If you like a title, I think you need to give changes a chance before you drop the book. I have been a big Legion fan since the early 80s, and they have gone through more reboots/retcons than any other title that I can think of. Still, once I got over the initial shock of the change, the stories were quite good.
I think the same goes for any title; if you love the character, give the creators the benefit of the doubt. If you're still unhappy after a couple of issues, quit then.
And there's the potential of being able to rely on the All-Star line if you don't like the current interpretation.
That being said, where's my All-Star Legion of SuperHeroes? I want Matter Eater Lad and Bouncing Boy back.

I agree on the legacy aspect.
Someone at geoffjohns.com suggested that comics do "generational comics" that go on for say 20 years. Within those 20 years, the characters age, die, etc. Sidekicks take over, characters change, real change occurs over the time span. Then, after X years (again, say 20), the storylines all start over with a fresh start. Then the characters progress again, this time with different nuances. The effect is to give each generation a satisfying story, and make it somewhat "complete" and allow new readers to come on board as time cycles with the new starting points of "classic characters."

What do you think?

I would love a story where Nightwing took over as Batman. I have thought the whole IC thing would lead to Bruce leading a war against the meta-humans, and the only who could stop him would be his son. I thought there would be some great artistic moments in that. I have often thought that Nightwing was the one hero in the DC universe that Bats might actually be underestimating, since he trained him. Think about it, Bats snaps, and Nightwing brings him down, only to take up the mantle to protect Bruce's lifes work. I Of course Bruce can come back, a little calmer, and back to the character he was before he became uber bat. I liked when he was human, not just an icon. But, thats just me.

I don't like comic book characters aging. Bruce Wayne should always be Batman. Clark Kent should always be Superman. Everyone expects them to be anyway. Whenever they try to change a character (Azrael as Batman) or even his abilities (electric Superman) it always reverts to "normal" within two years . . . so why bother?

~LM~

If no one aged we wouldn't have the great debate over who is the better Green Lantern, Alan Scott would still be Gl and Hal Jordan would have done an Azrael and disappeared after a couple of years.

Barry Allen and Wally West would be Flashes in the pan. I can't remember who the original Flash was. Hawkman would vanish in puff of his own creation. Oracle would not exist because Killing Joke would be an Esleworlds story.

I guess Marvel will be using gimmicks like HOM to safely retcon the last 30 years out of existence.

In 2014 will we see Zatanna go mad and rewrite DC history?

Nightwing is a pretty popular character. I doubt the money men would kill the cash cow they have with that character just to give the Batman a boost. Anything like that would be temporary. And who wants Dickey as the bat? Hes to grounded to turn psycho and we need our Bats to be alittle nuts.

Should they age? It would be cool but they would have to do it uniformly and that is where the problem comes in. They would hav eto have one character with an age that can gauge everyone elses by. It wold have to be someone not too young and not old. Someone about 19, because if the younger characters grow older while the Icons dont, it doesnt make sense. (Look at how Marvel messed with the Angel and Husk. They muffed on the age thing and it's alittle irratating. Also with the New Xmen's teams sorta) Id rather have their ages retarded and just have good sotires. If they need the characters to be older then do and Elsworlds tale or start up an Ultimates Universe for DC. If they did the aging thing some characters would have to really turn out to be old. Look at Firestorm. He should be old by now. I think generalized ages is the best.

Here are my thoughts on the matter;

I would like to see Nightwing become Batman - and not in any silly Batman Beyond sort of way (yes, I know the new JLU touched on why that all happened, but the initial pilot turned me off so much). ANYWAY (sorry, got off track).

DC has a strong tradition of Legacy and we've seen it work well with the other characters (Flash, GL, etc.) - but it seems everyone is touchy with their Batman... as well they should be.

Years ago when I only collected Marvel, Vertigo, and some Indy, Batman was the only DC superhero title I collected. Why? Because Batman is awesome. He exists both in and out of the standard DC feel (and sometimes continuity). He is a legend.

But, DC has a choice. They can continue to retcon and do continuity cleanups (Original Crisis, Zero Hero). While the current Crisis is really very good overall, I wouldn't want them to do it every 10 years (which is kinda how it's been for the past couple of decades).

The alternative is to embrace their legacy. As we've seen in the Flash and other titles, not only does it tell a compelling tale, but it also helps define both the new and old character.

Once that idea has formed, who CAN replace Bruce? If DC lets their heroes age and lets their wounds catch up with them over time, then who is worthy to replace the Batman?

The answer is simple - there's only one person who can do it. Nightwing. Grayson could step into that suit and make the transition seamless. Only Bats closest allies and foes would be able to tell their is a difference and Nightwing knows Bruce so well he could even keep them guessing for a while. I could see a number of great stories where some of Batman's older foes think they have his pace, only to find him slightly quicker, stronger (younger). It would make for some good storytelling.

The reason Azbats didn't work was just as simple - he wasn't Batman. He was some '90's adrenile pumped psycho-hero. He was neat and all, but with no depth and no history he had no future.

Batman is a myth, an urban legend - and no one understands that as completely as Grayson. Someone above said that they needed their Bats to be a little crazy - and I agree. Wouldn't it be some great storytelling to see that progress? First it's the pressure to BE Batman... then to BE Bruce in the suit. To fall victim to all his past criticisms of Bruce. To follow in the shadow of the bat. I dunno... I see a LOT of potential there.

And for those who love Bruce, there are a few alternatives. I'm sure Bruce will still be around the Batman titles in some very crucial roles. That goes without saying. Also, for all its criticisms, there is the All-Star Universe where continuity isn't as tight and you'll have Bruce Bats stories 'til the cows come home. Granted, Frank's writing hasn't impressed a lot of Bats fans, but with an emphasis on non-continuity stories its only a matter of time before we see other writers in that slot creating classic and edgy Batman stories.

I like that too - the idea that in the standard DC universe the Batman legacy moves forward, but having a title out there that I can go to and not have to worry about what happened in War Games - I can just read a Bruce Wayne Batman story to get my fix.

I guess I touched on my feelings on aging as well. I think DC handles aging a little better than Marvel on a whole and I think their tradition of legacies gives them an upper hand in the longevity of their characters.

DC has been doing a great job lately. If this transition is handled as well as their currect projects I think this will be a very positive thing. That's my 2 cents.

Essentially, the writers should be allowed to determine if their characters age or not.

No writer is going to make an iconic figure age past his storytelling usefulness. I like the idea of Bruce getting a little long in the tooth, but he's never going to be so old that he can't drop into an alley and beat six punks senseless. It just won't happen, outside of Elseworlds. (Kingdom Come is an Elseworlds story, BTW.)

However, a book about younger characters, or characters with a set timeline - a hero with a terminal disease, or a hero just entering college - might do well to have time play a pertinent part of his story. I think I would have preferred some of Marvel's books if they were more honest with the aging of their younger characters - Power Pack, New Mutants, some of the younger X-Men. Seriously, Kitty Pryde? How old is she now?

The comment about "New Coke" is spot on, though.

--wyld

Kitty Pryde is 18-19. That should put Piotr about 25 and Cyclops about 30 (but they are muffin, his and the other Originals I think). She was younger then Cannonball and Moonstar when she had to join the New Muties, but about Cypher and Magma's age. Wolfsbane is a year or so younger and Sunspot is inbetween that. They have been pretty true to that age ranging in the X titles except for the New X men and some of the Gen X kids. Just depends on the writers for those. Power Pack has only aged a year or so since they were introduced.

One of the ways the Legion of the Super-heroes get aways with the reboots and stuff is that they are in the future and the future isnt set in stone. They could all happen so they arent messing with things too much. Plus they have Hyper time in effect making every LSH series as true as the next. They have all happened.

Speaking of Bats being replaced there was a 2 parter with the Joker when Nightwing I think stood in for Batman and Joker watching Bats rescue somebody stops laughing and says 'Its not Him'. It was a pretty chilling scene.

The Generational thing has been explored by John Byrne in the Superman/Batman: Generations. It followed the 2 families of superheroes from the 30's to present and beyond. The first two series were very good, but the third was a bit weak.

Aging is a strange thing in comics. I like the characters to be the "appropriate" age but after a while it does get a little silly.

Take Jubille. When she first joined the X-men she was listed as being 13 years old. Then they did MANY stories with her including Fatal Attractions, Xtinction Agenda, Phallanx Covenant etc. Finally they started up Generation X and listed her age as 13 1/2.


Now I don't know about you but that was an eventful six months.

Now Tim Drake started sometime around 13. with all his training it took a while for him to earn the mask and when he finally got his own book he was about 15. (It made a point that he got his drivers license early (pre-16) because his dad was in a wheelchair. Now he's got quite a high count on his own comic, done the Young Justice thing and is now working with Teen Titans. I have no idea where they want to place him.

I also notice that a LOT of winters come and go in comics. If we aged robin by the number of Christmas's that pass he'd be about 23 I think.

Also remember that Real time is an unacceptable way to age people. It may take three issues to tell one story that takes place over a single day. It may take 6 issues if it's bendis. it may take 28 if it's Bendis writing Daredevil. If they want to say everyone ages a single year all at once I don't really have a problem with it.

For that matter if they want to demote bruce, I don't really have a major problem with that too. The way they write bruce these days (the last 10 years) is NOT my Batman. He's too dark, too.... perfect. There is no human side to him and that's a joke. Batman is supposed to be the hero who does all these great things despite the fact that he's human. I don't remember the last time I saw any humanity in him. Nightwing is more the way they used to write batman anyway.

Granted I'd like them to fix bruce, not dump him. but I'll give them a shot.