How Do You Feel About Successors in Comics?

How Do You Feel About A Super Hero Having a Successor?

Often enough in comics, time ( or death ) manages to catch up with a super hero, leading up to the the inevitable "Next Big Thing"; A Successor!

A successor-- someone who follows up after a certain hero and ( often ) keeping the name and legacy alive. Whether a familiar sidekick who is used to fighting crime, or a fresh face learning the ropes, they're the ones carrying to torch.

But what I really want to know is how you personally feel about heroes having successors. Do you like the idea of another individual wearing the suit or using the same name as another hero in honor of their legacy?

I'd appreciate it if you could go in depth in explaining your opinion-- it's really important to me to understand other people's views on this subject.

If it's sensical and feels natural, then I'm all for it.

I like them better than the usual "I'm dead but now I get better", if it's well done, it done a sense of closure for the first, and a sense of continuity in the mythology.

The really cool thing, is, if you have a successor, you can kill the hero outright, and take more liberty with the story.

I generally dislike them. It dilutes the character and successors usually are less interesting because they don't have the same set of circumstances that the original did that made them into a hero. They might as well just make a new hero. Dick Grayson is a cool character on his own but as Batman it is simply a lesser product that you'd get with Bruce as batman.

Well,

- People know more about Wally West than Barry Allen (to be fair, both of them are similar to non-comics fan).

- I kinda feel that Sam Alexander's final issue was mediocre, especially not bothering to hint some "backgrounds" of Jesse Alexander or a nod to Yost's New Warriors (i.e- "Sam is a half-Xandarian" theory) since most Marvel's half aliens are unwanted children and needed something to stay away from it. On the other hand, one RR fan only liked him for not being "brown-haired white dude" (Sam's half caucasian half white).

-I was actually suprised how Miles Morales was well-written instead of "here's a black kid".

- The Phantom, the main idea is that it's a generations long comics on a family line who took the reign of Phantom since 17th century.

Execution is everything.

For example Dick Grayson's donning of the Batman mantle felt natural and was always alluded to as an eventuality. Not to mention he was written as a good Batman. He wasn't trying to be Bruce, just do the job Batman was meant to do.

Ult Peter's death and how Miles was inspired by him is another example of it done right.

Bucky taking over as Captain America was very well done.

Ben Reilly taking the reigns during the Clone Saga is an example of it done wrong. However it was salvaged to an extent by making Ben an interesting character you cared about.

The current Thor debacle is another example of it done wrong. No explanation, no anything.

As GraniteSoldier said it's about sxecution. Too often it's a sudden way to make the comic "fresh" rather than something planned. It also depends on the original character. Some heroes are more likely to groom a successor (Batman arguably has groomed a dozen or so). Some are less likely to groom one and will only desperately search for one when dying or partially incapacitated. Others inspire succesors. All these situations have to be dealt with carefully and be stories unto themselves.

I'm not a fan of the concept. People usually stay connected with certain heroes, and it's really unsettling to have someone else replace said characters. It's my least favorite type of plot in new characters.

If done well, it can make comics seem like an evolving world, rather than just a static world with the same heroes and such for years.

Underutilized, in my opinion. I like a lot of them, but it's rare to actually see them have an ongoing impact. I understand the reasoning. The Trinity is a prime example of this. DC's top guys don't get permanently replaced, which is a bit disappointing, but understandable even if I don't totally care for the lack of progression.

In all honesty, I would have liked to see Bruce, Kal, Diana, etc. eventually replaced. Some of these characters have had kids. Skilled kids that, with some training could (and some have,) replace their mentors. I mean, look at Stargirl and STRIPE, taking over their legacy. Conner Hawke/Emiko, Tim Drake/Damian Wayne, Aquagirl, Kon-El, Donna Troy, Wally West, etc. would make fine characters stepping into their forebears shoes, but sometimes it feels like they don't totally have the trust of the top guys to make that transition.

I personally feel like if you're having a sidekick, it's like training a potential replacement, but that's rarely the case. I understand it, and it shouldn't always be the case, but it's an underutilized plot point.

If I was opposed to the idea, I woundn't be a JSA fan. That team was (before new52 ruined it) filled with legacy heroes since, during the team's 70+ year history, many member died and their mantle was taken up by younger people.

Though I find it funny with Batman since every Robin believes they will be the next Batman until they are replaced by a new Robin. Currently Damien is the accepted successor, but in 10 or 20 years a new Robin will show up.

hhhhmmmm

It usually depends on how it's done and who does it.

Its always retarded and made to be more politically correct. Rarely is it ever done for a logical reason. Do you honestly think falcon is the new cap because hes the best choice? Or because of the left wing liberals complaining how things need to be more diverse and it wont be enough until whites are gone. Being a caucasian blonde haired blue eyed ww2 vet is part of captain americas character. Falcon literally has none of those qualifications. Hes a black teenager. Since cap was supposed to represent the ideal american, its pretty obvious what message marvel is trying to send about the ideal american...

It depends on the character for the most part and reason for the mantle to passed down. Roles such as Spectre, Green Lantern, Nova and Ghost Rider make sense since they exist to eventually be replaced or are one of many. Other times it's a matter of family like with flash where even not related for some they still treat each as brothers, sons, etc and share a source of power. Then you have those like Batman, where not even necessarily about the man, but the symbol with Dick and Damien being natural replacements. Like granite said though, this isn't always enough. As he used as an example, recently Thor was poorly handled despite the fact the role is in reality, a replaceable one.

@harriso: Have you read Bucky as Cap? I'm a huge Captain America fan, and while I like Steve more, I loved when Bucky took the mantle! Also, Wally West is my favorite Flash! Barry was awesome, but I thought his death worked as an excellent plot device to give Wally more depth.

I really like the idea. The problem is when they keep bringing back the character the successor took over. Legacy characters are kind of pointless when death doesn't matter......

I dig it most of the time.

It is one of the reasons I am such a big JSA fan.

Depend the case and reason of replacement.

@jayc1324: I totally agree. was going to mention Dick as Batman.

Would love to see Conner earn the cape and become Superman when Clark calls it quits.

I absolutely love them.

@harriso: falcon isn't a teenager lol. He's a grown ass man.

@harriso: I think I found your tinfoil hat goodsir.

Don't think that Thor the son of Odin and Gaea (Asgard/Midgard connection) is replaceable, marvel Thor comic always was about Gods and Asgard and the heir to the throne of Asgard that loves Midgard more than the other realms, when characters try to be Thor but aren't Gods, heirs to the throne or Loki's brother, you always end up with a non Thor story, Eric, Norvell already fail and Jane also isn't a Thor story far from that. Perhaps, and as Gillen's writing prove Angela could have not Thor's role in Asgard/Midgard but a very similar one as Odin's daughter, unfortunately most of marvel current comics aren't story/continuity rooted, but supported with Pr stunts/ shocking value/controversy...

Not really a huge fan of it--there are some exceptions, though

@asgaard: I more meant that while it's highly rare, there are others that are worthy like Thor, meaning others than Thor/Donald Blake could be him. Hence why I said in reality. I do agree that he shouldn't though.

@baneofdemon22: Buckys a WW2 vet

For the most part I am a fan of the legacy hero process. Many of my favorite heroes have been legacies; Wally West, Tim Drake, Kate Bishop, John Stewart, Carol Danvers, Artemis, Bart Allen, etc... I enjoy the change knowing full well that in the world of comics nothing is permanent. Wally was probably the longest running (pun!) legacy hero since the Silver Age, and even then DC brought back Barry. Clark Kent was replaced by four stand-ins, but they eventually brought him back. Jean Gray was replaced by an alternate dimension version, if I recall, and the Phoenix did rise again. While they were away, though, there were all these different stories with new people whose actions we could not predict. A legacy can refresh a book without going through the drastic act of rebooting the hero from scratch.

I don't mind successors but it doesn't work for all characters.

It's fine when handled well.

meh

I like them, for the most part.

I love the idea.. especially when the successor is family