COMICS PORTAL: Is a Long-Lived Comics Character ‘Indestructible’?

On social media recently, a comics pro put forth the notion that long-standing comics people were “indestructible.” I don’t know if I buy that notion!

‘INDESTRUCTIBLE?’

A day or two ago, on X (the social media platform previously known as Twitter), Marvel comics creator Dan Slott said the following: “It’s impossible to ruin/destroy a longstanding character. If an iconic character’s been around for 50+ years, they’re indestructible.”

He continued: “Whatever current aspect/storyline displeases you as a fan can be hand-waved away down the road. The character you love will be fine.”

What if you don’t want to wait for a long time for things to change? “If a legacy character has been around for 50+ years, chances are good that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of stories about them in various media you haven’t read/seen/experienced yet. More than enough to tide you over.”

Then Slott said: “For a character to stay vital/fresh, especially one that’s been around for 50+ years, storytellers have to take risks and try things that haven’t been done with that character before, and whenever that happens, whatever ways those stories deviate from the norm will inevitably upset a number of hardcore fans. Conversely, they could also excite other parts of the base and catch the attention of new fans. These deviations are necessary time to time.”

“Without these wild swings and stories that take big risks, there’d be the danger of the property growing stale and predictable,” the creator said. “Despite any histrionics, there’s always the knowledge that the fanbase that existed before you felt the exact same way over a previous story or status quo. And guess what? That character we all know and love is still here and still thriving. They’re going to be okay.”

Needless to say, there were a variety of responses, some agreeing with Slott, others who didn’t buy what he was selling.

The person calling himself or herself “Heroes Ahead” noted, “Looks like the Hollywood studios hired a PR firm to once again try and convince us actually we’re the ones who did something wrong, not them.”

“That Nerd Dave” responded, “There is a big difference between big swings/bold storytelling choices and retreads of stories or a status quo from the 1970s.” “Danny Williams” said: “Keep mind that these aren’t our characters and titles to keep forever.” “Adjudicatus” replied: “Some of my former favorites have been awful for years, and I just don’t even like them anymore.”

EVERY RULE HAS ITS EXCEPTIONS

Several posters on X pointed out important exceptions to Slott’s “rule.” These include Hank Pym, Hal Jordan, and Professor X, among others.

I pity Hank Pym, one of the original Avengers from way back when! Jim Shooter decided that Hank was actually a spouse abuser, and he has never recovered! Oh, he’s tried several times to redeem himself (like serving as a leader in Avengers Academy for a while), but he’s still persona non grata in the Marvel Universe. It doesn’t matter if he’s being Yellowjacket, Ant Man, or even Goliath, Dr. Pym has not recovered from that event that happened decades ago!

Hal Jordan apparently became the villain Parallax, who went on to destroy Coast City. Granted, DC tried to explain all this away by saying the Parallax was a separate entity that took over Green Lantern when he destroyed Coast City, but he’s still struggled to this day to return to original Justice League status. John Stewart keeps replacing him!

Then, too, Professor X has had his hard times in recent years. He keeps losing control of the Merry Mutant Marching Society in the House of Ideas, and I think he’s still not back to the overseer/leader he used to be!

And these are just a few of the exceptions that are notable in comics! I’m sure others reading this column can point out other characters that have lost their luster.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON SALES

The ultimate arbiter of all this is fandom. If sales diminish to a place where a change or a reversal is needed to keep the title alive, the company in charge will often make sure things go back to the previous status quo “because you demanded it!”

I remember the recent tale when Steve Rogers/Captain America was revealed to be a member of Hydra, often considered part of the Hitler/Nazi regime. Wow, was the response loud and overwhelming! I think the original storyline was supposed to last for 12 issues, but it was cut back to only 6 or so, if memory serves.

One of my favorite members of the Bat-Family is Alfred, the butler. Back in the 1960s, DC had him killed, but he returned as one of Batman’s arch-villains called the Outsider (sorry, spoilers!). Currently, he’s dead again, even in the Dark Knights of Steel mini-series (replaced there by the Manhunter from Mars). Poor Alfred! Even his recent TV show that lasted for three years couldn’t help him!

I think all this depends on sales/numbers. If fans want things to go back to a more popular previous status quo, you can be sure if the number of people purchasing a comic declines below the old sales levels, things will magically return to “normal.”

Maybe I’m being cynical here, but I find it entertaining that a creator who has made some significant changes to “legacy” characters in the past only to have them overturned after a while might consider long-lived comics denizens to be “indestructible.” Only recently has George Clooney been redeemed somewhat in the eyes of Batman fans thanks to the recent The Flash movie.

MY TAKE ON ALL THIS

I truly enjoy the way the current regime in the Star Trek franchise looks at things. They see themselves only as temporary guardians of the long-lived SF series of shows. Therefore, they are trying to make sure they treat Trek as well as they can before they hand it off to “the next generation” in charge.

I also believe that if you feel it’s critical to make significant changes in the character you are scripting, you might want to instead create a NEW hero or villain. For instance, Chip Zdarsky, who is currently writing Batman for DC, is shredding the Dark Knight on several levels. His hand has been replaced by a mechanical one, he’s lost most of his fortune, and he’s just had Vandal Savage buy Wayne Manor!

But I have often said in this column that change, much like death in comics, is rarely permanent. I expect Batman to return to his previous luster and glory before long. Hey, Dick Grayson replaced Bruce in the Batsuit for a while only to have the Dark Knight work his way through history to get back to the Batcave.

It’s important when someone watches a movie or a TV show and decides to pick up a comic that he or she recognizes the same character/situation as they expect! If they see something different, they are likely to put that comic back in the rack and forget that whole idea!

Granted, Batman has been everything from Adam West to Ben Affleck, and he’s still a classic character. But even he’s had his very low points!

So, that’s an interesting idea, Mr. Slott, but I just don’t buy it! After all, whatever we liked in the hero/setup that drew us to him or her in the first place needs to stay there so the existing fans stay and the same things can attract new fans!

What do you think? What changes tend to make you leave a hero/villain behind? Do you think TV shows and films should match what you read in comics? What would you like to see happen? Whatever your opinions, be sure to share them in the space below!

---

Dear Spoilerite,

At Major Spoilers, we strive to create original content that you find interesting and entertaining. Producing, writing, recording, editing, and researching requires significant resources. We pay writers, podcast hosts, and other staff members who work tirelessly to provide you with insights into the comic book, gaming, and pop culture industries. Help us keep MajorSpoilers.com strong. Become a Patron (and our superhero) today.