Superhero Character Development... is it possible?

[larryfilmmaker]

Rogue El had posted this on his myspace blog thing and I thought it was so impressive I had to share it. I agree 137% with it.

The undeniable truth is that comics are mainly bought by proper fans, and rarely by the casual consumer (in western society - in Asia, comics are as popular as newspapers and read by all ages). Although many children are buying the revamped versions of classic heroes, lead by Ultimate Spider-Man, it's still the hardcore fans who buy most of the comics.

Fans can be very demanding, and confrontational. And when they group together, especially on the intenet, watch out. They become like a pack of sharks, and then vultures. They are like this because they care about the characters so much, and they don't want them changed.

This is the problem. It's not the character that is most important, it's the story. Comicbook creators don't have the luxury of real character development. The readers won't allow it. They want their heroes and villains to remain exactly how they remember them. And so the writers and artists are unable to use their full creative impulses, to create full, evolving characterisations and storylines, because the readership wants the characters to remain static, in limbo.

In the 1990's, some of the major comicbook icons were involved in major storylines. The stories all went like this; the hero suffers a major trauma, either physically or mentally, and is replaced by a new version(s) of the hero.

In the case of Batman, he was defeated by the brual supervillain Bane. The unstable vigilante Jean-Paul Valley became the new Batman, quickly went off the rails, and ended up as a high-tech monster. The real Batman eventually returned and defeated him. This is the Knightfall saga.

In The Death and Return of Superman epic, the Man of Steel is defeated by the savage Doomsday. Superman was replaced by four psuedo-Supermen, none of whom turned out to be the real McCoy. The genuine article returned, and saved the earth from being turned into a giant spaceship by an intergalatic warlord.

These two storylines created much controversy, but there is no doubt the creators behind them intended for the real versions of the characters to ultimately return. At heart both merely replicate the superhero story blueprint on an epic scale; will the hero appear in time to save the day?

However, in the infamous Spider-Man Clone Saga, the creators had other ideas. We find out that, since the mid-70's, we haven't been reading the real Spider-Man's adventures. At that point he was replaced by a clone. So the Spider-Man from the classic Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita Sr stories of the 60s is not the same one that's in the Todd MacFarlane/JM DeMatteis/John Romita Jr stories I grew up reading in the 80s.

It was a shocking and thrilling idea. There was so much potential for great science fiction and human drama. Marvel's attempt to freshen the Spider-Man comics had electrified them.

But it did not go down well. Perhaps the Clone saga was badly written. Perhaps the new Spider-Man was too different from the original. But the main reason this story was savagely attacked by fans; because it changed the character of Spider-Man.

And so the artists and writers had to go back, change the story, and assure us that the whole thing was just a trick by the Green Goblin.

The same with the DC superhero Green Lantern, aka Hal Jordan. After his home city was destroyed, his anger was such that he killed all the other Green Lanterns (an intergalatic police force) and stole their energy (powered by 'magic' rings). One last ring was given to teenager Kyle Rayner on earth, and he was given the monumental task of being the last Green Lantern. Everything was turned on it's head; the balance of power shifted between good and evil, the hero of the saga became the villain, a boy had to become a hero. The only hero. Very similar to Star Wars, in fact.

Kyle Rayner actually lasted a decade in print, despite the onslaught of fans who wanted Hal Jordan back. But Hal had developed as far as he could as a hero - there was no where for the character to go. Except to the dark side. Fans said Hal would never become evil. But the fans didn't write the comics, and, whilst keeping the characters believable in their actions, they should be explored. They should go through the ringer, that is the essence of heroic drama and myth.

With Kyle Rayner, there was a new hero, a new version of the Green Lantern who had to endure a trial of fire and lean to be a hero. There was so much potential in this new, fresh version as he contrasted with the older version of the character. How would he approach things? What would he do differently? More drama was added due to the fact that he was the last one of his kind.

An epic change of course for the Green Lantern series. And let's not forget, there have always been many different Green Lanterns, as it is a force of superheroes protecting the universe. Hal Jordan wasn't even the first. So it was only right for Kyle Rayner to become the new focus of the series.

Not according to the fans. They wanted old Hal back as a good guy. And so, the writers altered, contrived their story to make the readers happy again. Hal was possesed by some kind of evil force. He then saved the universe, became the wondering spirit of vengeance the Spectre, and recently has become the main Green Lantern again. Kyle Rayner's whole coming of age hero arc was abrubtly cut short to suit the readers.

An epic tale that would change Spider-Man forever and alter our view of the entire history of the character....was spoiled. A dramatic saga that gave us a new Green Lantern and turned the whole universe on it's head.....was ruined.

That such exciting ideas was killed by the fans is sad indeed. That they wouldn't allow real character development prevents them from reading really great stories. Imagine, if you will, Achilles being revived because the readers didn't like him dying. Oh, the arrow didn't kill him, it only wounded him (the same thing happened to Sherlock Holmes, although his death was simply a deliberate and failed attempt by Conan Doyle to dispose of him) . Frodo didn't really become corrupted by the ring, he just pretended to be. Incredible stories can only happen when incredible things happen to the characters. Story equals character. The story comes from the character development. These heroes must be allowed to change, to alter, to die, be reborn and evolve. That is where the great tales come from. That is why Casino Royale has far and away the best story of any James Bond film.

And if you want to read truly great fiction, then you have to accept, you have to revel, true character development.

 

[Harlekin]

This really only applies to the A-List. Everybody outside of that is fair game for development.

 

[The Question]

Yeah. It is a bit of a problem. Marvel and DC rarely take risks anymore. And when they do, they do it for all the wrong reasons and end up sucking.

 

[Tropico]

Comparing comic book characters to literary characters has always been unfair, IMO. The nature of both beasts makes it almost impossible since characters like Superman, Batman, Spider Man and the Hulk are meant to endure the pass of the years. There's only so much you can do with a character before going against what he/she is meant to be, when a certain line is crossed you might as well be writing a different character than the one you started out with. Books don't have this limitation since the life of their characters are finite and their development is only dependent upon the writer's whims.

Blaming it all on the fans is another unfair assessment, IMO. A well written and natural progression for a character can be accepted and even welcomed by fans, use the Flash as an example. You could also use the Flash as an example for fans resisting change when you look at the new Flash. From what I've seen, bringing Hal Jordan back (although fandom was divided on this) was mostly a story A WRITER wanted to tell as opposed to response to fan outcry.

Many of the examples Rogue El gives I can attribute to a generational point of view. You come into comics or movies or whatever that have a convoluted past; but then, in comes this new character just when you're also starting. It's easy to identify with it, this is YOUR character, not the past generation's. These are characters that when you're older you'll remember and cherish with fondness because they started their journey as the same time as you did. It's happened with Bond with practically every new actor that reprises the role, each new generation that gets the new Bond sees it better than the one before. Some people prefer Kyle as GL or Ben Reilly as Spidey or Wally as Flash or Orin as Aquaman and so on and so forth.

But, what happens 10-20 years down the line? Maybe you lost touch with comics for one reason or another and you decide to come back. You return to one of those cool characters that started out when you did and you start to get into the groove of his/her stories again. And you start to notice weird things are happening to him/her and suddenly they're replaced with a new character or a return to an old one. And then for all your "progressiveness" and desire for a "change in the status quo" you start to categorize things as being ruined or spoiled because they didn't stay in the static bubble of YOUR choosing. You suddenly become that which you were criticizing. It happens with every generation and practically with 99% of the fans as they get older.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

And then for all your "progressiveness" and desire for a "change in the status quo" you start to categorize things as being ruined or spoiled because they didn't stay in the static bubble of YOUR choosing. You suddenly become that which you were criticizing. It happens with every generation and practically with 99% of the fans as they get older.

Well said. A young kid might come along and think of Jay Garrick as "that old guy who used to be Flash" and to him, Wally is THE Flash. Then when the writers decide to make Wally "that old guy" they scream in horror.

 

[The Question]

Comparing comic book characters to literary characters has always been unfair, IMO. The nature of both beasts makes it almost impossible since characters like Superman, Batman, Spider Man and the Hulk are meant to endure the pass of the years. There's only so much you can do with a character before going against what he/she is meant to be, when a certain line is crossed you might as well be writing a different character than the one you started out with. Books don't have this limitation since the life of their characters are finite and their development is only dependent upon the writer's whims.

Blaming it all on the fans is another unfair assessment, IMO. A well written and natural progression for a character can be accepted and even welcomed by fans, use the Flash as an example. You could also use the Flash as an example for fans resisting change when you look at the new Flash. From what I've seen, bringing Hal Jordan back (although fandom was divided on this) was mostly a story A WRITER wanted to tell as opposed to response to fan outcry.

Many of the examples Rogue El gives I can attribute to a generational point of view. You come into comics or movies or whatever that have a convoluted past; but then, in comes this new character just when you're also starting. It's easy to identify with it, this is YOUR character, not the past generation's. These are characters that when you're older you'll remember and cherish with fondness because they started their journey as the same time as you did. It's happened with Bond with practically every new actor that reprises the role, each new generation that gets the new Bond sees it better than the one before. Some people prefer Kyle as GL or Ben Reilly as Spidey or Wally as Flash or Orin as Aquaman and so on and so forth.

But, what happens 10-20 years down the line? Maybe you lost touch with comics for one reason or another and you decide to come back. You return to one of those cool characters that started out when you did and you start to get into the groove of his/her stories again. And you start to notice weird things are happening to him/her and suddenly they're replaced with a new character or a return to an old one. And then for all your "progressiveness" and desire for a "change in the status quo" you start to categorize things as being ruined or spoiled because they didn't stay in the static bubble of YOUR choosing. You suddenly become that which you were criticizing. It happens with every generation and practically with 99% of the fans as they get older.

True. But progressiveness shouldn't be limited to replacing characters. Character developement, and having the characters and their surroundings actually change and grow as time goes on, is the more important issue, I think. And yes, some fans just coming back to a character will be confused and even annoyed by whatever changes have happened. But my philosophy on that is this: Get the back issues. Read up on how it happened. You might end up liking the changed better than how things used to be.

Of course, the hardcore fans are always going to want their status quo. And honestly, I don't see any way of apeasing that. There's no way to have an indefinitely running series retain quality and creativity without making changes to the characters and their lives of some kind. after a while it just gets repeatative. Most of the A list characters fall into this trap. It's why I loved most of JMS' Spider-Man run. JMS did something that alot of comic book writers don't do when they do a run on a longrunnning, popular series: He did something new with the characters. And, for the most part, he did it well.

 

[Andy C.]

While I do agree that a lot of fans take things way out of hand when someone upsets the status quo, I don't think Rogue El is giving them enough credit. The changes in a superhero's personality may not always be drastic or immediately evident, but character development does take place.

Look at Superman, for instance. Over the years, he's grown from being a street-level vigilante to a nationalistic power-house to a messianic symbol for the whole human race. His personal life with his family and friends has grown as well; Clark has gone from the country bumpkin adjusting to city life, to a renowned journalist, a husband, and most recently (at least while he's keeping Zod's kid around) a father. True, that's not as drastic as killing him off or having him turn evil, but there are plenty of added dimensions to the character that I think are often overlooked.

And while we're at it, have a look at Batman. Originally, "Batman" was just a persona that Bruce Wayne would use while he'd go out and fight crime at night. However, as the years went on, and more and more writers influenced the mythos, Batman became his mindset 24/7, only using "Bruce Wayne" as a disguise to keep up appearances. In essence, the Bat has taken over the Man. Look at how his relationships change as well: his unease over Dick Grayson stepping out from under his tutelage to become Nightwing, his bereavement and withdrawn period after the death of Jason Todd, his teased romances with Catwoman and Wonder Woman, his back-and-forth friendly rivalry with Superman. Again, they're not immediately noticeable, but they're there.

There's a big difference between developing a character and just dramatically upheaving one.

 

[Lex Luthor]

One of the problems I have with Rogue El's write up, is that he uses examples of not just failed change, but dramatic/revamping change with a superhero as reasons why evolution is not really within grasp in the comic book superheroes in general. And thats something I really don't agree with.

Sure, one of the biggest problems with shaking up an A-lister's title is that of changing the status quo in dramatic fashion. Sometimes a gamble like that succeeds, but more often than not, the status quo is eventually brought back sooner, rather than later. Although there have been unique situations where drastic change such as a "Death" or a "Replacement" have eventually, though not immediately, appeased fans of that title long enough to 'stick', let's not also forget that changes like these are rarely, if ever met with great fanfare upon it's conception. And this definately relates to "The Flash" title. As days, months, and even years after the death of Barry Allen in DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths" took place, I can still remember fans wondering exactly when, and where would Barry Allen make his return. Hell, Marv Wolfman stated in 1998, that everyone at DC liked Barry, and upon his death, they planted a secret plot device in the story in case of someone at DC wanting to bring him back in the future, they could.

Why was this done? Do you even have to ask?

But as they say, time moved on, slowly but surely the shadow of Barry began to loom less and less on Wally, until ultimately Wally was finally accepted as THE Flash. Wally became The Flash for his generation. And that generation was the kids who began reading the *new* DC era of comics following "COIE". Which was great. But don't be fooled into thinking the shift from Barry to Wally wasnt met with it's fair share of resistance either.

As the above poster has said, we have indeed witnessed an evolution in the lives of the characters in comic books over the years. Where some have gone on to be fathers, mothers, getting married, or in lesser cases, becoming villains. And so on and so forth. But yeah, we have seen characters evolve from one part of their lives to another. And how that impacts their lives, and decisions in everything. Which is refreshing. And not to mention rewarding to the long time readers who have stuck around with their favourites over the years. It's only when theres a dramatic overhall when a great deal of fans, and even the writers/artists at the same company, become vocal about their dissatisfaction of the changes to the status quo (yes from what I understand there are STILL people at DC who would like to change the fact that Clark & Lois are married) that leads someone like Rogue El into thinking that comic book characters cannot truly develop. Which is false.

 

[The Question]

I don't know about that. The problem with Adny C.'s points is that what he's citing isn't character developement. At least, not in the storytelling sense. Within the continuity, Superman was never a street level vigilante with some powers. There have been changes, but they've been in the form of retcons and reboots. Not actual character developement. And while I'm not a fan of stupid drastic changes, I don't see a problem with changes, large or small, happening in a characters life as long as they're well written and make sense. The term "status quo" always seems like a bad thing to me.

 

[Lex Luthor]

I don't know about that. The problem with Adny C.'s points is that what he's citing isn't character developement.

Let's see, so Batman's unease about Grayson stepping out of his tutelage to become Nightwing, his bereavement and withdrawn period after the death of Jason Todd which subsequently continued to haunt him in continuity for years after the fact, arent examples of character devolpment in a storytelling sense?

Within the continuity, Superman was never a street level vigilante with some powers.

Well, he wasnt exactly loved by law enforcement officials during his early days way back when in Action Comics.

And while I'm not a fan of stupid drastic changes, I don't see a problem with changes, large or small, happening in a characters life as long as they're well written and make sense.

Yup, agreed. Like I said earlier, many of the examples and problems I have with Rogue El assessment is that he cites a lack of development where the people involved with the character decided to bring in drastic changes much to the dissatisfaction of fans, and even colleagues alike. And for good reason. It's true that not every change (big or small) brought forth in a superhero comic book is going to be met with a overwhelming approval rating by fans (some even being simply retcon out), but it's certainly not like we havent seen development (whether it be in a story, or with the character), that hasnt stuck around.

The term "status quo" always seems like a bad thing to me

It's often used in a negative light. That's probably why.

 

[Andy C.]

I don't know about that. The problem with Adny C.'s points is that what he's citing isn't character developement. At least, not in the storytelling sense. Within the continuity, Superman was never a street level vigilante with some powers. There have been changes, but they've been in the form of retcons and reboots. Not actual character developement. And while I'm not a fan of stupid drastic changes, I don't see a problem with changes, large or small, happening in a characters life as long as they're well written and make sense. The term "status quo" always seems like a bad thing to me.

How does adding new dimensions to a character's life, thus changing the way he lives in one way or another, not count as character development?

 

[The Question]

Let's see, so Batman's unease about Grayson stepping out of his tutelage to become Nightwing, his bereavement and withdrawn period after the death of Jason Todd which subsequently continued to haunt him in continuity for years after the fact, arent examples of character devolpment in a storytelling sense?

Not what I was talking about at all. That is character developement. What I'm talking about are the changes in the characters made, not by character developement, but through retcons and reboots. Like Batman using lethal force, and Clark's more hot headed aditude and more street vigilante M.O.

Well, he wasnt exactly loved by law enforcement officials during his early days way back when in Action Comics.

But due to several retcons and reboots, those old days never happened in continuity.

Yup, agreed. Like I said earlier, many of the examples and problems I have with Rogue El assessment is that he cites a lack of development where the people involved with the character decided to bring in drastic changes much to the dissatisfaction of fans, and even colleagues alike. And for good reason. It's true that not every change (big or small) brought forth in a superhero comic book is going to be met with a overwhelming approval rating by fans (some even being simply retcon out), but it's certainly not like we havent seen development (whether it be in a story, or with the character), that hasnt stuck around.

My feeling is that there should be more.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

Question I get what you're saying. The complete revamps of characters is not character development. Saying "Action Comics" never happened in Superman's continuity isn't character development, it's simply remodeling something. If a character moves from point A to point B, that's growth. If you simply erase point A and put the character at B, that's just a revamp.

 

[Elijya]

This is why I tend to read alot of creator owned comics, since the writers are free to develop their characters