Why do people (maybe you) get upset when someone new takes over a character’s mantle? (5G rumors)

General Discussion Comic Books
, ,
21

As far as getting upset, I’m sure some are none-too-thrilled with established icons being tossed aside all at once, and some might even be those that don’t read comics. I remember telling my Dad about how Marvel killed off Steve Rogers, and even though he never read a comic book as far as I know (and this may’ve been before the Marvel films), he didn’t like the idea. Batman and Superman in particular reflect a feeling of familiarity in American pop culture, and suddenly changing that can be discomforting, even to more casual types.

On the other hand, there is a very real fatigue with these sorts of gimmicks being tried time and time again. Bats alone has had several stand-ins, numerous Earth Green Lanterns is common, and Flash has been taken up by several other, established characters as well. Why should we believe this is going to be anything more than a year-long experiment? Heck, wasn’t that basically what Jean-Paul Valley was? An attempt to make Batman “darker, edgier, grittier, badder,” for the 90’s EXTREME fad? What new territory do they think they’re going to cover? Moreover, why should some of the more skeptical readers believe these ventures will be any good?

That said, there have been times that I’ve personally been okay with such a change up. I enjoyed Grayson as Batman (but then, Morrison also gave a clue that Bruce wasn’t dead), and was okay with a “more than one Bat” approach upon Wayne’s return. I’m a huge Cassandra Cain fan, so when Steph Brown took over as Batgirl, I was initially displeased because Cass had just returned to the side of the angels. However, Stephanie really shined in this new role, and Cass became Black Bat, so that was good. Until the reboot mistake, but I digress.

Damien taking over as Robin wasn’t too bad, either. It was Grayson taking the arrogant, entitled brat under his wing, teaching him to be a better hero, while Tim, who was Robin when I started comics and a character I very much like, gained the new identity of Red Robin.

Now, the latter two examples showed that, while new faces took over legacy roles, the previous holders adopted new alter egos. That’s not likely to happen with iconic characters like Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent, or others. They’re inexorably tied to those identities, which also lends to the likelihood of this not lasting too long into 2021, if that. If they’re smart at DC (and many of us have our doubts), they have an exit strategy for this already.

6 Likes
22

I love this conversation and just want to say a huge thank you to every contributing. I sadly am at work and won’t be able to respond until later but thanks again.
(I love this community)

6 Likes
23

I don’t mind so long as it is not just a throw away “hey, let’s boost sales by having so and so take over for a month!” It has to be for reasons that actually make sense. A few KFs, Stephinie Borwn Robin, and quite a few others just seem to be around so they can boost sales. Often these characters are added so quickly they fail to properly develop the character. A few were done right, Wally as Flash, Wallace West Kid Flash, and Dick as Batman but those are rare instances, .

5 Likes
24

I don’t think I’ve ever been upset at someone being replaced as long as the story is good. I think the only time I’ve been disappointed is when a replacement character has been established, and the original comes back only to make this now established and experienced character seem like an inexperienced character.

Best examples - Kyle as Green Lantern for years doing things that no other Green Lantern has done, and Hal comes back and it seemed Kyle was less than important and less experienced than Hal. Same with Wally for Flash. Wally basically took Flash to new levels, and then Barry came back and Wally was a background character. Essentially all the things Wally could do that Barry didn’t, Barry actually could and did. Speed Force that Wally got to, only because Barry was the Speed Force or created the Speed Force or whatever example they gave.

Of course I think it also aligns to when I started reading comics and investing in them. Kyle and Wally were my Green Lantern and Flash for the over a decade. Then the original comes back and I went from being able to read these characters I liked everywhere (team titles, their own book, team ups, etc.) to having to search out stories to read with them.

Maybe I do get upset when people are replaced. Forget my original argument. Man did I get upset when those characters returned to replace character’s I liked. On the other hand, Dick Grayson as Batman - I’ve liked that every time it occurred. Future storylines with new characters taking up a mantle. All for it, typically love reading what drove a character to pick up a mantle. Give me an exciting storyline like “Reign of the Supermen” and I loved it. Collected all of those.

6 Likes
25

I think if it is done just for the sake of change it’s not a good idea. There should be a good story to go with the change. Why is the story you want to tell better with this person as Batman or Superman instead of the original?

5 Likes
26

While admitting that at times it can generate good stories, Jane Foster as Thor being the best example for me, it feels repetitive to me. We’ve temporarily replaced all these heroes before, that story has been told many times with the majority of replacements not living up to the task. The 5G rumors sound like this trope at its worst. Let’s replace them all for the sake of replacing them all with our audience knowing this is all temporary. In the example of this rumor we are even bypassing the natural successor apparently just because.

9 Likes
27
  1. I only get upset when mantle is passed to a new character when it doesn’t make logical sense for a particular character to take up that mantle. Case in point: Luke Fox taking over as Batman.

This particular one makes no sense to me at all on a conceptional level. Luke just doesn’t have the required experience to be Batman in my opinion not to mention he’s just to new at the whole hero game to take on the role at this point. There are other members of the Bat Family that have years more experience on Luke and who would be better suited to the role. Dick Grayson has even already filled that role twice. To be honest I would rather see Kate step in to fill the void instead of Luke if this indeed happens.

  1. I’ve enjoyed plenty of stories where a mantle was passed on to another character but in those cases the character who received the mantle from another made logical sense.

Dick Grayson as Batman and Wally West as The Flash are just two examples of characters who it made sense for them to received their mentors’ mantles.

Side note: I’ve seen plenty of people get pretty upset over sidekick mantles being passed on to new characters… One of the reasons people hated Jason Todd was because he replaced Dick Grayson as Robin.

7 Likes
28

I had a similar topic up about changes to characters race and sexuality and what I learned from it was that while some change may seem like it’s “for the sake of change”, sometimes that’s a good thing. There are a lot of people that don’t feel connections to certain heroes due to those heroes never being anything other than well-off (often times flat-out rich), straight, white people.

A lot of folks may say stuff like “well why don’t they just create a new character”, but that never works. New characters aren’t often carried by smaller shops, so they’re generally not reaching the people they’re supposed to represent. Plus there’s the issue of actually introducing this new character in a way that feels relevant to the God-like beings already in action. Just look at Aztek, good character and concept, but completely overshadowed in his own run by the fact that Superman was there. He sacrificed himself so Superman could beat an actual God, then his mantle was passed to Nayeli Constant, who’s barely been seen since. But, when you take an established character like Superman or Batman and put someone new under their mantle, that book is going to reach the shops that don’t carry anything other than the highest selling series, and it’s almost never a permanent change, so there’s really nothing to complain about.

I think Steel is the best example of how well it can work. He was brought in on a Superman title, presented as a possible replacement for Supes, then went on to become his own hero with a pretty good legacy to date.

4 Likes
29

It bothers me when it makes no sense. I agree with ppl above, Dick as Batman made sense. But many comics have gone rogue and made main characters change with zero logic to go right back to the originals in a year. That drives me nuts. Idk I like the robins growing into their own. I enjoy Dick moving on to Nightwing.

5 Likes
30

Did y’all like it when Gordon was Batman?

2 Likes
31

I actually did. I thought it was fun but I also knew it was short term change.

4 Likes
32

I was only so-so on Gordon taking over as Batman but that was mainly because by that time I was lukewarm about most of DC’s comics line.

3 Likes
33
  1. it’s not that people get frustrated, it’s more that we’ve got to know a certain character for so long, that it feels like we actually know them personally. After they take that away it saddens us to see that character go.
  2. yes, many times. As long as the character does a good job taking over the mantle.
2 Likes
34

My response is if you have to use a main hero’s name, costume and popularity to prop up another new character, you’ve done a terrible job with that new character. Bucky Cap is a great example. Very cool as Winter Soldier, but once they put him in Cap’s suit that story dried up in lesss than a year.

If you want to push a less prominent character into the limelight, you have to put in the work. Luke Cage is a great example of this. I just don’t have the energy to deal with another writer who’s only way to tell a good story is to to go the overused trope of changing everything about the character.

It’s just lazy.

11 Likes
35

I feel the same way @rhcoop . Older characters did not get to where they are now overnight. They came on the scene as new characters once upon a time and built up their cred over the course of years. New characters would get a lot farther, I feel, if they were allowed by fans and comic companies to do the same as their predecessors did back in the day and if they were allowed to do so by standing on their own two feet in whatever ID they start off in.

8 Likes
36

I’ve seen a few people on this thread talk about they don’t like when they change the race or gender of a character because it feels like a gimmick or politically motivated. I’ve also seen some talk about letting other characters and their popularity grow naturally.

My only push on this would be is this just letting characters popularity grow naturally doesn’t always work. Take Black Lightening for example, he has a tv show and has been around for a while, yet he has struggled to produce a few mini-series in the past few years. Yes he is now part of Outsiders but not a solo book. Cyborg is a popular character (animated tv show, live action character, etc) except his on-going struggles. The same could be said of Mister Terrific’s New 52 run or even Gene Yang’s Super-man run (which I loved).

I think it is important to diversify and sometimes I think that means sharing those big mantles and passing them on to new characters. There is a huge history and weight and to let someone new, who also happens to have a different origin story and identity, can be really powerful for readers.

I’m an elementary teacher and most of my student don’t have a main superhero that looks like them. I am excited for that to change one day. Through creating new characters and some old/established characters stepping aside and letting others continue the legacy.

I think everyone has been super respectful and raised some amazing points. I haven’t had a chance to read everyone’s comments yet but really appreciate the conversation.

(Also these 5G rumors make a lot of sense when you think of Bendis joining DC and all he did at Marvel with Miles Morales and Ironheart)

5 Likes
37

So I’m probably going to recap several people here, but please just take it as agreement. Overall, I am okay with a transfer when it’s warranted or makes sense, but there are several problems that keep it from being smooth and are unfortunately - imho - compounding each time they result in them going back to the first character.
1) Bad handoff - If the new person isn’t a well fleshed out character, isn’t compelling, or has been given to a writer who takes them in a direction that fails to provide a connection, it’s going to cause disconnection. Jean Paul Valley is a good example I think, vs say John Stewart when Hal was replaced. If you can give readers an immediate hook, you have a good chance of at least getting a new snare of readers/ old fans. Wally absoutely nailed this replaced Barry post Crisis.
2) Stunt - if it feels like a stunt, looks like a stunt, or otherwise feels cheap fans are going to reject it. For me, that was Jim Gordon as Batman with a mech suit and a massive trailer. They may as well have let the thing turn into Optimus Prime while they were at it, and made Optimus the new Robin. It wasn’t badly written, and that take on Jim was a good character, but you’d have to be new to think that would last.
3) Parasocial relationship - so this is probably the whale. The big thing that sinks the handoff hardcore. (well, a big part. It combines with the second) Parasocial relationships are a real and studied bond with form with characters that we know are fictitious . It is not a delusion, or a deviation, it’s not even abnormal. It is 100% a factor in the life of many, many people. It’s why children have to have that bear, which you accidentally washed and now need to repair, and NO a new bear isn’t the same even if it’s the same model. It’s why people were upset when MASH was ended. The point of that is, we’re bonded to these characters. We ride along with them in their adventures, share their sorrows, and know they will triumph in part because they are fictional characters. When one dies for keeps, or is written off the book… it’s a loss. We need time to process, to grieve, and to form a bond with the new character. Anger is a not uncommon reaction in the process of making that break. Remember when Superman died, how people reacted. When Jason Todd died. These moments can hit us.
4) Conditioning - this is the other big one. And it’s almost all comics own fault. Bruce Wayne has been Batman for the better part of 80 years. Kal-El slightly longer. We’ve been trained from youth through multimedia to see these characters as their alter egos, an idea set by executive directive and sales over years. I’ve frequently wondered what a world would look like where Batman, Green Lantern, and other characters were treated more like The Phantom, with it built in and preconditioned ideas that the character would be handed off to a new person and the hero could die. It’s hard to say if and how comics/media would still be here.

5 Likes
38

I personally don’t have a problem with it because the universe as a whole NEEDS to grow. But at the same time it needs to make sense, the choice of the successor needs to be a good decision, needs to be a good match, etc. As long as it’s a growth process and the successor is a good match I don’t find a problem with it.

3 Likes
39

I feel like you missed my whole point of less prominent characters not being carried by smaller stores. If they want to get representation to as many shops as possible, they need to do it by using the big names.

Bucky and Luke Cage are characters that both gained from a more popular character (Cap and Iron Fist) being involved in their stories. They’re not new characters being introduced. If you want them to go the Luke Cage route, that means they’ll have to make a character, let them toil in obscurity for a while, pair them with another hero whose sales are declining, then wait 30+ years to put him on one of the best selling teams.

I’m not saying they need to change everything about a character, but I am saying passing the mantle is a good thing, even if the person taking it up doesn’t seem to make sense at the time (Azreal Bats seems to be fairly accepted now). It’s not going to be permanent, you proved that yourself with the Bucky Cap example, so there’s nothing to get mad about. Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent and so forth will always be around, but that doesn’t mean they can’t pass on a legacy.

3 Likes
40

I think switching mantles in sake of diversification is pandering. I’ve heard numerous black creators and commentators that work or cover the big 2 say the same thing. I don’t think that’s an opinion that gets light shed on it a lot.

I think if they go replacement instead of being smart and having this 5th Gen 10-15 years in the future and we get to keep the original heroes, it will have the opposite of the desired effect. Sales will go up for a few months and then fly into the mountain.

Now regarding Bendis, Miles and Ironheart, a LOT of people don’t care a bit for Riri and think she was/is a Mary Sue . Miles is way more popular, but I’ve heard over and over that he’s pretty much redundant and useless in the main 616 universe.

Obviously this is just opinion, but I don’t think it ever really works to replace high profile heroes for essentially the whims of new ownership or editorial that probably don’t have the stories best interests at heart in the first place.

6 Likes