green Lantern and
> > Flash titles were canceled due to poor sales
>
> Nearly the whole comics business went down in the 50s.
Maybe, but superheroes fell out of popularity somewhat before that,
to be replaced by funny animal, teen humor, and especially crime and
horror.
> It wasn't the
> fault of GL or Flash. They were just as interesting, but people only had
> enough time and money for the big three.
The Crypt Keeper, Mr. Crime, and...who's the third?
> There was also a sort of sociological shift: During WWIIm there was a
> lot of bad stuff going on. We needed fantasies where someone bigger,
> stronger, faster would come and save us, where the bad guys would always
> lose. After the war everyone was optimistic.
RIght, and our comics reflected that optimism, like the one where the
mean baseball player poisons the star player on a rival team, and
horrible revenge is taken...
> We didn't need
> superheroes, we could do it ourselves with technology. Ordinary humans
> could fly and swim underwater and whatever. Comic publishers changed to
> human stories: Westerns, romance, war, etc. Kept the trademarks but
> changed the insides. Johnny Thunder became a gunslinger. The big three
> were, fortunately, just big enough to survive all that. Then came the
> cold war and we needed help again, and the Silver Age started.
You know, and there was sort of a law that no comic could be more
interesting than a Shelly Mouldoff Batman.
plausible prose man
John Constantine? Oracle's more or less a new character, uh...
black...@aol.com
newspaper strip character a feature in Action Comics. DC then had Bob
Kane develop Batman to capitalize on Superman's success and put him in
Detective Comics, #27 of course. Who knows where the next successful
character might come from?
Scott Eiler
> Bring back More Fun Comics or Adventure Comics with five stories,
> five pages each, every month of all new heroes. Some will be great,
> some will be terrible. But you could very well find the next Flash or
> Green Lantern instead of reinventing the wheel.
I think anthology comic books have fairly been rejected by the market.
An alternative is a team comic book with rotating members. I like
Marvel's "Avengers: The Initiative" for that reason.
Warewolf
bb30-004...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:
If it's Usenet, I'd be surprised. ^_^
There are a lot of 'parts' you could use to build a character but it would
take a good story and a healthy spot on the retail shelf for it to be even
a moderate success.
*remembers quite a few independent comix he found in the bargain bins*
Besides, isn't there a comic named 'Zipper Girl and Buttons' already? ~_^
Signed,
Warewolf
who would have suggested 'Hanshin Senshi Akuma-Jo' as a last resort.
'I am Sailor Moon and I'm gonna kick your ass!!'
grinningdemon
Constantine is a good call...but Oracle? She's a new spin on an old
Batgirl...not exactly an original character...there are tons of
characters that have changed roles like this over the years...hell
just in the Batman family alone, you've got 4 different Robins who
have come and gone and now taken up new identities (or, in Spoiler's
case, reverted to an old one).
Duggy
> John Constantine?
Who first appeared in Swamp Thing.
> Oracle's more or less a new character, uh...
Really?
===
= DUG.
===
plausible prose man
> On Jul 29, 8:23 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > John Constantine?
>
> Who first appeared in Swamp Thing.
Right, okay, and is now out of universe altogether, they don't even
have him as chicken fat in Shadowpact, but...you know, he does have a
book they're still publishing.
> > Oracle's more or less a new character, uh...
>
> Really?
I wouldn't complain if you wanted to call Nightwing a new character,
either.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:23:33 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
>
>
>
>
> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 28, 6:42 am, Marty <killhalag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 28 July, 09:00, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 28, 5:52 pm, "blackje...@aol.com" <blackje...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
> >> > > Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
> >> > > Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
> >> > > like Dick Grayson becoming Batman.
>
> >> > DC produces many, many completely new characters.
>
> >> > However, people prefer the familar elements and are more likely to buy
> >> > them.
>
> >> > You'd have to be a moron not to know that.
>
> >> Hmm, what original characters created in the last 25 years or so have
> >> actually stuck around?
>
> >> Offhand, I can only think of Lobo, Hitman and maybe Magog.
>
> > John Constantine? Oracle's more or less a new character, uh...
>
> Constantine is a good call...but Oracle? She's a new spin on an old
> Batgirl...not exactly an original character.
Yeah, hence my "more or less."
>..there are tons of
> characters that have changed roles like this over the years.
Sure, there's Hellcat and The Vision, over at the other guys. If our
main experience of Archie Andrews was in a less cheesy version of
Captain Pureheart, well, I'd call him a new character, too.
Certainly, if I wanted to read a Batgirl comic, and you gave me that
Oracle mini, I'd be unsatisfied.
>..hell
> just in the Batman family alone, you've got 4 different Robins who
> have come and gone and now taken up new identities (or, in Spoiler's
> case, reverted to an old one).-
As I mentioned earlier, if you wanted to call Nightwing a new
character, I wouldn't complain about that, either, as he's very
distinctive from short-pants Robin. If Speedy had stayed Arsenal, I
might've mentioned that, but I don't think "Red Arrow" is different
enough.
grinningdemon
I'm not saying characters changing roles like that isn't
distinctive...but it doesn't make them original or "new"
characters...they've just evolved over the years...and some of them
aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
isn't all that different than he was as Robin...certainly not as he
was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
parameters of this thread.
dmer...@email.toast.net
>>
>> > DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
>> > Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
>> > Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
>> > like Dick Grayson becoming Batman.
>
> actually stuck around?
You're changing the bar. Your original question was "Why doesn't DC
create original characters?". Now you've changed that to "Why doesn't
DC create original *successful* characters?".
DC creates lots of original characters. Making them successful is
another matter entirely. It's a hit-or-miss process; the writers
*try* to make each new character interesting, but success is
determined by the readers. A writer can't simply make a new character
as popular as Superman on demand; they would if they could.
Some new characters are deservedly forgotten, some of them *should*
have caught on but didn't, and a small few become permanent.
Off the top of my head, here are a few of the new characters
introduced in the last 25 years:
- Secret
- Empress
- The Veteran
- Warlock's Daughter
- Booster Gold and Blue Devil fit into your 25-year limit... barely
- Tim Hunter
- The Will Payton Starman
- You mentioned Hitman, but what about the other characters from
"Bloodlines"? ("Bloodlines" was a mega-event that, among other
things, created a bunch of new characters in the hopes that some
would become popular. Most were quickly forgotten, but you can't
say DC wasn't trying.)
- Crazy Jane, and all the other characters created by the Gene Bomb in
"Invasion". ("Invasion" was a mega-event that, among other things,
created a bunch of new char... Wait, didn't I just say that?)
- The New Guardians, from "Millenium". ("Millenium" was a mega-event
that, among other things, created... OH COME ON!)
- The characters created by the god-wave in "Genesis". ("Genesis" was
a mega... ah, crap.)
- Traci 13
- Spoiler
- Misfit
- The cast of Young Heroes in Love
- All the Milestone characters: Static, Icon, Hardware, etc.
Milestone was an imprint owned by DC, and those characters have
recently been imported into the DCU proper.
- From the Legion: Gates and Gizelle pop to mind, but I'm sure that a
Legion-phile could come up with a lot more.
- Resurrection Man
- Aztek
- Tomorrow Woman
- Zauriel
- Cameron Chase
...And that's probably just scratching the surface.
-- Dan Merget
plausible prose man
I think it does, actually. You know, legally. If the copyright was
about to run out on Robin, aging him ten years and calling him
Nightwing and moving him to a new city to fight new villains in a new
book would give you a new set of copyrights
>....they've just evolved over the years
Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
Rene Montoya, except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
>...and some of them
> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
>...certainly not as he
> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
> parameters of this thread.
Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
Duggy
The question referenced "creating a new character and making him [a
new version of an old character].... make him part of the
[an existing character's "family"]... promote an existing character to
a new post...
Oracle and Nightwing fail on two of those.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> - Secret
Titan family.
> - Empress
Titan family.
> - The Veteran
Dunno.
> - Warlock's Daughter
Worlock's family, I guess.
> - Booster Gold and
He got 25 issues didn't he? I know no-brain said 12 - 25 but 12 or 25
is more common. He's only stuck since then because he's been pushed
into other things to keep him afloat.
> Blue Devil fit into your 25-year limit... barely
See Booster.
> - Tim Hunter
An origin with how many guest appearence?
> - The Will Payton Starman
New version of an old character.
> - You mentioned Hitman, but what about the other characters from
> "Bloodlines"? ("Bloodlines" was a mega-event that, among other
> things, created a bunch of new characters in the hopes that some
> would become popular. Most were quickly forgotten, but you can't
> say DC wasn't trying.)
Chuck forced the Cyber-Rats into... everything he wrote.
That lightning chick was in Superboy and the Ravers...
> - Crazy Jane, and all the other characters created by the Gene Bomb in
> "Invasion". ("Invasion" was a mega-event that, among other things,
> created a bunch of new char... Wait, didn't I just say that?)
Yeah... DC does this too often and creates too many junk characters
that way.
> - The New Guardians, from "Millenium". ("Millenium" was a mega-event
> that, among other things, created... OH COME ON!)
> - The characters created by the god-wave in "Genesis". ("Genesis" was
> a mega... ah, crap.)
> - Traci 13
> - Spoiler
Batman family.
> - Misfit
> - The cast of Young Heroes in Love
Creator owned so we won't see them again. Plus 12 - 24 issues... give
or take 1000000.
> - All the Milestone characters: Static, Icon, Hardware, etc.
> Milestone was an imprint owned by DC, and those characters have
> recently been imported into the DCU proper.
That and the Red Circle thing was a bad move IMHO. Should have given
them one of the 52 Earths each and given them there own continuity.
> - From the Legion: Gates and Gizelle pop to mind, but I'm sure that a
> Legion-phile could come up with a lot more.
Kinetix. XS.
Legion Family.
> - Resurrection Man
25 issues give or take 1000000.
> - Aztek
25 issues.
> - Tomorrow Woman
JLA family. Two issues.
> - Zauriel
JLA family.
> - Cameron Chase
25 issues.
> ...And that's probably just scratching the surface.
Note... I don't literally mean 25 issues, but rather their solo stuff
lasted two years or less...
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
Not created by DC...
> Rene Montoya,
Not created by DC.
> except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
> Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
> character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
> seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
> acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
Lets answer the original question and not make up our own.
===
= DUG.
===
Unknown
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:035ea2e8-a76e-4b58...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
> Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
Plus, Harvey first appeared in 1974. Not exactly new.
grinningdemon
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm not saying characters changing roles like that isn't
>> distinctive...but it doesn't make them original or "new"
>> characters
>
> I think it does, actually. You know, legally. If the copyright was
>about to run out on Robin, aging him ten years and calling him
>Nightwing and moving him to a new city to fight new villains in a new
>book would give you a new set of copyrights
Legally, perhaps...but creatively? The topic here is clearly about
the creative side of things and I don't believe the change from Robin
to Nightwing constitutes a new character.
>
>>....they've just evolved over the years
>
> Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
>know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
>Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
>Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
That's an extreme case of a character totally reinvented...it's not
the same as an established character evolving into a new role that is
still totally in line with his/her characterization...that said, under
teh criteria laid out by the original poster here, Hellcat wouldn't
count as a new character either...as she was derrived from another.
>
> Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
>Rene Montoya, except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
Of course there have been some over the years...although I'd say it's
important to note that each these three started out as supporting
characters and have been so for most of the time they've been
around...none of them were really created to be stars in their own
right...that said, I think, at this point, this is by far the best
approach to take rather than immediately establishing a totally new
and independent character and tossing him/her into the deep end with
their own series.
>
>>...and some of them
>> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
>> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
>
> He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
It's more than that...the only real difference is the costume.
>
>>...certainly not as he
>> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
>> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
>> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
>> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
>> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
>> parameters of this thread.
>
> Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
>character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
>seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
>acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
Nightwing acts pretty much the same as he did as Robin...it's pretty
hard to establish your criteria when most of the examples you give
seem to contradict each other.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 4:27�pm, dmerg...@email.toast.net wrote:
>> - Secret
>Titan family.
Actually, it was Young Justice...but I don't think merely being a
member of one of these teams is enough to make them unoriginal...this
character is not a new version of any older character and isn't even
connected to any other previous DC character...she only happens to be
a member of team (that she actually kind of founded)...I dont' think
this should be enough to disqualify.
>
>> - Empress
>Titan family.
Same as above.
>
>> - The Veteran
>Dunno.
Basically, a cross between Captain America and Nick Fury...but new to
DC...if we start disqualifying characters that were ripped off from
other publishers we really won't have anything left.
>
>> - Warlock's Daughter
>Worlock's family, I guess.
Warlock was a villain created right around the same time...in fact,
it's possible that Warlock's Daughter (or, rather, the character who
would become Warlock's Daughter) actually appeared first...I'd have to
check.
>
>> - Booster Gold and
>
>He got 25 issues didn't he? I know no-brain said 12 - 25 but 12 or 25
>is more common. He's only stuck since then because he's been pushed
>into other things to keep him afloat.
>
>> Blue Devil fit into your 25-year limit... barely
>
>See Booster.
>
>> - Tim Hunter
>
>An origin with how many guest appearence?
So now a character doesn't count as new or original if there are guest
appearances in his origin story? Come on.
>
>> - The Will Payton Starman
>
>New version of an old character.
Agreed...he shouldn't count...but, name aside, there is no connection
to the previous incarnation(s).
>
>> - You mentioned Hitman, but what about the other characters from
>> � "Bloodlines"? �("Bloodlines" was a mega-event that, among other
>> � things, created a bunch of new characters in the hopes that some
>> � would become popular. �Most were quickly forgotten, but you can't
>> � say DC �wasn't trying.)
>
>Chuck forced the Cyber-Rats into... everything he wrote.
>That lightning chick was in Superboy and the Ravers...
Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
>
>> - Crazy Jane, and all the other characters created by the Gene Bomb in
>> � "Invasion". �("Invasion" was a mega-event that, among other things,
>> � created a bunch of new char... Wait, didn't I just say that?)
>
>Yeah... DC does this too often and creates too many junk characters
>that way.
Same with Marvel.
>
>> - The New Guardians, from "Millenium". �("Millenium" was a mega-event
>> � that, among other things, created... OH COME ON!)
>> - The characters created by the god-wave in "Genesis". �("Genesis" was
>> � a mega... ah, crap.)
>> - Traci 13
>> - Spoiler
>
>Batman family.
I would consider her an original for the same reasons as Secret and
Empress...even though she is Cluemaster's daughter...same with others
below that you disqualify just for being in the Legion or JLA.
>
>> - Misfit
>> - The cast of Young Heroes in Love
>
>Creator owned so we won't see them again. Plus 12 - 24 issues... give
>or take 1000000.
>
>> - All the Milestone characters: Static, Icon, Hardware, etc.
>> � Milestone was an imprint owned by DC, and those characters have
>> � recently been imported into the DCU proper.
>
>That and the Red Circle thing was a bad move IMHO. Should have given
>them one of the 52 Earths each and given them there own continuity.
I couldn't agree more...now we're going to get these characters forced
into other DC books in an attempt to make them fit in...and stories
will suffer for it.
>
>> - From the Legion: Gates and Gizelle pop to mind, but I'm sure that a
>> � Legion-phile could come up with a lot more.
>
>Kinetix. XS.
>
>Legion Family.
>
>> - Resurrection Man
>
>25 issues give or take 1000000.
>
>> - Aztek
>
>25 issues.
Actually, I think it was only 12.
>
>> - Tomorrow Woman
>
>JLA family. Two issues.
>
>> - Zauriel
>
>JLA family.
>
>> - Cameron Chase
>
>25 issues.
Only 9 or 10, actually (too bad, really...that was a good book)...but
she's been popping up all over since and was most recently a regular
in Manhunter.
>
>> ...And that's probably just scratching the surface.
>
>Note... I don't literally mean 25 issues, but rather their solo stuff
>lasted two years or less...
Well then...that will teach me to read through the whole post before I
respond.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 7:26�pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> �Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
>
>Not created by DC...
>
>> Rene Montoya,
>
>Not created by DC.
>
>> except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
>
>Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
I think he did headline a couple of GCPD mini series back in the
90s...but he's pretty much just a supporting character.
>
>> �Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
plausible prose man
I thought that question was incoherent, since he's on the one hand
complaining about the way DC at least occasionally introduces minor,
evolutionary changes that eventually add up to new characters, and
then complaining that when they do it another way it generally doesn't
work out.
and I don't think Oracle and Nightwing are quite "new versions of old
characters" the way he ment it, I think he had something more in mind
like Stargirl. One would be a character we have seen before assumes a
new identity, another would be a character we haven't seen before
assuming an earlier character's ID and wearing a derivative costume or
carrying a related weapon.
plausible prose man
Make up your mind, Duggy. Do you want that, or do you want:
plausible prose man
> On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
>
> Not created by DC...
>
> > Rene Montoya,
>
> Not created by DC.
Created under license in DC adaptations, all associated rights
belonging to DC...I mean,they sure aren't Marvels, are they?
> > except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
>
> Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
Does DC have more than ten non-support characters?
> > Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
> > character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
> > seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
> > acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
>
> Lets answer the original question
The original question's pretty well answered: DC tries to create new
characters all the time. They mostly fail. Comic fans mainly want to
see the same characters doing the same things in the same stories
they've been reading and hate new things. Look at the way you guys
talk about something like Hawkworld. Which are you more interested in?
A totally new team is going to do a totally new book, unconnected to
current continuity or the on-going DC Universe, or mostly so: The
Mighty, Dead Romeo A totally new team is going to provide some fresh
new take on an existing character: John Byrne's Doom Patrol reboot,
the upcoming Doom Patrol comic, that Warlord mess from a year and
change ago.
A creative team or some portion thereof is going to revisit a
character he had a classic run on? Mike Grell's new Warlord book?
plausible prose man
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> >> I'm not saying characters changing roles like that isn't
> >> distinctive...but it doesn't make them original or "new"
> >> characters
>
> > I think it does, actually. You know, legally. If the copyright was
> >about to run out on Robin, aging him ten years and calling him
> >Nightwing and moving him to a new city to fight new villains in a new
> >book would give you a new set of copyrights
>
> Legally, perhaps...but creatively?
I can't really predict that in advance. it is possible such changes
would inspire a new creative team to do stories that sever the link
between an old and new version of a character. Did you ever think
about Len Wein and Berni Wrightson when reading Alan Moore and Bisette
and Totleben's run on Swamp Thing?
> > Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
> >know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
> >Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
> >Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
>
> That's an extreme case of a character totally reinvented...it's not
> the same as an established character evolving into a new role that is
> still totally in line with his/her characterization...that said, under
> teh criteria laid out by the original poster here,
I think that's overly restrictive, don't you? Especially in light of
the way he seems to believe DC deliberately sabotages new characters.
> >>...and some of them
> >> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
> >> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
>
> > He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
>
> It's more than that...the only real difference is the costume.
You know, and he's ten or so years older, and you can tell "getting
out from under the shadow of the bat" stories that you can't with
Robin, and really, if you wanted to, you could sever all ties to
Batman.
> >>...certainly not as he
> >> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
> >> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
> >> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
> >> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
> >> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
> >> parameters of this thread.
>
> > Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
> >character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
> >seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
> >acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
>
> Nightwing acts pretty much the same as he did as Robin
I haven't heard him tell a bad pun in a long time.
dmer...@email.toast.net
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>> - Secret
>>Titan family.
>
> Actually, it was Young Justice...but I don't think merely being a
> member of one of these teams is enough to make them unoriginal...this
> character is not a new version of any older character and isn't even
> connected to any other previous DC character...she only happens to be
> a member of team (that she actually kind of founded)...I dont' think
> this should be enough to disqualify.
Exactly what I was about to say.
I'll take it one step further. Lobo has been used several times as an
example of a new character from the last 25 years. But Lobo was
created as a supporting character in Omega Men. Nobody says, "Lobo
doesn't count because he's part of the Omega Men family".
Sure, it helps that Lobo is still popular while the Omega Men are on
the far back burner. But that cuts both ways. If "The Secret" is the
most popular comic in 2029, nobody will dismiss her simply because she
started as a supporting character in Young Justice.
>>> - The Will Payton Starman
>>
>>New version of an old character.
>
> Agreed...he shouldn't count...but, name aside, there is no connection
> to the previous incarnation(s).
The fact that he had no connection to previous characters named
Starman (except in later retcons) is why I think he does count as
original. Unlike, say, the Jack Knight Starman, who was derived from
the Ted Knight Starman.
There were two other characters named "Starfire" before Koriand'r came
along, but that doesn't mean she was a new version of those
characters. She was a completely original character who had the same
name.
I think there's just something about the name Star<noun> that clicks
with people. At least if you don't push it too hard -- we probably
won't see "Starwalrus" any time soon. But if the name sounds good,
and nobody's using it at the moment, it's bound to get snatched. And
re-snatched, and re-re-snatched, and so on until it gets taken by
someone with enough staying power to make it their own.
>>> - You mentioned Hitman, but what about the other characters from
>>> ? "Bloodlines"? ?("Bloodlines" was a mega-event that, among other
>>> ? things, created a bunch of new characters in the hopes that some
>>> ? would become popular. ?Most were quickly forgotten, but you can't
>>> ? say DC ?wasn't trying.)
>>
>>Chuck forced the Cyber-Rats into... everything he wrote.
>>That lightning chick was in Superboy and the Ravers...
>
> Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
True.
But my point was that DC is *trying* to create new popular characters,
which is what the original basenote said wasn't happening. For the
most part, they try and fail. But they do try. A lot. There are at
least as many attempts at "character creation" as they would get with
an anthology comic, which is what the basenote suggested to solve the
problem of "no new characters".
>>> - From the Legion: Gates and Gizelle pop to mind, but I'm sure that a
>>> ? Legion-phile could come up with a lot more.
>>
>>Kinetix. XS.
I didn't count XS because she was introduced as Flash's granddaughter,
and shared his powers. IMHO, that makes her a derivative character.
Moreso than the Will Payton Starman, at any rate.
Kinetix was a good example. I forgot about her.
- Dan Merget
grinningdemon
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 3:37�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>>
>> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm not saying characters changing roles like that isn't
>> >> distinctive...but it doesn't make them original or "new"
>> >> characters
>>
>> > I think it does, actually. You know, legally. If the copyright was
>> >about to run out on Robin, aging him ten years and calling him
>> >Nightwing and moving him to a new city to fight new villains in a new
>> >book would give you a new set of copyrights
>>
>> Legally, perhaps...but creatively?
>
> I can't really predict that in advance. it is possible such changes
>would inspire a new creative team to do stories that sever the link
>between an old and new version of a character. Did you ever think
>about Len Wein and Berni Wrightson when reading Alan Moore and Bisette
>and Totleben's run on Swamp Thing?
So now you want to call Alan Moore's Swamp Thing a different character
than the original? Let me get this straight...anytime a new creator
comes on board and takes a character in a different direction it
constitutes a new character? Have you totally lost it?
Swamp Thing is still the same character...Alan Moore took what came
before and moved on to something new...he certainly made big changes
but he didn't just ignore everything that came before...and the basic
concept of the character remains largely unchanged.
>
>
>> > Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
>> >know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
>> >Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
>> >Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
>>
>> That's an extreme case of a character totally reinvented...it's not
>> the same as an established character evolving into a new role that is
>> still totally in line with his/her characterization...that said, under
>> teh criteria laid out by the original poster here,
>
> I think that's overly restrictive, don't you? Especially in light of
>the way he seems to believe DC deliberately sabotages new characters.
Even if his criteria are overly restrictive, even a basic
understanding of this topic would preclude characters like Nightwing
or Oracle from consideration here...in both cases, they are old
characters in new roles...the key word here is "old"...this does not
make them all together new characters...and certainly not
original...surely you understand that.
>
>
>
>> >>...and some of them
>> >> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
>> >> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
>>
>> > He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
>>
>> It's more than that...the only real difference is the costume.
>
> You know, and he's ten or so years older, and you can tell "getting
>out from under the shadow of the bat" stories that you can't with
>Robin, and really, if you wanted to, you could sever all ties to
>Batman.
Yes, he's older...but that doesn't make him a completely different
person...everything that he is now is based on what he was.
As for "getting out from under the shadow of the bat," let's face it,
HE NEVER DID (as evidenced by his most recent identity change)...as
Nightwing, he still filled the same role with the Titans and often
with Batman...and the change to Nightwing didn't even do much for his
independence because, by the time the change occurred, he had already
been spending the vast majority of his time either on his own or with
the Titans...it made very little difference.
And as for severing all ties with Batman, that would be totally
impossible to do without abandoning everything about the
character...and, even if it were possible, it wouldn't be any less so
if he still wore short pants and a big "R" on his chest.
Maybe you should consider that, substituting Green Arrow for Batman,
everything you say above would also hold true for "Red" Arrow...and
you already said yourself that he wouldn't count as a new
character...I realize any kind of categorization will be subjective
you are really splitting hairs...you can't have it both ways...if
Nighwing counts as a new character then, by your rules, all the
original Titans would have to be considered new characters (for
starters) as every one of them has changed their name and costume AT
LEAST once since they were created...and, unlike Dick Grayson, some of
them (Red Arrow included) have done so SEVERAL times.
>
>
>> >>...certainly not as he
>> >> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
>> >> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
>> >> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
>> >> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
>> >> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
>> >> parameters of this thread.
>>
>> > Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
>> >character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
>> >seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
>> >acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
>>
>> Nightwing acts pretty much the same as he did as Robin
>
> I haven't heard him tell a bad pun in a long time.
I haven't heard Batman call him chum in a long time either but you
aren't suggesting that HE is a new character, are you? Well...at
least not until it was some other schmuck in the suit, anyway.
grinningdemon
I should have been more specific above...I meant that there was no
STORY connection between Will Peyton and Ted Knight...he is obviously
derrived from/inspired by the original Starman...he would certainly
fall under the new version of an old character header.
>
>There were two other characters named "Starfire" before Koriand'r came
>along, but that doesn't mean she was a new version of those
>characters. She was a completely original character who had the same
>name.
Apples and oranges...the three Starfires have absolutely no connection
other than the shared name...I could actually even buy that this was
mere coincidence...whereas the Will Peyton Starman is CLEARLY derrived
from the earlier one and has similar powers...the writers of his
series clearly thought so too as they actually brought the original in
(or maybe it was his first son) to challenge him for the "mantle," so
to speak.
>
>I think there's just something about the name Star<noun> that clicks
>with people. At least if you don't push it too hard -- we probably
>won't see "Starwalrus" any time soon. But if the name sounds good,
>and nobody's using it at the moment, it's bound to get snatched. And
>re-snatched, and re-re-snatched, and so on until it gets taken by
>someone with enough staying power to make it their own.
You can't honestly believe that Will Peyton was created in a vacuum
and that his creators didn't have the original in mind at all, can
you? It's like saying Hal Jordan just happened to be called Green
Lantern and there was never any thought given to Alan Scott when they
were creating him...or Barry Allen compared to Jay Garrick...to
suggest that there is absolutely no connection is ridiculous.
>
>>>> - You mentioned Hitman, but what about the other characters from
>>>> ? "Bloodlines"? ?("Bloodlines" was a mega-event that, among other
>>>> ? things, created a bunch of new characters in the hopes that some
>>>> ? would become popular. ?Most were quickly forgotten, but you can't
>>>> ? say DC ?wasn't trying.)
>>>
>>>Chuck forced the Cyber-Rats into... everything he wrote.
>>>That lightning chick was in Superboy and the Ravers...
>>
>> Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
>
>True.
>
>But my point was that DC is *trying* to create new popular characters,
>which is what the original basenote said wasn't happening. For the
>most part, they try and fail. But they do try. A lot. There are at
>least as many attempts at "character creation" as they would get with
>an anthology comic, which is what the basenote suggested to solve the
>problem of "no new characters".
Oh, I agree with you on this completely...we just differ considerably
on what constitutes a "new" character.
>
>>>> - From the Legion: Gates and Gizelle pop to mind, but I'm sure that a
>>>> ? Legion-phile could come up with a lot more.
>>>
>>>Kinetix. XS.
>
>I didn't count XS because she was introduced as Flash's granddaughter,
>and shared his powers. IMHO, that makes her a derivative character.
>Moreso than the Will Payton Starman, at any rate.
I wouldn't consider XS to be a new and original character either...new
but not original.
black...@aol.com
but doesn't deliberatley create characters to be on the level of the
Big 7. Back in the day DC didn't say "Wow Superman is so successful,
we don't need any other heroes." If they did, there never would have
been a Batman. But now they seem to think that Batman, Superman,
Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and a few others are on a different level
than everybody else. What's wrong with a brand new character that's on
the level of these legends? DC has "tiers" of charactes. If no new
characters can ever join the top tier were Superman and Batman are,
and no characters from the lower tiers can ever get promoted, what the
hell are you going to do if suddenly Green Lantern gets canceled, or
the Flash gets canceled?
Marty
...incidentally, Magog
> isn't alive either.
He sure seemed alive in the latest issue of JSA.
plausible prose man
kill 'em off, revamp them, bring them back...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I'm just trying to imagine what the reaction of fandom would be if DC
were to introduce a new character and say that Yes! This guy you've never
heard of is just as cool as Batman! You will love him!
Somehow, I have a hard time seeing fandom as being down with that...
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
plausible prose man
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:41:15 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
>
>
>
>
> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 3:37 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT), plausible prose man
>
> >> <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> I'm not saying characters changing roles like that isn't
> >> >> distinctive...but it doesn't make them original or "new"
> >> >> characters
>
> >> > I think it does, actually. You know, legally. If the copyright was
> >> >about to run out on Robin, aging him ten years and calling him
> >> >Nightwing and moving him to a new city to fight new villains in a new
> >> >book would give you a new set of copyrights
>
> >> Legally, perhaps...but creatively?
>
> > I can't really predict that in advance. it is possible such changes
> >would inspire a new creative team to do stories that sever the link
> >between an old and new version of a character. Did you ever think
> >about Len Wein and Berni Wrightson when reading Alan Moore and Bisette
> >and Totleben's run on Swamp Thing?
>
> So now you want to call Alan Moore's Swamp Thing a different character
> than the original?
No, but he's moving in that direction.
> Let me get this straight...anytime a new creator
> comes on board and takes a character in a different direction it
> constitutes a new character?
No, of course not.
> Swamp Thing is still the same character...Alan Moore took what came
> before and moved on to something new...he certainly made big changes
> but he didn't just ignore everything that came before.
Perhaps not everything, but he sure ignored a lot of what came
before. Still, my point wasn't so much any time you change something
about a character you have a new character as that a character can
incrementally evolve into a new character, and I think that's
certainly what's happened to Oracle, and, to a lesser extent,
Nightwing.
>..and the basic
> concept of the character remains largely unchanged.
Yeah, Swamp Thing had really grown beyond his origins in House of
Secrets and occaisional guest star with Batman.
> >> > Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
> >> >know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
> >> >Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
> >> >Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
>
> >> That's an extreme case of a character totally reinvented...it's not
> >> the same as an established character evolving into a new role that is
> >> still totally in line with his/her characterization...that said, under
> >> teh criteria laid out by the original poster here,
>
> > I think that's overly restrictive, don't you? Especially in light of
> >the way he seems to believe DC deliberately sabotages new characters.
>
> Even if his criteria are overly restrictive, even a basic
> understanding of this topic would preclude characters like Nightwing
> or Oracle from consideration here.
Well, again, I don't agree.
>..in both cases, they are old
> characters in new roles...the key word here is "old"...this does not
> make them all together new characters...and certainly not
> original
See my argument about copyrightability, the essence of which is
originality.
> >> >>...and some of them
> >> >> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
> >> >> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
>
> >> > He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
>
> >> It's more than that...the only real difference is the costume.
>
> > You know, and he's ten or so years older, and you can tell "getting
> >out from under the shadow of the bat" stories that you can't with
> >Robin, and really, if you wanted to, you could sever all ties to
> >Batman.
>
> Yes, he's older...but that doesn't make him a completely different
> person...everything that he is now is based on what he was.
He seems to have an entirely new personality, certainly than Golden
and Silver Age Robin.
> As for "getting out from under the shadow of the bat," let's face it,
> HE NEVER DID (as evidenced by his most recent identity change).
Well, one thing...other characters in the DCU like and trust him a
lot more than Batman.
>..as
> Nightwing, he still filled the same role with the Titans and often
> with Batman...and the change to Nightwing didn't even do much for his
> independence because, by the time the change occurred, he had already
> been spending the vast majority of his time either on his own or with
> the Titans...it made very little difference.
>
> And as for severing all ties with Batman, that would be totally
> impossible to do without abandoning everything about the
> character.
Right, so it probably wouldn't make financial sense, and so we'd be
unlikely to see a pitch like that accepted, because one thing about us
fanboys, we like the adventures of Batman and Superman and the people
who know them. Notice how angry we were about that Catwoman movie.
>..and, even if it were possible, it wouldn't be any less so
> if he still wore short pants and a big "R" on his chest.
The spectre of Adam and Burt still looms large in the minds of the
public, who'd be wondering where the hell Batman was in such a
narrative.
> Maybe you should consider that, substituting Green Arrow for Batman,
> everything you say above would also hold true for "Red" Arrow.
I'd probably be arguing Arsenal is a new character if he'd stuck
around in that role. He has a new costume and he isn't using a bow and
arrow any more, he's disassociated from Green Arrow, except of course,
now he's back in all of those roles.
>..and
> you already said yourself that he wouldn't count as a new
> character...I realize any kind of categorization will be subjective
> you are really splitting hairs...you can't have it both ways
Can you please stop using this weird Larry King thing with the
ellipses?
>...if
> Nighwing counts as a new character then, by your rules, all the
> original Titans would have to be considered new characters (for
> starters) as every one of them has changed their name and costume AT
> LEAST once since they were created
It's not just name, costume, or context, it's all of those things. So
Kid Flash, not so much. Aqualad, maybe. I think I have a very good
case with Donna Troy.
But you're also rejecting Patsy Walker, teen humor character as
being very different from Hellcat the superpowered adventurer and that
was only a cute little nod to an relatively obscure comic, not some
organic story evolution.
>...and, unlike Dick Grayson, some of
> them (Red Arrow included) have done so SEVERAL times.
So essentially, between you and Duggy, who thinks a new character
can't be a really new character if he appears in someone else's book
first, there are no new characters.
> >> >>...certainly not as he
> >> >> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
> >> >> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
> >> >> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
> >> >> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
> >> >> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
> >> >> parameters of this thread.
>
> >> > Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
> >> >character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
> >> >seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
> >> >acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
>
> >> Nightwing acts pretty much the same as he did as Robin
>
> > I haven't heard him tell a bad pun in a long time.
>
> I haven't heard Batman call him chum in a long time either but you
> aren't suggesting that HE is a new character, are you?
Well, don't think there isn't a case to be made there. The fellow
appearing in those Dick Sprang World's Finests is pretty different
from the guy in Lonely Place of Dying.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
>DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
>Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
>Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
>like Dick Grayson becoming Batman. Once in a great while DC will
>develop a totally new character, but then immediately start that
>character off with their own series, which usually fails after 12-24
>issues. How about developing some new heroes? Batman, Superman, and
>Wonder Woman may be able to be published in perpetuity, but eventually
>people get tired of the other heroes. The Golden Age Green Lantern and
>Flash titles were canceled due to poor sales. Sales were so poor with
>their replacements that Barry Allen "died" and Hal Jordan went crazy.
>Then the public got bored again and Kyle and Wally were out and Barry
>and Hal were back in. The point is that Flash, Green Lantern, and most
>of the other characters are not as strong as Batman and Superman. At
>some point you run out of interesting stories and have to resort to
>gimmicks. DC needs new heroes and has to stop relying on the same old
>characters again and again. It works with the Big Three, but that's
>it. Bring back More Fun Comics or Adventure Comics with five stories,
>five pages each, every month of all new heroes. Some will be great,
>some will be terrible. But you could very well find the next Flash or
>Green Lantern instead of reinventing the wheel.
Last 25 or so years:
Blue Devil
Harbinger
Pariah
Monitor/Anti-monitor
Monarch
Morpheus
Ambush Bug
Doomsday
Bane
....errr Vibe. That JLA member who created the JLA
Any new Legion members in that time period
That's just off the top of my head.
grinningdemon
First off...I don't think a book like Flash or GL would get cancelled
"suddenly"...but both books have been cancelled due to low sales in
the past and the DCU didn't suddenly implode...nor did DC go out of
business.
It's impossible to create new characters on the level of the Big 7
becacause that status has developed over many, many years...they have
achieved that status because the have large fanbases...a new character
cannot compete...if you try to suddenly insert some character on that
level, you end up with something like what Marvel has done with the
Sentry...who almost no one actually likes but we're still getting him
shoved down our throats on a regular basis.
grinningdemon
I'm a few months behind but didn't he get killed off in JSA at the end
of the Kingdom Come storyline?
grinningdemon
<George...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Swamp Thing is still the same character...Alan Moore took what came
>> before and moved on to something new...he certainly made big changes
>> but he didn't just ignore everything that came before.
>
> Perhaps not everything, but he sure ignored a lot of what came
>before. Still, my point wasn't so much any time you change something
>about a character you have a new character as that a character can
>incrementally evolve into a new character, and I think that's
>certainly what's happened to Oracle, and, to a lesser extent,
>Nightwing.
And I disagree...characters evolve over time just as real people
do...but it is all based on what came before and they are not suddenly
totally different characters.
>
>>..and the basic
>> concept of the character remains largely unchanged.
>
> Yeah, Swamp Thing had really grown beyond his origins in House of
>Secrets and occaisional guest star with Batman.
>
>
>> >> > Obviously, there's room for a lot of lumper-splitter stuff here. You
>> >> >know, it's pretty subjective. Still, if you're going to argue that
>> >> >Patsy Walker the teen humor character is the same character as Hell
>> >> >Cat the superhero, well, I'm going to disagree.
>>
>> >> That's an extreme case of a character totally reinvented...it's not
>> >> the same as an established character evolving into a new role that is
>> >> still totally in line with his/her characterization...that said, under
>> >> teh criteria laid out by the original poster here,
>>
>> > I think that's overly restrictive, don't you? Especially in light of
>> >the way he seems to believe DC deliberately sabotages new characters.
>>
>> Even if his criteria are overly restrictive, even a basic
>> understanding of this topic would preclude characters like Nightwing
>> or Oracle from consideration here.
>
> Well, again, I don't agree.
>
>>..in both cases, they are old
>> characters in new roles...the key word here is "old"...this does not
>> make them all together new characters...and certainly not
>> original
>
> See my argument about copyrightability, the essence of which is
>originality.
Again, it's possible that they are legally different characters...but
legally and creatively are two very different things...Oracle is not
just a character who sits by a computer and hands out info and
direction to other heroes...she is the former Batgirl who does
so...her name is still Barbara Gordon, her father is still
Commissioner Gordon (more or less), she still runs in the same
circles, and her past as Batgirl still impacts a lot of her stories as
Oracle...and Nightwing hasn't even changed as much as Oracle...but it
doesn't really matter how much they have changed...it would still be a
single character who has grown and changed over the years.
>
>
>> >> >>...and some of them
>> >> >> aren't that different from before...costume aside, Nightwing really
>> >> >> isn't all that different than he was as Robin
>>
>> >> > He doesn't have a new power set, sure.
>>
>> >> It's more than that...the only real difference is the costume.
>>
>> > You know, and he's ten or so years older, and you can tell "getting
>> >out from under the shadow of the bat" stories that you can't with
>> >Robin, and really, if you wanted to, you could sever all ties to
>> >Batman.
>>
>> Yes, he's older...but that doesn't make him a completely different
>> person...everything that he is now is based on what he was.
>
> He seems to have an entirely new personality, certainly than Golden
>and Silver Age Robin.
So do ALL DC characters...are they all new characters? Because,
legally, Batman is still the same character he was back then...they
change with the times...but they also evolve as stories progress.
>
>
>> As for "getting out from under the shadow of the bat," let's face it,
>> HE NEVER DID (as evidenced by his most recent identity change).
>
> Well, one thing...other characters in the DCU like and trust him a
>lot more than Batman.
Something that has evolved over time...they didn't automatically trust
him more than Batman simply because he became Nightwing...and there is
no reason that couldn't still hold true if he still called himself
Robin...furthermore, that particular point arguably has more to do
with how much Batman has changed than Dick Grayson.
>
>>..as
>> Nightwing, he still filled the same role with the Titans and often
>> with Batman...and the change to Nightwing didn't even do much for his
>> independence because, by the time the change occurred, he had already
>> been spending the vast majority of his time either on his own or with
>> the Titans...it made very little difference.
>>
>> And as for severing all ties with Batman, that would be totally
>> impossible to do without abandoning everything about the
>> character.
>
> Right, so it probably wouldn't make financial sense, and so we'd be
>unlikely to see a pitch like that accepted, because one thing about us
>fanboys, we like the adventures of Batman and Superman and the people
>who know them. Notice how angry we were about that Catwoman movie.
I wasn't even talking about financial considerations...I was talking
in terms of characterization and character history (something that is
very important at DC which is why they are constantly re-writing
them)...even if Nightwing had moved across the country and cut off all
contact to Batman, his history as Robin and relationship with Batman
(good or bad) would still impact future stories...there would be no
way to avoid that short of toss out everything we know about the
character...in which case, the character would cease to be
recognizable as Nightwing...but this approach, however ridiculous,
could be done to any character at anytime...it certainly could have
been done when Dick Grayson was still Robin...or if he still were
today.
>
>>..and, even if it were possible, it wouldn't be any less so
>> if he still wore short pants and a big "R" on his chest.
>
> The spectre of Adam and Burt still looms large in the minds of the
>public, who'd be wondering where the hell Batman was in such a
>narrative.
Can you honestly tell me that you can read a Nightwing story without
Batman ever crossing your mind at all? For anyone who is AWARE that
he used to be Robin, that association remains just as important...the
characters are permanently linked and that will never change no matter
what costume or name Grayson uses.
>
>> Maybe you should consider that, substituting Green Arrow for Batman,
>> everything you say above would also hold true for "Red" Arrow.
>
> I'd probably be arguing Arsenal is a new character if he'd stuck
>around in that role. He has a new costume and he isn't using a bow and
>arrow any more, he's disassociated from Green Arrow, except of course,
>now he's back in all of those roles.
So he WAS a new character but then reverted to an OLD character again?
That makes PERFECT sense.
Dick Grayson as Nightwing has a new costume but he still uses mostly
the same weapons and tools and has never really disassociated from
Batman.
Roy Harper, even as Red Arrow, has a new costume but still uses many
of the same weapons and tools and is no more or less disassociated
from Green Arrow than he was as Arsenal (who never totally stopped
using the bow and arrow).
>
>>..and
>> you already said yourself that he wouldn't count as a new
>> character...I realize any kind of categorization will be subjective
>> you are really splitting hairs...you can't have it both ways
>
> Can you please stop using this weird Larry King thing with the
>ellipses?
Sorry...bad habit...which doesn't seem to be going away.
>
>>...if
>> Nighwing counts as a new character then, by your rules, all the
>> original Titans would have to be considered new characters (for
>> starters) as every one of them has changed their name and costume AT
>> LEAST once since they were created
>
> It's not just name, costume, or context, it's all of those things. So
>Kid Flash, not so much. Aqualad, maybe. I think I have a very good
>case with Donna Troy.
As long as context remains a factor, the character's history and prior
relationships will always remain in play and, therefore, it will still
be the same character in a new role.
Donna still has the same name (real name, anyway), powers, and role
she had as Wonder Girl...she is still connected to Wonder Woman and
her history (however muddled) still applies...she is not a new
character...well, unless you mean from her very earliest appearances
when she was only supposed to be a younger Wonder Woman and not a
character in her own right...but that was actually a mistake.
>
> But you're also rejecting Patsy Walker, teen humor character as
>being very different from Hellcat the superpowered adventurer and that
>was only a cute little nod to an relatively obscure comic, not some
>organic story evolution.
I was rejecting Patsy Walker based on the original parameters of this
thread...personally, I would probably consider Patsy and Hellcat as
different characters since it was a case of totally reinventing the
character almost from scratch and there was no, as you say, organic
story evolution...but this is an extreme case and there are very few
others who compare (in fact, I can't think of any others)...that said,
a lot of the elements of the old Patsy Walker are creeping back in
with recent stories so we may have to reaccess in the future.
>
>
>>...and, unlike Dick Grayson, some of
>> them (Red Arrow included) have done so SEVERAL times.
>
> So essentially, between you and Duggy, who thinks a new character
>can't be a really new character if he appears in someone else's book
>first, there are no new characters.
I don't agree with Duggy on that...I think that distinction really
would eliminate virtually all new characters...and certainly reduce
any chance of their success.
I just don't believe old characters in new roles qualify as new
characters...as such, I would not consider Nightwing a new
character...I would, however, consider Tim Drake/Robin and other
replacement characters of this type to be new characters...even though
they would not qualify under the original parameters of this thread.
>
>> >> >>...certainly not as he
>> >> >> was in the last 15 or so years he went by that name...I'd say he's no
>> >> >> more different than "Red Arrow" really...he's just been Nightwing
>> >> >> longer...in truth, the successors who took over their roles as the
>> >> >> sidekicks are far closer to originals as they actually ARE new
>> >> >> characters...but they shouldn't really count either under the
>> >> >> parameters of this thread.
>>
>> >> > Wally West becoming the Flash probably doesn't count as a new
>> >> >character, and I'd be cheating if I said different, since my criteria
>> >> >seems to be that "newness" hinges more on how a character dresses and
>> >> >acts than the name on his or her driver's license.
>>
>> >> Nightwing acts pretty much the same as he did as Robin
>>
>> > I haven't heard him tell a bad pun in a long time.
>>
>> I haven't heard Batman call him chum in a long time either but you
>> aren't suggesting that HE is a new character, are you?
>
> Well, don't think there isn't a case to be made there. The fellow
>appearing in those Dick Sprang World's Finests is pretty different
>from the guy in Lonely Place of Dying.
Again, characters change with time just as much as they change from
organic story evolution...but you tried to make a legal distinction
between characters earlier and, if nothing else, there is no legal
distinction between the Batmans of these two eras...and the same basic
character concept has remained true since the very beginning of
Batman.
Duggy
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 4:27 pm, dmerg...@email.toast.net wrote:
> >> - Secret
> >Titan family.
> Actually, it was Young Justice...but I don't think merely being a
> member of one of these teams is enough to make them unoriginal...this
> character is not a new version of any older character and isn't even
> connected to any other previous DC character...she only happens to be
> a member of team (that she actually kind of founded)...I dont' think
> this should be enough to disqualify.
I knew it was YJ... just one of those slips.
"Original character" would be hard to define, however, the original
post was pretty clear in talking about characters in their own comics
and not associated with existing characters. I agree with you
definition, pretty much, but if you change the question to answer it,
you're not really answering it.
> >> - The Veteran
> >Dunno.
> Basically, a cross between Captain America and Nick Fury...but new to
> DC...if we start disqualifying characters that were ripped off from
> other publishers we really won't have anything left.
I'm fine with that as described, as long as he fits the definitions in
the first post.
> >> - Warlock's Daughter
> >Worlock's family, I guess.
> Warlock was a villain created right around the same time...in fact,
> it's possible that Warlock's Daughter (or, rather, the character who
> would become Warlock's Daughter) actually appeared first...I'd have to
> check.
Fair enough.
> >> - Tim Hunter
> >An origin with how many guest appearence?
> So now a character doesn't count as new or original if there are guest
> appearances in his origin story? Come on.
Did you read the first post in the thread?
> >> - The Will Payton Starman
> >New version of an old character.
> Agreed...he shouldn't count...but, name aside, there is no connection
> to the previous incarnation(s).
Well, later, a little, but for the purposes of the original question
it counts.
> >Chuck forced the Cyber-Rats into... everything he wrote.
> >That lightning chick was in Superboy and the Ravers...
> Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
Some of the villains had potential, IMHO, I think you could do
something with Myriad & Terrorsmith. Their origin stories sucked but
there was story potential there.
> >Yeah... DC does this too often and creates too many junk characters
> >that way.
> Same with Marvel.
Don't read it. Don't know.
> >> - Spoiler
> >Batman family.
> I would consider her an original for the same reasons as Secret and
> Empress...even though she is Cluemaster's daughter...same with others
> below that you disqualify just for being in the Legion or JLA.
She's completely original. But the original question refers directly
to this sort of thing.
On Cluemaster, did he appear before Spoiler's first story or was he a
Riddler knock-off created to remove the Riddler part?
> >> - All the Milestone characters: Static, Icon, Hardware, etc.
> >> Milestone was an imprint owned by DC, and those characters have
> >> recently been imported into the DCU proper.
> >That and the Red Circle thing was a bad move IMHO. Should have given
> >them one of the 52 Earths each and given them there own continuity.
> I couldn't agree more...now we're going to get these characters forced
> into other DC books in an attempt to make them fit in...and stories
> will suffer for it.
I can see mascals of these characters in 5-10 years in to prove how
powerful and world-changing some Mega-Event really is.
> >> - Resurrection Man
> >25 issues give or take 1000000.
> >> - Aztek
> >25 issues.
> Actually, I think it was only 12.
Then it exactly matches the original question.
> >> - Cameron Chase
> >25 issues.
> Only 9 or 10, actually (too bad, really...that was a good book)...but
> she's been popping up all over since and was most recently a regular
> in Manhunter.
True. Still, original question. Plus they did force her debut into a
Batman comic.
> >> ...And that's probably just scratching the surface.
> >Note... I don't literally mean 25 issues, but rather their solo stuff
> >lasted two years or less...
> Well then...that will teach me to read through the whole post before I
> respond.
That's OK, I was glad of the confirm on numbers.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
I want less mass-additions of characters to the DCU, whether by mass
events (not only the ones listed previously, but mass replacements of
old characters with original characters, such as Zero Hour and the
recent Crises) or by the addition of someone else's universe.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Jul 30, 8:03 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
> > Not created by DC...
> > > Rene Montoya,
> > Not created by DC.
> Created under license in DC adaptations, all associated rights
> belonging to DC...I mean,they sure aren't Marvels, are they?
Did you read the question?
> > > except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
> > Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
> Does DC have more than ten non-support characters?
That's the point of the thread.
> The original question's pretty well answered: DC tries to create new
> characters all the time. They mostly fail.
Cool. Who asked the question you're answering?
> Comic fans mainly want to
> see the same characters doing the same things in the same stories
> they've been reading and hate new things.
That was pretty much said in the first reply. That dude must be a
genius.
> Look at the way you guys
> talk about something like Hawkworld.
I don't talk about Hawkworld.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
Are you thinking perhaps of Gog, not Magog? Magog (David Reid) ended
that story alive and puzzled as to why his powers remained while the
other remaining effects of Gog's influence had dissipated with Gog's
exile from the Earth. He's also shown up in a Brave & Bold team-up
with Booster Gold implied to be from the same general time period if
not a little after (with Magog behaving a bit more like his Kingdom
Come counterpart).
(Gog also wasn't really killed off either, he was imprisoned,
apparently "out" but not dead, within the Source Wall by the KC
Superman.)
Duggy
> DC may attempt to create supporting characters and "minor" characters
> but doesn't deliberatley create characters to be on the level of the
> Big 7.
You can't create characters to be on the level of the big seven. You
create characters and hope they become that Iconic.
> Back in the day DC didn't say "Wow Superman is so successful,
> we don't need any other heroes."
And they certainly don't say that today.
> What's wrong with a brand new character that's on
> the level of these legends?
Because these things happen over time, not by magic.
You'd have to be a moron not to work that one out.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> I'm just trying to imagine what the reaction of fandom would be if DC
> were to introduce a new character and say that Yes! This guy you've never
> heard of is just as cool as Batman! You will love him!
> Somehow, I have a hard time seeing fandom as being down with that...
Isn't that exactly how Morrison's additions to the JLA were treated?
Zaurel may have been accepted but no one really felt he'd earned a
place in the top tier... which is why he disappeared.
Even Kyle suffered from a similar thing.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> ....errr Vibe. That JLA member who created the JLA
Triumph.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> So essentially, between you and Duggy, who thinks a new character
> can't be a really new character if he appears in someone else's book
> first, there are no new characters.
When did I say that?
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
<daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2009, "black...@aol.com" <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> DC may attempt to create supporting characters and "minor" characters
>> but doesn't deliberatley create characters to be on the level of the
>> Big 7. Back in the day DC didn't say "Wow Superman is so successful,
>> we don't need any other heroes." If they did, there never would have
>> been a Batman. But now they seem to think that Batman, Superman,
>> Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and a few others are on a different level
>> than everybody else. What's wrong with a brand new character that's on
>> the level of these legends? DC has "tiers" of charactes. If no new
>> characters can ever join the top tier were Superman and Batman are,
>> and no characters from the lower tiers can ever get promoted, what the
>> hell are you going to do if suddenly Green Lantern gets canceled, or
>> the Flash gets canceled?
>
>I'm just trying to imagine what the reaction of fandom would be if DC
>were to introduce a new character and say that Yes! This guy you've never
>heard of is just as cool as Batman! You will love him!
DC does have an intermittent tradition of the occasional all-new
on-going series which is thrust into the marketplace without any kind
of preparatory miniseries, one-shots, guest appearances or other
buildup: the current Dead Romeo is the latest example, and also there
have been in recent years Simon Dark, The Monolith, and Breach
(intended to be initially a reimagined Captain Atom, admittedly). And
no, they don't tend to do too well.
Duggy
> I don't agree with Duggy on that...I think that distinction really
> would eliminate virtually all new characters...and certainly reduce
> any chance of their success.
You may not agree with me, but I agree with you on that 100%
New characters have very little chance of success without the help of
established characters, be it that they start in an existing comic or
event, take on an existing role, appear as part of a team of mainly
existing characters are an existing character who changes, or even
only take on the name of an existing character.
I'm not going to say 25 years, I'll say "Since CoIE" because it makes
things a little easier and I'm going to say "reached issue #25" and
ignore #0 and 1000000 and specials just so we don't have month long
debates about what does and doesn't constitute 25 issues. All, guest
appearences are acceptable... I think Superman has in his contract
that he must appear in #3 of any ongoing series. I will also allow a
new character that had a first appearence in a solo story in an
anthology series or such, but only just.
So... how many new, original characters have have had thier own series
go beyond #25 without the help of ties to existing characters?
===
= DUG.
===
OM
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>So now you want to call Alan Moore's Swamp Thing a different character
>than the original? Let me get this straight...anytime a new creator
>comes on board and takes a character in a different direction it
>constitutes a new character? Have you totally lost it?
..GD's putting it mildly, to say the least. Either he's totally lost
it, or he's just "Guthballing", as we refer to this sort of
"pseudointellectual" trolling on the sci.space.* groups.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>I should have been more specific above...I meant that there was no
>STORY connection between Will Peyton and Ted Knight...he is obviously
>derrived from/inspired by the original Starman...he would certainly
>fall under the new version of an old character header.
...The only common complaint I ever heard about the Will Payton
Starman was about his uniform. The worst costume *ever* was what was
thrown about here on rac*, although there were some who argued that
Captain Ultra's costume was by far the worst. YMMV.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 31, 5:56�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Jul 30, 4:27�pm, dmerg...@email.toast.net wrote:
>
>"Original character" would be hard to define, however, the original
>post was pretty clear in talking about characters in their own comics
>and not associated with existing characters. I agree with you
>definition, pretty much, but if you change the question to answer it,
>you're not really answering it.
I did read the original post but I don't remember it disqualifying
characters who first appeared as part of a team.
>> Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
>
>Some of the villains had potential, IMHO, I think you could do
>something with Myriad & Terrorsmith. Their origin stories sucked but
>there was story potential there.
I honestly don't even remember any of them other than Hitman...I just
remember thinking they were lame.
>
>She's completely original. But the original question refers directly
>to this sort of thing.
>
>On Cluemaster, did he appear before Spoiler's first story or was he a
>Riddler knock-off created to remove the Riddler part?
It's been too long since I read those...I'm not sure if Cluemaster was
a pre-existing villain or one invented only to be Spoiler's father.
>
>True. Still, original question. Plus they did force her debut into a
>Batman comic.
They did indeed...but it was kind of in conjunction with the debut of
her own series, as I recall...not that it really matters, I suppose.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I guess I got them mixed up...that story dragged on for so long I kind
of zoned out by the end.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Aug 1, 3:21�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree with Duggy on that...I think that distinction really
>> would eliminate virtually all new characters...and certainly reduce
>> any chance of their success.
>
>You may not agree with me, but I agree with you on that 100%
>
>New characters have very little chance of success without the help of
>established characters, be it that they start in an existing comic or
>event, take on an existing role, appear as part of a team of mainly
>existing characters are an existing character who changes, or even
>only take on the name of an existing character.
I guess we're on the same page then.
>
>I'm not going to say 25 years, I'll say "Since CoIE" because it makes
>things a little easier and I'm going to say "reached issue #25" and
>ignore #0 and 1000000 and specials just so we don't have month long
>debates about what does and doesn't constitute 25 issues. All, guest
>appearences are acceptable... I think Superman has in his contract
>that he must appear in #3 of any ongoing series. I will also allow a
>new character that had a first appearence in a solo story in an
>anthology series or such, but only just.
>
>So... how many new, original characters have have had thier own series
>go beyond #25 without the help of ties to existing characters?
I honestly can't think of a single one who didn't either show up first
as part of a team or as guest star in an established book...or else
had some kind of immediate connection to another well-established
character...be it as replacement, relative, etc.
There's bound to be at least one that made it that far but I'm drawing
a blank. Lobo, perhaps? Even Hitman showed up in the Demon
first...and had Batman appear in the first story arc to boot.
grinningdemon
wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:12:51 -0500, grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I should have been more specific above...I meant that there was no
>>STORY connection between Will Peyton and Ted Knight...he is obviously
>>derrived from/inspired by the original Starman...he would certainly
>>fall under the new version of an old character header.
>
>...The only common complaint I ever heard about the Will Payton
>Starman was about his uniform. The worst costume *ever* was what was
>thrown about here on rac*, although there were some who argued that
>Captain Ultra's costume was by far the worst. YMMV.
>
>
> OM
I don't know...there were some pretty awful uniforms floating around
the Legion in the 70s and 80s...Payton's was pretty bad but I'm not
sure it reaches that level.
OM
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>There's bound to be at least one that made it that far but I'm drawing
>a blank. Lobo, perhaps? Even Hitman showed up in the Demon
>first...and had Batman appear in the first story arc to boot.
...Yeah, but Tommy was one of those characters you *wanted* to see go
up against the likes of Superman and Batman, just to see how he'd pull
one over on them. It's no wonder that he's immortalized with a
monument on the Moon that's just the Watchtower's bathroom wall with a
stall and the graffiti next to it saying "Tommy Was Here".
Duggy
> I did read the original post but I don't remember it disqualifying
> characters who first appeared as part of a team.
Party of the Flash Family, part of the Titans family... what's the
difference?
> >> Hitman aside, the characters from Bloodlines were AWFUL.
> >Some of the villains had potential, IMHO, I think you could do
> >something with Myriad & Terrorsmith. Their origin stories sucked but
> >there was story potential there.
> I honestly don't even remember any of them other than Hitman...I just
> remember thinking they were lame.
Fair enough. Once again, theme annuals...
> >On Cluemaster, did he appear before Spoiler's first story or was he a
> >Riddler knock-off created to remove the Riddler part?
> It's been too long since I read those...I'm not sure if Cluemaster was
> a pre-existing villain or one invented only to be Spoiler's father.
I'd say Chuck thought it would be cool to tell a story about The
Riddler "cured" realised (or was told) that he couldn't use The
Riddler, so created Cluemaster. The Spoiler was just part of that
story... but I have no evidence for that.
> >True. Still, original question. Plus they did force her debut into a
> >Batman comic.
> They did indeed...but it was kind of in conjunction with the debut of
> her own series, as I recall...not that it really matters, I suppose.
May have been the same month. Certainly before as she was travelling
to her new job at the DEO, IIRC, and yeah, sure, it's clear that the
series was created and then some decided to promote it with a Batman
issue, but the point is they used an existing character to promote
her.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I honestly can't think of a single one who didn't either show up first
> as part of a team or as guest star in an established book...or else
> had some kind of immediate connection to another well-established
> character...be it as replacement, relative, etc.
Exactly.
> There's bound to be at least one that made it that far but I'm drawing
> a blank. Lobo, perhaps? Even Hitman showed up in the Demon
> first...and had Batman appear in the first story arc to boot.
I'll accept wholely original teams or a character who started in a
wholely original team...
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
I didn't read it but I think Sovereign Seven lasted nearly 50
isues...Power Girl joined later but I think it was an entirely
original team to start with...I could be wrong.
Duggy
> I didn't read it but I think Sovereign Seven lasted nearly 50
> isues...Power Girl joined later but I think it was an entirely
> original team to start with...I could be wrong.
I'll give you that one... ironically, however, it's creator owned so
DC's most successful "original" characters we've been able to think of
so far don't belong to DC...
===
= DUG.
===
Anlatt the Builder
>
> On Cluemaster, did he appear before Spoiler's first story or was he a
> Riddler knock-off created to remove the Riddler part?
>
>
Before by a... bit.
Cluemaster: Detective Comics #351 - May 1966
Stephanie Brown: Detective Comics #647 - Aug. 1992
(She showed up as the Spoiler in the next issue.)
Batman has a ton of very boring villains in his rogue's gallery, some
of whom look a lot like some of the better-known ones. Cluemaster left
clues but not riddles.
Of course, most DC heroes who were active through the Silver Age have
a bunch of boring villains. Look at GL's enemy, Black Hand - one of
the most banal villains in existence for the first 45 years of his
existence.
Amazing what they can do with recycling these days....
grinningdemon
And I love that approach...with the sheer tonage of characters DC and
Marvel both have running around these days, I pretty much always
prefer it when a writer dusts of an old character and tries to do
something cool with him/her as opposed to tossing out a load of new
characters that most often quickly forgotten...Geoff Johns,
especially, seems to like to re-mold older characters and I really
appreciate that.
I'd much rather they use an existing character to tell a story and
hold off on inventing new ones until someone genuinely has an
interesting idea.
plausible prose man
> On Jul 31, 11:30 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 8:03 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
> > > Not created by DC...
> > > > Rene Montoya,
> > > Not created by DC.
> > Created under license in DC adaptations, all associated rights
> > belonging to DC...I mean,they sure aren't Marvels, are they?
>
> Did you read the question?
Yeah, I did. I thought it was kind of fatuous, didn't you? "Any time
DC creates a new character, they try to fit him or her into the
existing universe, or if they don't, their book isn't popular. What's
wrong with them?"
> > > > except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
> > > Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
> > Does DC have more than ten non-support characters?
>
> That's the point of the thread.
Does DC need more than ten non-support characters? Does DC really
have more than two non-support character?
> > The original question's pretty well answered: DC tries to create new
> > characters all the time. They mostly fail.
>
> Cool. Who asked the question you're answering?
Why don't you go polish OM's wooden leg, eh?
> > Comic fans mainly want to
> > see the same characters doing the same things in the same stories
> > they've been reading and hate new things.
>
> That was pretty much said in the first reply. That dude must be a
> genius.
You know, especially if there's something about a character's being
introduced in another character's book that makes them something other
than a new character.
plausible prose man
"> John Constantine?
Who first appeared in Swamp Thing."
" - Secret
Titan family.
> - Empress
Titan family.
> - The Veteran
Dunno.
> - Warlock's Daughter
Worlock's family, I guess.
> - Tim Hunter
An origin with how many guest appearence? "
That all look familiar to you?
plausible prose man
> On Aug 1, 9:51 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I honestly can't think of a single one who didn't either show up first
> > as part of a team or as guest star in an established book...or else
> > had some kind of immediate connection to another well-established
> > character...be it as replacement, relative, etc.
>
> Exactly.
That wasn't the question asked.
dmer...@email.toast.net
> On Jul 31, 6:04?pm, "blackje...@aol.com" <blackje...@aol.com> wrote:
>> DC may attempt to create supporting characters and "minor" characters
>> but doesn't deliberatley create characters to be on the level of the
>> Big 7.
>
> You can't create characters to be on the level of the big seven. You
> create characters and hope they become that Iconic.
Bingo.
Blackjet, you seem to think that the writers could create a character
as popular as Superman any time they wanted. They can't. Most of the
time, they're lucky if they manage to create someone as popular as
Detective Chimp.
Heck, not even Siegel and Shuster could do it. When's the last time
you saw an issue of Slam Bradley, Funnyman, or Spy? They managed to
hit all the right notes with "Superman", but they couldn't do it
repeatedly.
Many of those "minor" characters are basically failed attempts to
create the next member of the "big eight". It's up to the READERS to
decide which character is popular, and most characters get a big
thumbs-down.
- Dan Merget
plausible prose man
> On Jul 31, 11:30 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 8:03 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh, I've got a really good one, Harlequin, there's a new character.
> > > Not created by DC...
> > > > Rene Montoya,
> > > Not created by DC.
> > Created under license in DC adaptations, all associated rights
> > belonging to DC...I mean,they sure aren't Marvels, are they?
>
> Did you read the question?
Yeah, I did. Did you? Here's the question:
Hmm, what original characters created in the last 25 years or so have
actually stuck around?
This was asked by "Marty" in the third post to the thread, and its
not nearly as restrictive as you're making it, since you're conflating
it with BJ's thread opener.
Blackjet76 didn't really ask a question so much as bemoan the fact
that when DC tries to create character without first integrating him
or her into the universe, it tends to flop, so what they really need
to do is create an anthology title so they can create a whole terrible
mess of unsuccessful characters in an anthology book that folds after
a year or two, because they might come up with the next green lantern
or flash there, which apparently, are now sufficiently new characters
to make him happy, despite having limited appeal.
> > > > except she's the Question now. Harvey Bullock...
> > > Has he ever been anything more than a support character?
> > Does DC have more than ten non-support characters?
>
> That's the point of the thread.
I wish the Supreme Court would read the constitution as narrowly as
you're reading the original post, although considerably more carefully
than you're reading this thread.
> > The original question's pretty well answered: DC tries to create new
> > characters all the time. They mostly fail.
>
> Cool. Who asked the question you're answering?
Marty. Do you want the message ID?
> > Comic fans mainly want to
> > see the same characters doing the same things in the same stories
> > they've been reading and hate new things.
>
> That was pretty much said in the first reply. That dude must be a
> genius.
I have the impression he's kind of dumb if he's much older than 15.
Marty
> > talk about something like Hawkworld.
>
> I don't talk about Hawkworld.
Damn straight you don't!
That's the first and second rule of RACDCU.
*******************************************
RULES RACDCU
*******************************************
1) You do not talk about Hawkworld.
2) You DO NOT talk about Hawkworld.
*******************************************
Duggy
Yes, your point?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Read the original post. Context is king.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Yes, it was:
"DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
like Dick Grayson becoming Batman. Once in a great while DC will
develop a totally new character, but then immediately start that
character off with their own series, which usually fails after 12-24
issues. How about developing some new heroes?"
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Blackjet, you seem to think that the writers could create a character
> as popular as Superman any time they wanted. They can't. Most of the
> time, they're lucky if they manage to create someone as popular as
> Detective Chimp.
What's even stupider is that he seems to think that DC is trying not
to create a character popular as Superman.
As if DC wouldn't try to release a new character each week as popular
as Superman if they could.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Hmm, what original characters created in the last 25 years or so have
> actually stuck around?
> This was asked by "Marty" in the third post to the thread, and its
> not nearly as restrictive as you're making it, since you're conflating
> it with BJ's thread opener.
Of course I am. Marty's question makes no sense if it doesn't address
BlJ's initial point.
Duh.
> Blackjet76 didn't really ask a question so much as bemoan the fact
> that when DC tries to create character without first integrating him
> or her into the universe, it tends to flop, so what they really need
> to do is create an anthology title so they can create a whole terrible
> mess of unsuccessful characters in an anthology book that folds after
> a year or two, because they might come up with the next green lantern
> or flash there, which apparently, are now sufficiently new characters
> to make him happy, despite having limited appeal.
Yes, and the number of unsuccessful new characters or characters that
piggyback on someone else's popularity doesn't deal with that at all.
> > That was pretty much said in the first reply. That dude must be a
> > genius.
> I have the impression he's kind of dumb if he's much older than 15.
I know you are but what am I?
===
= DUG.
===
plausible prose man
No, Duggy:
On 28 July, 09:00, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 5:52 pm, "blackje...@aol.com" <blackje...@aol.com> wrote:
> > DC's idea of a new is creating a new character and making him a Green
> > Lantern. Or they'll have a new character and make him part of the
> > Flash family. Or they'll promote an existing character to a new post,
> > like Dick Grayson becoming Batman.
> DC produces many, many completely new characters.
> However, people prefer the familar elements and are more likely to buy
> them.
> You'd have to be a moron not to know that.
"Hmm, what original characters created in the last 25 years or so
have
actually stuck around? "
Now, if you want to work that question into the context of the
original post, well, there are precisely no DCU characters (and so not
Preacher, or the Fables Gang) created in the last 25 years, since you
can hardly say a character belongs in the DCU and isn't part of
someone's "family," especially if you think, as you seem to do, that
John Constantine is Kid Swamp Thing, Jr. or "a new version of an old
character," which includes both a new character with a familiar
codename or a familiar character with a new codename, or again, a new
character who appears in someone else's book is part of that "family"
or a new character in his new book doesn't count if there are guest
stars or the book is canceled in much less than ten years, if that
character isn't integrated into the DCU.
Duggy
> Now, if you want to work that question into the context of the
> original post, well, there are precisely no DCU characters (and so not
> Preacher, or the Fables Gang)
Which certainly opens the question... how does Vertigo do it when DC
can't?
There's the TPB thing, sure. Those you list are better than "normal"
comics, sure, but a lot of better comics don't make the 25.
> especially if you think, as you seem to do, that John Constantine is Kid Swamp Thing, Jr.
Wow. You really can't read can you?
> or a new character in his new book doesn't count if there are guest stars
You lying moron. I clearly stated that it I'll allow guest
appearences. But sure, since you know that you're wrong, I'm sure you
have no problem making stuff up to try to prove your point.
> or the book is canceled in much less than ten years,
I said 25 issues... two years. But, keep making shit up. I think
anything past that can at least be seen as a success. I'll accept
that between one and two years is debatable, so debate it, don't make
stuff up just because you know you're wrong.
===
= DUG.
===
plausible prose man
> On Aug 2, 12:48 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, if you want to work that question into the context of the
> > original post, well, there are precisely no DCU characters (and so not
> > Preacher, or the Fables Gang)
>
> Which certainly opens the question... how does Vertigo do it when DC
> can't?
DC's "can't" seems to be more an issue of your "true scots" fallacy
than anything DC does or doesn't do.
> There's the TPB thing, sure. Those you list are better than "normal"
> comics, sure, but a lot of better comics don't make the 25.
Perhaps TWA is more commited to losing money on something that might
be more developable and exploitable, perhaps the writers have a better
deal a-o more rights and are so motivated to put more effort into
something, it's more attractive to a higher class of writer. Who
knows?
> > especially if you think, as you seem to do, that John Constantine is Kid Swamp Thing, Jr.
>
> Wow. You really can't read can you?
You objected to John Constantine as being an example of DC creating a
successful new character on the grounds he'd been introduced in
someone else's book, and was thus part of their "family," presumably
something along the lines of Kid Flash or Impulse or the Rogues.
>
> > or a new character in his new book doesn't count if there are guest stars
>
> You lying moron. I clearly stated that it I'll allow guest
> appearences.
I read you whining that Tim Hunter couldn't be an example of a
successful new character since his intro-mini had a lot of guest
stars.
> But sure, since you know that you're wrong,
Of course I'm not, you know.
> I'm sure you
> have no problem making stuff up to try to prove your point.
I might be exagerrating for the sake of, you know, making fun of you,
but I'm not wrong by any means.
> > or the book is canceled in much less than ten years,
>
> I said 25 issues... two years.
Well, technically it was Blackjet who said that.
> But, keep making shit up. I think
> anything past that can at least be seen as a success.
26 issues?
> I'll accept
> that between one and two years is debatable, so debate it, don't make
> stuff up just because you know you're wrong.
Can you really not see the question-begging you're engaged in here?
"Why can't DC successfully add sufficiently original characters to the
DC universe, where "sufficiently original" means "unconnected to the
DC universe."
In a related development, it turns out most snakes are pretty short
if you don't count the tail.
Eminence
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Aug 1, 12:40�am, Daibhid Ceanaideach <daibhidchened...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>> I'm just trying to imagine what the reaction of fandom would be if DC
>> were to introduce a new character and say that Yes! This guy you've never
>> heard of is just as cool as Batman! You will love him!
>
>> Somehow, I have a hard time seeing fandom as being down with that...
>
>Isn't that exactly how Morrison's additions to the JLA were treated?
>
>Zaurel may have been accepted but no one really felt he'd earned a
>place in the top tier... which is why he disappeared.
>
>Even Kyle suffered from a similar thing.
Don't forget Triumph...
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Eminence
Well, that's really the heart of the thing, innit? As detailed as
Who's Who and The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe were, think
of all the one-shots, has-beens, and never-were's who were overlooked.
And of those included characters, you could probably create a fairly
detailed database to sort on origins and powers, resulting in far more
similarities -- what many fans would tend to call "rip-offs" -- than
any of us first realized.
The successful character has an undefinable *IT* factor -- some
combination of writer/artist/origin/powers/costume, coming along at
the right time to hit it off with fandom -- that separates him or her
from the seven-dozen-odd variations on the same theme that never quite
clicked.
I agree that it's preferable to see an old character dusted off rather
than have a writer create a new one *that's exactly the same*. Of
course, despite the conventional wisdom says that *every* character is
somebody's favorite, I think the best use of this continuous
UBER-MEGA-CROSSOVER-EVENT-COMIC we're currently experiencing is to
clear out all the dead wood, all the failed versions of PowerSet X,
and streamline things. Maybe that'll help rejuvenate things for the
creators so they can give us better "new" characters.
So long as they don't kill off any of *my* favorite crappy characters,
of course ;-)
grinningdemon
Oh, I think most of us are already aware of that...but some of those
"rip-offs" can be rehabilitated into decent characters in their own
right...Green Arrow, for instance, was originally a rather obvious and
lackluster Batman knock-off but has developed into something distinct
and interesting over time.
>
>The successful character has an undefinable *IT* factor -- some
>combination of writer/artist/origin/powers/costume, coming along at
>the right time to hit it off with fandom -- that separates him or her
>from the seven-dozen-odd variations on the same theme that never quite
>clicked.
It's true that you can't really predict which characters will turn out
to be popular...but there have been some truly ridiculous characters
that popped up over the years and it makes me wonder how some of them
ever even make it to the printed page.
>
>I agree that it's preferable to see an old character dusted off rather
>than have a writer create a new one *that's exactly the same*. Of
>course, despite the conventional wisdom says that *every* character is
>somebody's favorite, I think the best use of this continuous
>UBER-MEGA-CROSSOVER-EVENT-COMIC we're currently experiencing is to
>clear out all the dead wood, all the failed versions of PowerSet X,
>and streamline things. Maybe that'll help rejuvenate things for the
>creators so they can give us better "new" characters.
And that happens, to an extent...Infinte Crisis, for instance, wiped
out quite a few of those forgetable characters...unfortunately, the
One Year Later gimmick that followed it precipitated the introduction
of just as many, if not more.
But there is also the problem that, for it to be a true "event," it
seems that we have to lose interesting and popular characters
too...personally, I don't think that is necessary every time out but
it is clearly the mindset at DC and Marvel.
>
>So long as they don't kill off any of *my* favorite crappy characters,
>of course ;-)
Of course...God help them if they kill off Captain Cold.
Duggy
> > Which certainly opens the question... how does Vertigo do it when DC
> > can't?
> DC's "can't" seems to be more an issue of your "true scots" fallacy
> than anything DC does or doesn't do.
So the fact that DC can only make a new DCU character successful is my
fault.
Wow, how thick are you?
> > There's the TPB thing, sure. Those you list are better than "normal"
> > comics, sure, but a lot of better comics don't make the 25.
> Perhaps TWA is more commited to losing money on something that might
> be more developable and exploitable, perhaps the writers have a better
> deal a-o more rights and are so motivated to put more effort into
> something, it's more attractive to a higher class of writer. Who
> knows?
Not me. That's why I asked.
> > > especially if you think, as you seem to do, that John Constantine is Kid Swamp Thing, Jr.
> > Wow. You really can't read can you?
> You objected to John Constantine as being an example of DC creating a
> successful new character on the grounds he'd been introduced in
> someone else's book, and was thus part of their "family," presumably
> something along the lines of Kid Flash or Impulse or the Rogues.
You presumed wrong. Only to be expected from you.
> > > or a new character in his new book doesn't count if there are guest stars
> > You lying moron. I clearly stated that it I'll allow guest
> > appearences.
> I read you whining that Tim Hunter couldn't be an example of a
> successful new character since his intro-mini had a lot of guest
> stars.
One or two guest stars is fine, especially if they're actually just
guests and not a tie in. I stated that clearly before you claimed
otherwise.
Tim Hunter's origin ties him into a group of characters more like a
team up than "Superman appears on page 21 to approve or disprove of
the new character."
> > But sure, since you know that you're wrong,
> Of course I'm not, you know.
I bet you actually believe that, too.
> > I'm sure you
> > have no problem making stuff up to try to prove your point.
> I might be exagerrating for the sake of, you know, making fun of you,
> but I'm not wrong by any means.
See, you're trying to make fun of me but you're just making yourself
look stupid.
All of your "exagerrations" are claims that contradict what I've
actually said.
> > > or the book is canceled in much less than ten years,
> > I said 25 issues... two years.
> Well, technically it was Blackjet who said that.
Wow. You really are a moron.
Blackjet said 12 - 24 issues.
*I* said 25.
But, hey, I'm sure you weren't wrong, you were just exagerrating when
you said Blackjet said that.
> > But, keep making shit up. I think
> > anything past that can at least be seen as a success.
> 26 issues?
Debatable, but for the purposes of the argument, I'd accept 26 issues
as a success.
6 issues can be a success, more than 25 can be a failure. I was just
giving a number I felt fair... if you feel 25 is unfair, I'll discuss
that.
But if you're going to make stuff up to make yourself look stupid,
well, that's your problem.
> Can you really not see the question-begging you're engaged in here?
> "Why can't DC successfully add sufficiently original characters to the
> DC universe, where "sufficiently original" means "unconnected to the
> DC universe."
I'm not really asking that question. I answered that one in the
second post in this thread.
I'm just reasking the question to grant the premise.
DC creates hundred of characters that aren't tied to an existing
character but are still part of the DCU. These, however, are never as
successful as the ones that DC ties to existing characters.
Hense, Blackjet is wrong when he claims that DC doesn't try to create
such characters.
> In a related development, it turns out most snakes are pretty short
> if you don't count the tail.
Missed the point much?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>>Zaurel may have been accepted but no one really felt he'd earned a
>>place in the top tier... which is why he disappeared.
>>Even Kyle suffered from a similar thing.
> Don't forget Triumph...
Triumph was created not to be successful... so it isn't quite the same
thing.
===
= DUG.
===
Anlatt the Builder
>
> And that happens, to an extent...Infinte Crisis, for instance, wiped
> out quite a few of those forgetable characters...unfortunately, the
> One Year Later gimmick that followed it precipitated the introduction
> of just as many, if not more.
>
Who did Infinite Crisis wipe out? And was it retconning wipe-out or
killing-off-characters wipe-out?
grinningdemon
Superboy-Prime went on a rampage and killed off quite a few of the
lesser characters...Wildebeast and Pantha (I think that was her name)
of the Titans, for instance...there were others but I forget
who...and, of course, all the Freedom Fighters were killed by the
Secret Society...and then there were the more notable deaths like
Superboy (which has now been undone) and E-2 Superman (which has KIND
OF been undone).
But then, immeditately after OYL kicked in, Geoff Johns introduced a
crapload of new Titans who had supposedly come and gone during the
missing year...most of them were lame and forgettable...many of them
never showed up again beyond their initial appearances...and some of
them have already been killed off...in fact, some of them only ever
appeared in a splash page from the first OYL Teen Titans issue and in
52 where they died in Black Adam's rampage at the end...for one, there
was a Kid Frankenstein character...they never even bothered to give
him an origin or even the slightest explanation as to where the hell
he came from before they killed him off.
Duggy
> Who did Infinite Crisis wipe out? And was it retconning wipe-out or
> killing-off-characters wipe-out?
If you include Countdown to Infinite Crisis, lots... the series
itself, though, I don't recall.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
I think you mean Countdown to FINAL Crisis, don't you? Countdown to
INFINITE Crisis was only a one-shot and Ted Kord was the only death I
recall in it...but Countdown to Final Crisis certainly did have more
than its fair share of death with all the New Gods dropping like
flies...I don't think FINAL Crisis proper had many deaths other than
Martian Manhunter and Batman (kind of).