D.C. is home of the multiverse-there is no need for anxiety over passing the mantle (which is desperately needed in my opinion). Our heroes can retire or die, and their mantle be passed onto the next generation in another universe. Call the Series Earth Z and get started. A lot of fans would be eager to read about the next generation of heroes (finally) and you could probably pick up some new fans interested in getting on board on the beginning. You can do this while still keeping Bruce, Clark and Diana alive and well here on Earth-1
1 Like
It’s definitely time for DC to move on. They push the main trinity, and their current sidekicks - that’s it. Everyone else gets the scraps and I’m just tired of great characters going to waste and being disrespected or discredited just so they can push those few characters. DC has been running in circles for years now without a future in sight because they refuse to lets these characters age, learn, and grow as characters. As Diddio once said they don’t wanna do that because they don’t wanna have to do stories where characters surpass their money makers.
2 Likes
It’s like when the soup is great but you keep adding stuff and change the recipe to where it taste terrible. Leave Batman alone. He is a great iconic character. Yes you can have a substitute at times but always bring back the original.
I specify here that this wouldn’t be a permanent change:
As for the changing of a metaphorical soup, I have to disagree with you there. Let’s say someone only ever eats tomato soup for their whole life. Imagine if that person told you that adding crackers to tomato soup or having nice side of grilled cheese was a bad thing. Would you trust them? I wouldn’t. I’d say they’d never tried some variations of tomato soup that could greatly enhance and play against its flavors. Just because something is good doesn’t mean that other variations of it aren’t also good. You can like Bruce Wayne and also want to see something new done with the character of Batman (or any of the heroes in the DC Universe). These concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
But, with that said, thank you so much for hearing out my opinion and sharing your own. I greatly appreciate it! 
I’ll speak based on my love of the DC Trinity, and my own personal preference. I must say, my stance on this has softened some over time. Not so much as to fully embrace the idea of succession, but to reluctantly go along with it, should it ever be a thing.
Is Batman (or Superman, or Wonder Woman), a mantle to be passed? A position that needs to be filled? Or are they larger than life characters, that came to be because of their unique circumstances, back stories, psychologies, physical attributes, moralities, upbringings, etc? “Passing the mantle” of one of those three, for me, is like trying to replace a character like Hercules while wearing his armor and taking his name. To me, the words “Superman”, “Batman” and “Wonder Woman” are not titles or positions or mantles waiting to be filled once there’s a vacancy. They are characters I’ve been following for most of my 40 years of existence. There’s the fact that it’s been done before with the Flashes, Lanterns, etc. Just because it’s been done, and successfully so, doesn’t mean that the idea holds any appeal for me personally. While I am accepting of the idea that multiple people can access the speed force, or that earth seems to have more lanterns than any other planet, it does (again for me) reduce the uniqueness and therefore the appeal of those admittedly great heroes somewhat. When saying “There’s no one like Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman”, I want it to ring true. It’s an emotional thing.
Having said all that, I mentioned I was softening up a little bit. Why? Two reasons. First because of good people like you and @Vroom that have repeatedly pointed out the benefits of keeping an open mind and the storytelling possibilities. Second, taking that open mindedness into reading the current Bendis run on Superman and Legion of Superheroes, 2 ongoings which I’m thoroughly enjoying. He is setting Jon up to become Superman. So far it’s just been hints both big & small, but he’s been doing it in a tasteful manner. One that doesn’t take away from who Clark is or what his significance is to the DC Universe. I find myself accepting the idea of “maybe this young man can follow in his father’s huge footsteps and be just as great a hero”. I didn’t ask for it… I’m concerned… but I’m liking it so far. I actually asked Bendis to address my concerns on the subject in the DCU Q&A. He skipped over my question 
.
To make a long story short, as my good friend @Aquamon just mentioned, I’m open minded enough to check it out. However, I do not, and probably never will, feel like this is something that is necessary.
5 Likes
That’s awesome to hear @moro! Thank you so much for reading and sharing your perspective. I understand why people are sensitive to these big characters passing on their mantel. But I think it can be done, so long as we are open to it and give it a chance. I’m not saying people need to embrace it fully with open arms, but to at least give it some thought and reluctantly allow writers to experiment and tell interesting stories. I think you and @Aquamon are great examples of this. I hope my post will maybe allow some people to at least reflect on their stances and be a little more open. They don’t need to fully agree with me or change their mind, but hopefully their open like you are. Once again, thanks for sharing!
2 Likes
Thank you for dropping by! Didn’t mean to summon and run.
2 Likes
This 
And this
Thank you for succinctly articulating a couple of my feelings that I had trouble forming into coherent thoughts 
3 Likes
My response to the first point here is probably going to feel redundant and tiresome for you guys, but: Terry McGinnis. He has the same moral codes and to protect Gotham as Bruce, but he does it in a new way from a new point of view. I bring him up because I think he’s a perfect example of passing on the mantel to a new person that has earned the right to be Batman.
I know it’s hard to separate Bruce from Batman, but even Bruce himself has said on countless occasions that Batman is a concept. It’s a figure that Gotham can look to and either fear or feel protected by. It’s why Dick picked up the costume when Bruce disappeared all those years ago: because Batman means something to Gotham. That symbol means something far greater, whether it’s Bruce, Dick, or Terry behind the mask.
I agree 100% that whoever follows up Bruce should EARN the title. I don’t think I’ve indicated or even implied otherwise throughout any of my posts. I brought up Luke Fox as an example in my first post beause I thought he was someone who could earn that mantel and do something unique with it. He stands for what Bruce stands for, but goes about justice in his own unique way. He uses the same symbol as him because he knows means something to that city. Does this address your concerns or would you like me to expand upon it more? 
1 Like
No. Thanks for offering, but no need for expanding. Not really trying to change your mind or prove anything. Lively debates are fun and (sometimes) entertaining in and of themselves, but at the end of the day for me, it’s the way I feel about my entertainment that determines my consumption of it. Just thought those two points expressed how I feel a little bit more.
2 Likes
Totally understand, just wanted to make sure I acknowledged them and tried my best to share my counter. 
2 Likes
But that’s not what you are saying. You are saying “I’m taking away your tomato soup and giving you clam chowder instead.”
1 Like
No worries CP. it’s not like I don’t have an opinion. 
2 Likes
So you want to bet a major source of revenue on one data sample from a tv series (There were comics but BB is most well known as an animated series.) AND that series never impacted current continuity. BB was an interesting idea and it had its run, but, that’s all it was a run that ran its course.
And Luke Fox uses the symbol to be batwing, why does he need to go from batwing to Batman? That bat symbol in the sky could point to batwing as much as Batman. Why give up your own identity and take up somebody else’s. That just doesn’t make sense at any psychological level, especially for someone already with a bat on their chest.
3 Likes
Okay, lots of things to respond to here. Let’s start with the tomato soup metaphor since (at least in my eyes) I’m not substituting tomato soup for clam chowder (not that I think clam chowder is a bad thing or bad alternative).
You see, I don’t believe I’m trying to replace tomato soup with clam chowder in the examples I’ve given. Let’s say Bruce Wayne as Batman is the plain tomato soup. It’s been delivered on it’s own with no sides for a person’s entire existence. Now, a restaurant says, “Hey, we’re gonna start adding crackers to our tomato soup!” It’s still the same tomato soup they love but with a little more crunch. This crunch adds something new but it’s still a lot of the same. This is like when Dick took over the mantel. Him and Bruce handled being Batman VERY similarly, but there was something that was just a little different. Like getting the crunch of a cracker. Luke Fox would be like getting grilled cheese with your tomato soup. It’s still tomato soup (he still wants to protect Gotham and acknowledges the legacy and importance of holding the Batman title), but it offers some new flavors, textures, and possibilities that plain tomato soup can’t offer (a slightly different way to go about crime fighting for example).
And once again, why make Luke Batman instead of Batwing? Because they carry different responsibilities. You can sit here and argue that the symbol is the same on both chests, but both characters do not carry the same weight and importance in that city or even the overall DC universe. Batman has far greater and different responsibilities than Luke in current cannon. I want to see what Luke would do with those responsibilities.
Now, as far as the financial risk, I think its only there because DC fans can be a little stubborn at times and refuse to let the writers experiment. They gate keep characters like Batman because they’ve only known him to be one way. But, if we were all more open (not even fully supportive, just open) to new ideas then it’s not as big of a financial risk because DC can trust that their fan base will still show support. I want to let writers experiment and try new stuff. Are we gonna have to wait another 80 years for fans to get tired of seeing Bruce fight the Joker again and again in the same ways attacking the same flaws? Let’s let these characters be real people, let them take a break. Let’s experiment a little bit. Comics are an art, and we shouldn’t gate keep or discourage writers and artists from trying something new.
1 Like
And some people (like myself) prefer clam chowder to tomato soup.
While, I appreciate the sentiment. I think there’s a pretty easy rebuttal of “just go eat clam chowder then.” Basically, if you’d like a completely different superhero then don’t read Batman, go read a different comic. But I’m not arguing for a completely new hero, I just want a new Batman. One with the same morals and purpose, but slightly different outlooks and tactics. It’s still tomato soup, just with some grilled cheese.
I’m suddenly craving soup.
3 Likes
I think I’ve taken the metaphor a bit too far haha.
1 Like
So changing the base ingredients of the soup, the person, personality & psychology doesn’t change the soup. I disagree. You aren’t “adding” some additional element(s) to the soup. You are changing it at its foundational core. Don’t tell me you are serving “tomato soup with crackers” and then serve me “clam chowder”.
As for gatekeeping, that why I say it’s no longer a DC issue. Batman & Bruce Wayne are owned by the collective culture. When you start mucking about with the trinity, it’s a different territory than say, Raven or The Creeper.
You might as well say ok…we are getting rid of Jesus and replacing him with Fred Meyers, an insurance salesman from Grand Island Nebraska. Was he born if a Virgin…no. Did he live without sin…no. Was he crucified and resurrected…no. But, he is a very generous, giving a pious man and he’s the new savior.
How do you think Christianity would take that change? Would most of them embrace it? Would most of them reject it? Would a majority be pissed off for even trying to change it?
Like it or not, this isn’t to far afield with certain fictional characters. Large swaths of the population have deep connections to them. Especially because they have been around for 80 years. That’s just a fact. When you read a standard continuity Batman book, you reach back through time and share an experience with all those who came before. People may not make the conscious connection that is what they are doing. But, it is what they are doing, whether they want to or not. The become part of the collective cultural consciousness of Batman.
So rather than changing the responsibilities to another person and who they are. You are saying “Here…put on this costume and you will be changed.” It seems like the former is to hard? Does Batman need to exist? Perhaps no. Does something need to go in to fill that void? Let’s say yes. Why does what fills that void have to be Batman? Why can’t it be Batwing? That is the more interesting question and has the more significant impact.
You are simply advocating change for change’s sake. It is entirely possible to change Batman to have or acquire different ideas or points of view. The character has evolved and sometimes not always in a good way. Do we need a new Batman or just a truly new envisioning of Batman? Take the change from the Silver to the Bronze Age. That was a reimagining and reconnecting to some of his different roots as a character. If you want a radical change to Batman, it can be done and no change of the identity under the cowl is required.
3 Likes