Am I the only one who's not really a fan of legacy characters?

[The Batman]

I think the concept of legacy is way too overrated in the DCU. I find I dont even care for most of the characters, mainly because I'm distracted by the fact that DC forces one character out of a role and the new guy into it...and then they kill the new guy after realizing he was unpopular.

I'm not saying anyone should ever be replaced, but replacing people to replace them is just bad. I understand the need for a new robin or batgirl every once in a while, but atom didnt need to be replaced, neither did firestorm or Hal as GL, etc.

 

[Watchman]

Only when the character dies of lung cancer and the pet character moves in.

 

[SuperFerret]

The newer Firestorm was a good character, and Hal isn't the be-all, end-all of the thousand member Green Lantern Corps.

 

[Mystirious]

Only when the character dies of lung cancer and the pet character moves in.

I wonder who this could refer to?

I miss Vic Sage too Watchman, but Renee is great as the Question and she's one of the best written characters in comics right now. It's not all bad news

 

[Watchman]

I wonder who this could refer to?

I miss Vic Sage too Watchman, but Renee is great as the Question and she's one of the best written characters in comics right now. It's not all bad news

I've enjoyed those stories too but they could have been easily been told without sacarficing Sage.

 

[Mystirious]

I agree. It would have been better if DC had kept him as a mentor figure to Renee. They didn't have to kill him off to have her become the Question

Just as DC didn't have to kill of Ryan Choi just so Ray could be the only Atom. So the needless death goes both ways Legacy characters get it in the neck as well

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I think approving or disapproving of legacy characters across the board is way too broad a generalization to make. There are two components to a legacy character, really: 1) The removal of the previous character and 2) the quality of the new character.

Sometimes those are both done extremely well, as in Batgirl: Babs was paralyzed but became a much better character as Oracle and Cassandra was an intriguing character in her own right who bore the role well.

Sometimes one part is done badly but you can forgive it for the quality of the other part: Ted Kord's death sucked, but Jaime Reyes proved to be a really great character under Giffen, Rogers, and Sturges.

Sometimes both parts suck, like the AzBat situation, but those are usually intended to be temporary from the start, so it's cool. (Plus, Azrael became a decent character afterward.)

And, of course, as evidenced by the GLs, the Flashes, and others, sometimes you don't even really need to remove the previous character in the first place. There's no reason a legacy can't have multiple bearers at the same time.

 

[Drz]

Sometimes both parts suck, like the AzBat situation, but those are usually intended to be temporary from the start, so it's cool. (Plus, Azrael became a decent character afterward.)

Dennis O'Neill was actually afraid that people wouldn't want Bruce back as Batman, hence they gave him his own title. Now we got a new Azrael, but sadly i think Geoff Johns did a mistake with the original Azrael being dead (as he was a Black Lantern) because leaving it anonymous could have had an interesting story or two for the new Azrael.

Ah well we'll be seeing Azrael's father in the Detective Comics issue written by O'Neill.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh. Mm-hmm. You don't sa--zzzzzzzzzzz.

Wake me up when Jean-Paul Valley comes back.

 

[Drz]

Did you read the original Azrael series or what? i mean... I just find it hard to believe you're into a 90s character. :P

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Yes, I read it. I liked Valley's constant struggle with morality. He worked harder than most heroes to be a decent human being, let alone a true hero, but he was winning that struggle with Leslie Thompkins' help. Then in the last couple arcs of the series, the System kicked into overdrive, Jean-Paul abandoned any aspirations to be better, and he died, and Leslie Thompkins became a murderous b**** in "War Games." They corrected Leslie later on; when does Jean-Paul get his turn?

 

[Drz]

When Azrael becomes a White Lantern? I still think you could give the new Azrael a chance tho. It's Michael Lane the Devil Batman, whos now working for the Church with his own supporting cast, but they don't know that Ras' al Ghul is actually the real puppet master behind the order of saint Dumas and so forth. He's a cool hero/anti-hero. He doesn't kill but he plays it rough.

 

[Mystirious]

When Azrael becomes a White Lantern? I still think you could give the new Azrael a chance tho. It's Michael Lane the Devil Batman, whos now working for the Church with his own supporting cast, but they don't know that Ras' al Ghul is actually the real puppet master behind the order of saint Dumas and so forth. He's a cool hero/anti-hero. He doesn't kill but he plays it rough.

I've read the first few issues. I'll be honest, I'm not impressed

 

[Gilpesh]

I think approving or disapproving of legacy characters across the board is way too broad a generalization to make.

It would be... if they were usually used as a natural progression of a writer's story. But well... let's just post this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingToBeReplaced
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReplacementScrappy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffirmativeActionLegacy

 

[Drz]

I've read the first few issues. I'll be honest, I'm not impressed

Thats because you're a horrible person.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

When Azrael becomes a White Lantern? I still think you could give the new Azrael a chance tho. It's Michael Lane the Devil Batman, whos now working for the Church with his own supporting cast, but they don't know that Ras' al Ghul is actually the real puppet master behind the order of saint Dumas and so forth. He's a cool hero/anti-hero. He doesn't kill but he plays it rough.

He's very tied into all of Morrison's Bat-stuff, which I've never been interested in. I'm just waiting out his run at this point. I might give whatever Bruce is up to after his return a try, but I'll probably drop it if Morrison starts indulging in all of his '50s-era stuff and meta-zaniness again. Not that it's bad--I haven't read much of it so I don't know whether it is or not--but it's just not what I'm interested in for Batman.

 

[Kurosawa]

I think the concept of legacy is way too overrated in the DCU. I find I dont even care for most of the characters, mainly because I'm distracted by the fact that DC forces one character out of a role and the new guy into it...and then they kill the new guy after realizing he was unpopular.

I'm not saying anyone should ever be replaced, but replacing people to replace them is just bad. I understand the need for a new robin or batgirl every once in a while, but atom didnt need to be replaced, neither did firestorm or Hal as GL, etc.

The only one I particularly like is Michael Holt. Stargirl's okay. I just pretend Cross is McNider, since the costumes are close and they have very similar personalities. Killing characters is stupid, uncreative and lame and killing characters just to replace them is even more stupid, uncreative and lame.

 

[Drz]

No outside Azrael being a Morrison character, there really isn't any other connection. This is Fabien Nicieza's writing and you liked his Robin stuff. Tho i kinda have to agree i did almost give up the serie after #3 or was it #4 but it's been very good. He's trying his best while fightning the insanity coming from the Suit of Sorrow, which is from Paul Dini's story arc.

He's also now aware the church *will* kill him if he goes too far, so yeah he's prepared to having fight his atm-allies. It has interesting stuff coming out really.

 

[Mystirious]

Thats because you're a horrible person.

I'm just not into the whole religion angle. It doesn't really grab my interest

 

[solidsnake86]

I think the concept of legacy is way too overrated in the DCU. I find I dont even care for most of the characters, mainly because I'm distracted by the fact that DC forces one character out of a role and the new guy into it...and then they kill the new guy after realizing he was unpopular.

I'm not saying anyone should ever be replaced, but replacing people to replace them is just bad. I understand the need for a new robin or batgirl every once in a while, but atom didnt need to be replaced, neither did firestorm or Hal as GL, etc.

I guess it depends how there done, but then when the original character comes back (and they do, see barry allen) then it becomes a cluttered mess of characters with the same powers. But I like things to stay simple so a character like green arrow with the whole arrow family concept I find to be too much. Batman I can understand, he's a popular character, even green lantern because there a police force. I don't really know that much about green arrow but that whole arsenal/red arrow, conner hawke, speedy and whoever else they have running around with bows and arrows is a bit much for me. Obviously my opinion probably isn't a popular one but I would do away with a lot of unnecessary characters.

 

[BrianWilly]

I think there's always room for characters, old and new.

I'm a little surprised to hear that nowadays people think Ryan replaced Ray Palmer or something. I didn't see it that way, any more than I thought Bart Allen was replacing Wally West or that Dick is replacing Bruce right now. Yes, okay, obviously the older characters were "replaced" in the sense that another character had their name and spotlight for the moment, but they weren't dead or hampered in any way...they were just, y'know, somewhere else, and they would obviously come back when the story felt right.

I think the only reason people feel irrationally threatened by differing versions of heroes and have this desperate sense of proprietorship about them -- and yes, I feel it too -- is this fear of their own characters being obsolete, and that fear is exacerbated by DC's unfortunate tendency to play up the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE aspect. So I shouldn't even really call it an "irrational" fear because DC tends to validate it more often than not. That's so silly to me. There can always be more than one and, in some heroes' cases, there have always been more than one.

It's kind of sad to me that DC is now pushing their Legacies book and trying to capitalize on the rich history of diverse characters they have had over the years that made their universe great, except they're doing this in the same breath as killing off or pushing aside many of these unique legacies.

 

[fifthfiend]

Yup, legacy characters are pretty much the best.

Only when the character dies of lung cancer and the pet character moves in.

 

[fifthfiend]

Sometimes one part is done badly but you can forgive it for the quality of the other part: Ted Kord's death sucked, but Jaime Reyes proved to be a really great character under Giffen, Rogers, and Sturges.

Yeah, Ted/Jamie is so much less an argument against legacies than it is an argument against getting rid of fan-favorite characters by having them be unceremoniously shot in the face after everyone in the DCU is an ******* to them for an entire double-length event comic kickoff issue.

 

[Mystirious]

Most fans who are angry about Blue Beetle being dead do seem far angier about how he died rather than the fact that he died at all.

I still cannot fathom why everyone was such a **** to Ted. They all acted like he was crazy. "Oh Ted, a secret conspiracy working against us? Why it's not like we see that every other week in our lives as costume superheroes. You're just being paranoid. Run along you little scamp"

 

[Franklin Richards]

The same reason people were so pissed off at Marz. Except GL didn't have the luxury of death. He was still walking around committing evil and pissing away all his heroic history.


Take that Silver Age.