Aldo reads DC's New 52 (So you don't have to)

Yeah Static is the DC success story

Wasn't Static originally by some other company, which was then bought by DC?

And along those lines, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was technically a DC comic too, at least for the first two volumes. I don't think any other Marvel/DC comic created in the last 20 years has gotten a movie of its own. (There were talks of a Preacher movie, but that never happened.) Though like with Fables, the LoEG aren't exactly "new" characters.

Maria Hill (supporting character created by Bendis sometime in the last few years) is a strong enough character in the Avengers/SHIELD universe that she was included in the Avengers movie. I hope they don't ever take the cheap'n'easy way out and give her powers.

The last Marvel comic I read said she's the leader of SHIELD now, I guess something happened to Nick Fury? As long as she occupies the "badass authority figure" position, I don't think they'll make her a super, as it's always interesting to write that kind of a character against people with crazy powers.

Nick Fury is kind of on the run and disgraced or something, but he's getting replaced by his son.. who apparently is Nicolas Fury, Jr. although he was raised under a different name... and is a black man who recently lost his eye as well.

So the Marvel universe proper has a black, eyepatched Nick Fury.

Re: Static, he was originally published by Milestone (? something like that) which was always a DC/WB imprint.

Wait, Static is back?
lol i'm old
but yeah, i had bought and read the old milestone books. Static was one of the least interesting of the pack.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was technically a DC comic too, at least for the first two volumes.

The League is a) not a character, b) NOT A CHARACTER CREATED POST-1979, c) only ran for 12 issues, and d) technically technically an Homage comic, not DC nor America's Best.

(And the 'Sandman' character in Sandman is absolutely a new post-70s character.)

y the last man?
mostly the popular post seventies characters are bad guys.
bane. venom. punisher syndrome there.
deadpool is basically just the dumber return of lobo really

The newest Static series was very notably cancelled after 8 issues, with some magnificent writer/editor/artist infighting that I'm sure I posted links to upthread (but can't look on zing). 20-something or so issues in two decades with up to ten years between instances does not get it a long-running prize.

(tbf it seems the peripatetic publishing history is largely due to someone or ones at DC having beef w/ McDuffie, but we can't award points for what-ifs)

I agree that the Sandman is a new character, I was just arguing against your point that the Fables aren't. Why is one revision of old mythological character new, and one isn't? Okay, Sandman is a composite character (combining various dream-related myths, mainly Morpheus), but so are many of the Fables (Bigby is not just the Big Bad Wolf but also a werewolf and the son of the North Wind, Jack of Fables is every character called Jack from folklore, Prince Charming is the same prince Snow White, Cinderella, and the Sleeping Beauty all married, etc).

(xxpost)

the main reason i've been thinking about fables lately is this new jack the giant killer movie bryan singer is releasing was basically predicted in that book

If "Jack Of Fables" had been the original/only series I'd give it the nod for sure, but "FABLES" isn't a character, and the entire point of its premise is that the characters aren't new.

All possible admiration and respect to Willingham for creating the premise / world / interpretations that have run so long and had so many spin-offs! But it was absolutely sold on the fact that it's very, very old characters in a new milieu.

Meet the Fables

The premise of the series was "fairytale characters in a modern setting", sure, but I'd still call them new characters, at least in the context of talking about old/new characters in comics. Let me illustrate this with an example: when people buy a Batman comic, they generally expect to read about a character they're familiar with from other comics/movies/tv series. So the premise the comics are sold on is "the same character in new adventures". (Elseworlds and other reinterpretations/deconstructions are different thing, but I'm talking about the majority of Batman comics here.) But with most Fables characters, their defining traits from folklore are rather minimal, and the Batman type of familiarity isn't really a selling point. I doubt many readers picked up an issue Fables because they wanted to see see good old Big Bad Wolf from the Red Riding Hood fairy tale in new adventures. No, one of the main points of the whole series was to see what kind of new, interesting characters the writer was able to create using names from folklore as starting points.

(xpost)

Fables isn't a character

(PS: turns out the 1993 Static Shock ran 45 issues)

"are there any others? And even those started in the early 80s."

Thunderbolts through a couple stop/reboots went over 100 issues, albeit it is more like Suicide Squad in that it used existing villians.

Static also starred in an animated series that lasted for four seasons

Much as I dislike Fables, I'd agree that if Lucifer counts as original then they should too - the one quibble is that I thought the point of Fables is that they are the characters that the original stories happened to.

Nonetheless, FABLES IS NOT A CHARACTER

Curious about how non-Big Two comics fare - are they still making Spawn / Savage Dragon comics?

I don't get this "Fables is not a character" point..? You think new characters count only if they have a solo title, and titles with multiple protagonists shouldn't be counted, even if said protagonists are new characters?

the one quibble is that I thought the point of Fables is that they are the characters that the original stories happened to.

In some sense, yeah, but more often than not the original stories are said to be twisted versions of what "really" happened.

And yeah, they're still making Savage Dragon and Spawn. In fact, I think Savage Dragon might be the second-longest running (after Cerebus) American comic book by a single author.

No, sorry, I was wrong! I think Usagi Yojimbo beats SD to the second place.

I'm going to disagree on the Sandman - early on (maybe The Doll's House?) Brute & Glob appear and are introduced as being created by Morpheus. While not suggesting Morpheus and Hector Hall are exactly the same character, they are both aspects of whatever it is 'makes' Sandmen i.e. according to Gaiman, Hector Hall was a prior version of Morpheus.

Also you have to bear in mind that Gaiman's original proposal was to revive the Simon & Kirby series but Roy Thomas got priority on some characters for Infinity Inc so it's completely what was in his thoughts.

In terms of non-Big Two - surely Hellboy is the elephant in the room?

I don't get this "Fables is not a character" point..? You think new characters count only if they have a solo title, and titles with multiple protagonists shouldn't be counted, even if said protagonists are new characters?

Yes, I think if we're looking at "the longest-lasting lead character since the 70s", then being an actual lead character is not incidental to the enquiry.

Static also starred in an animated series that lasted for four seasons

crucially, this is not a comic book

I don't get this "Fables is not a character" point..? You think new characters count only if they have a solo title, and titles with multiple protagonists shouldn't be counted, even if said protagonists are new characters?

the point under discussion is "longest-lasting lead character since the 70s." There is no character in Fables called, say, Dave Fables who - say - is the protagonist of the stories.

(xpost)

While not suggesting Morpheus and Hector Hall are exactly the same character, they are both aspects of whatever it is 'makes' Sandmen i.e. according to Gaiman, Hector Hall was a prior version of Morpheus.

Hector Hall is shown as being a completely separate character and a far more minor one in the story than Doctor Destiny, Matthew Cable, J'onn J'onnz or Hector Hall's widow.

Yeah, I think that's a retcon in that they are former servants of Morpheus, but their wacky hijinks while he was away was what we were seeing previously.

Fair enough, it's been years since I read it.

the point under discussion is "longest-lasting lead character since the 70s." There is no character in Fables called, say, Dave Fables who - say - is the protagonist of the stories.

Fair enough, but I didn't take this discussion to be so specific, I thought it was more about the Big Two failing to create new characters with lasting power, regardless of whether they are in a solo or multiple-protagonist book. I mean, The Sandman is pretty much a ensemble book too, even if it was named after one character; Morpheus is a minor/supporting character in three of the longer story arcs and most of the short stories, and the series made Death almost as popular as the Dream.

it was more about the Big Two failing to create new characters with lasting power, regardless of whether they are in a solo or multiple-protagonist book

Amanda Waller

Chas

Tim Drake

Yeah, I think that's a retcon in that they are former servants of Morpheus, but their wacky hijinks while he was away was what we were seeing previously.

Specifically, the retcon was Brute and Glob were Morpheus's former servants, and that they manipulated two of the previous Sandmen (who Morpheus knew nothing about), Garret Sanford and Hector Hall, into thinking they were the rulers of a place called Dream Dimension. When Hector Hall meets Morpheus and says he's "The Sandman", Morpheus starts laughing, implying Hall has nothing to do with the "real" Sandman.

However, what Aldo might've been thinking of was the bit in the first Sandman arc, where it's said Wesley Dodds (the original Golden Age Sandman) has an aspect of Morpheus in him, or something like that (I think this was later confirmed in Sandman Mystery Theatre?). So Wesley Dodds is the only superhero Sandman who's an explicit predecessor (or successor, if we follow DC's internal chronology) to Gaiman's Sandman.

Tim Drake might actually be a good example of a successful new lead character? He did star in his own book for more than 200 issues, though the fact that he's also a legacy character kind muddles the definition of "new".

Oracle kinda was, till recently.

Barbara Gordon was created in 1960s, though. Though I guess you could almost call Oracle a new character, considering how thoroughly Ostrander et al reconstructed her. (And I'd say it's one of the best reconstructions in superhero comics history, especially considering the "Women in Refrigerators" type of ending Moore gave to her previous career.)

Yeah, I was going to suggest Nightwing as well - I get the impression there's even less Batman in his book than in Robin's?

I know I'm going to regret this, but how is Wesley Dodds a successor?

'cos Dream is zillions of years old and Dodds is from 1938

Nightwang feels much less of a break from the previous character than Oracle btw, eg he literally goes upstairs and changes his pants then comes down and says "yo I'm Nightwing now but I still have the same house and girlfriend and team and I'm still yr leader, lets go"

(ok with a tiny pause to say "why is Joseph wearing that uniform", as if gay Arabian disco pirate is a large-scale regulated force)

Hahaha!

I though the start of his book coincided with his move to Bludhaven, the city in Gotham's shadow that is much tougher and more dangerous but had mysteriously never been mentioned in the previous 50 years?

Seriously though, Nightwing's own new costume in that issue is one of the best examples of superhero artists not exactly being on the cutting edge when it comes to sartorial trends. That collar thing looks like it's from 1977, not 1984:

http://www.comicsrecommended.com/images/dc/talesoftheteentitans_044_nightwing.jpg

(xpost)

Also the area above his crotch looks like a pair of eyes doing "confused face"

ARE YOU PEOPLE READY?

Maggie and hopey, duh.

So all the writers are leaving their Green Lanternverse titles; new writers not announced. Shuffling the deck chairs or a chance for a new vision for the rings?

Seems weird to sabotage one of your bestselling comics when everything else is tanking. Or not, because it's DC.

Hmm. You have to remember that none of the GL mythology was rebooted into the New 52 because Geoff Johns couldn't give up his Action Playset. Any new writer with a greater attention span than him will undoubtedly jettison masses of that shit and so it probably makes more sense to get rid of the people that have been writing inside his idiom as well, so clearing the decks and having a proper New 52 reboot makes a lot of sense from one angle.

Me? I'd go back to the beginning of the Silver Age and have Hal vs Qward, especially since GMoz's Action has refocused on anti-universes.