BIGOT! YOUR A BIGOT! I’m kidding. I say get rid of everybody except maybe Supergirl.

“I feel like milking these franchises for everything they can is just another way for comics publishers to be lazy and uncreative, and then ask the fans to fork over their hard-earned cash for the privilege of reading it.”

= answering your own question.

THANK YOU RUSS!! It’s nice to know there’s at least one other person out there, aside from me, who’s a fan of the post-COIE DC, and wishes that Didio & Co hadn’t undone all the stuff I loved about DC in the late 80′s/early 90′s.

I’m all for strong female heroes, but I never understood the point of Supergirl or any other offshoot characters who had the same powers/characterization. Power Girl has a lot of fans, I know, but what’s her point? Aside from an unfortunate choice to give her humongous breats, I never understood what the (ahem) big deal was.

I prefer Kal-El as the last son of Krypton as well. But it seems like DC’s all about reviving the Silver Age again, albeit with the “edge” of killing off, or replacing, or at temporarily removing (yet again) some of DC’s longest running and most beloved characters. For me, the post-COIE years were some of the best, and most creative, years DC ever had. That’s not to say everything was good, but I think, generally, there was a greater emphasis on quality storytelling, an easier DCU to navigate,

Sorry Didio, but you’re just not worth my time and money anymore. Neither is Mavel, but generally for different reasons.

Well, I’m an old-timer and a long follower of Supergirl, so I can only tell you what I find enjoyable about her.

To start off with, I am a fan of Superman. As a kid, I dreamed of having his wide array of powers and helping out my fellow man. That said, even at a young age, I found ‘Superman as a role model’ to be a difficult standard. The guy was too good, too powerful, too smart … omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible. There was no way I could emulate him.

Then I started to run into Supergirl in his stories. She had the same set of powers which made me like Superman in the first place.

But she was younger and a little uncertain of herself. She occasionally failed but grew from those experiences.

Sure she would do big things like foil the Phantom Zone villains’ plans. But she would also just as often help her friends.

She was unsure what she wanted to be when she ‘grew up’ going from reporter to guidance counselor to actress to grad student.

All of these things made her a much more relatable ‘version’ of Superman. I had the same problems. I could see some of my own struggles with her struggles. But most importantly for me, she was always always heroic … right up to her death in COIE #7.

I saw that same ‘try to do good no matter what’ theme in Peter David’s Supergirl, a series I loved but which is hated by many.
Of course this is why I hated the early part of her current series. That disinterested grim Supergirl was not the Supergirl I want to read. (Thanks to Kelley Puckett and Sterling Gates and Jamal Igle for revitalizing her).

Now most other people my age felt the same thing about Peter Parker, or maybe the XMen. But for me it was Kara. When written well, she trumps those guys hands down.

Although I can, to a degree, understand where you’re coming from, I don’t think you’re recognizing a few points that may relate to why DC promotes these characters.

One of the major focuses of DC has been, for quite some time, the aspect of “legacy” heroes, a mantle being passed down through the generations. Although Marvel has occasionally experimented with the notion, it has become a distinct premise for the DC line–there are very definitive legacies in the DCU, with each generation clearly outlined, from the Justice Society to the Justice League (with the Justice Experience in between, although they are rarely referenced), to the Teen Titans and then the Young Justice heroes (who would eventually become Titans themselves). And a new generation has begun to emerge, with Damien Wayne, Chris Kent, Jai and Iris West, Lian Harper, and more.

However, another point to consider is that these character variations allow writers to tell stories that they may not be allowed to tell with their icons. For instance, Superman. Certain stories may change his scenario briefly, but anyone who believes his status quo will really change is fooling themselves–he is, as I said, an icon. Once you move onto his spin-off characters, however–Superboy, Supergirl, Steel, for instance–you get the potential to tell stories in the realm of Superman, while having the opportunity to go beyond the limitation of not actually changing anything. After all, for Supergirl, what’s iconic about her? She’s Superman’s cousin (not that this hasn’t changed, granted). After that, the details get a bit murky. There’s more creative freedom, at least in theory. The stories may not “matter” as much–a major event in a Supergirl or Nightwing book probably still won’t sell as much as the ongoing Superman/Action or Batman/Detective books, but the writer also has the ability to develop new characters and new situations long-term, and have more of an impact on the character. It’s a trade-off that many writers have acknowledged over the years.

With the 100,000 Kryptonians, it’s simply an extension of this principle. There have been a few stories as to what it would be like if Superman wasn’t raised by the Kents, if he had a significantly different upbringing, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have been in the mainstream DC Universe. With the stories of New Krypton, we’re seeing something along those lines, as well as an exploration of the Superman mythos. I don’t think this is a story we’ve really seen before, and I, personally, am interested in seeing how it goes. And based on the solicitations, the characters aren’t going away soon–it’s not a small story, but rather a story that’s continuing, with new aspects being explored as it goes on.

And finally, you have to acknowledge that yes, sales are a factor. DC is a business, and they have to put out the books that make them the most money. Sure, they could write stories about an alien girl lost on Earth, unsure of where to go or what her purpose is, and publish it without relation to any other titles. However, as we’ve seen in the past, books like that don’t sell, because the market has been trained not to care. Tying that title into the Superman franchise, however? That will sell more. I’m certainly not saying that this was the reasoning behind the Supergirl relaunch, but it’s the example I’ve used so far. It may be seen by some as pandering just to get more sales, but I’d consider it good business sense. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Geoff Johns uses second tier characters (Kon El, Kid Flash, Robin, Wonder Girl) really well in Teen Titans. I really liked the transition from Impulse to Kid Flash; the problem was that they apparently had no long term vision for the character and aged him unecessarily. Plus, Rachel Gibson’s dad can’t write comics.

I WAS BEGINNING TO THINK I WAS ALONE ON THIS!!!

it is without doubt the most frustrating aspect of mainstream comics that a great many characters are needlessly derivative! why change the gender, race or age of a pre-existing character when there’s opportunity to invent original ones and actually contribute something of worth to that character’s universe?

you’ve cited solely dc, but as an avid marvel reader it is more their offences in this regard that come to my mind: she-hulk, every member of the young avengers individually, the young x-men as a concept, not one, not two, but THREE spider-women – one of whom bendis adores so much he gives her centre stage (sort of) in his big company wide crossover – how can a rip-ff character appeal to anyone that much? and then there’s lady bullseye. lady. bullseye. the poor nature of these characters speak for themselves how do editoriallet them go, and how do fans eat ‘em up?!