My 2 cents.

Now, a reboot a la the Bond films or All-Star Superman - that'd be the place to start again with a fresh take on Flash/Barry Allen. Conceptually he's a very strong starting point, as Darwyn Cooke showed so well in DC The New Frontier. He or Kurt Busiek would be ideal writers for such a project. I'd be more excited by that than the recently-resurrected-after-20-years take.

Thanks so much for a great article Greg and for all of the thoughtfully stated comments everyone! This was definitely a fun read!

Norman Osborn was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde knock-off.
- Barry Allen was the classic ’50s “noble scientist”.
- Jason Todd was the classic ’80s Bad Boy. You know, like Judd Nelson in “The Breakfast Club”.

None of them were much more than symbols to begin with, so they were actually more effective in their roles while dead.

Honestly, this simplicity applies to almost every major superhero comic character. I wouldn't say it's a weakness. You can do it for everyone if you want:
- Spider-Man is a Holden Caufield coming-of-age knockoff
- Hulk is a Jeckyll and Hyde
- Human Torch is a sterotypical bad boy teen heartthrob
- old Lex Luthor is just stereotypical mad scientist
- new Lex is stereotypical sinister mastermind
- Superman is classic "noble square jawed" hero

And so on and so on...

- Gwen Stacey was the classic “manic pixie dream girl”, who enters the dull existence of a nebbish and transforms it.

No she wasn't. Not at all. That was Mary Jane if anything. Nothing was quirky or offbeat about Gwen, she was a straitlaced science student.

And some characters are truly better off dead - Gwen Stacy. Norman Osborn. Barry Allen. Jason Todd. Especially Jason Todd.

It strikes me that each of those characters was, at best, "comic book" in the worst sense of the word during their first tour of duty. They had one (or maybe two) dimensions and were extremely predictable:
- Gwen Stacey was the classic "manic pixie dream girl", who enters the dull existence of a nebbish and transforms it.
- Norman Osborn was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde knock-off.
- Barry Allen was the classic '50s "noble scientist".
- Jason Todd was the classic '80s Bad Boy. You know, like Judd Nelson in "The Breakfast Club".

None of them were much more than symbols to begin with, so they were actually more effective in their roles while dead. Peter could never find a girl as lively as Gwen. Norman haunted his son Harry. Wally couldn't possibly live up to the standard Barry set. Bruce wished that he could've been a better mentor to Jason.

Bringing them back forces the writers to attempt to tell new stories with them. New stories mean trying something unexpected. Almost by definition, it is impossible for those characters to do that and remain in character.

Howerver, your point that a lack of talent is behind the poorness of Todd's return is a valid point. I could think of much more compelling ways to bring him back, ways that would have made more sense and had greater impact on Batman and reinforced the concept that as incredible as Bruce Wayne is, he is still human and still makes mistakes and must be more vigilant than any other hero (which is the entire point behind the death of Jason Todd).

I would propose something happens that makes Batman more and more obsessed with Todd's death (maybe a near-miss with Drake). He pulls out all his resources and contacts both mystic and scientific and somehow clones Drake's body and puts his soul back into it, effectively resurrecting him. But he wakes up angry that he's been pulled from Paradise or what have you, and turns against Batman (he always was a crybaby little bastard after all). This is still super-heroish and impossible in reality but not a cop out like a 'super-punch'. (It is an actual plot, not a plot device). This reinforces that Batman is human and makes mistakes. This reinforces that Batman, despite all his logic and coldness and badassness, still is driven by remorse and emotional-neediness ("I miss my mommy and daddy!"). It is in alignment with the overall Batman mythos, it does not invalidate "A Death in the Family" since Todd still died! but was later resurrected through tremendous effort (basically, no retcon - a new story instead). And we still get a new foe out of it and plenty of story potential. And I'm just a hack fanboy positing an idea off the top of my head.

(And if I was an editor I would say "NO" - There has to be a better reason to bring back Todd than just because you want a ready-made antagonist)

A professional writer never should have stooped to 'super-punches' or whatever crap that was.

Yes, on their own these are all still good stories, but their impact on the characters involved and the depth of the emotion captured within the larger character and story arcs is mitigated by the retcons. IMHO.

I do admit, though, even though I gripe about murky continuity, I still read the books. Sometimes good stories can come out of unintelligible continuity, or at least I keep hoping they will.

Worked really well doing that with his sidekick (Wally) in recent years, but it's a finite story. Which brings us to another...revamp!

(His being alive in the Ultimate universe has no effect on my copies of ASM #121 & 122, after all).

Neither does his being alive in the "main" universe, unless Howard Mackie or whoever broke into your house and scribbled all over your back issues.

People complain about writers like Bendis, etc. because they crap on the characters they love. Yet, they can tell you in detail what happened in every issue he's written of New Avengers.

I don't like what's Bendis done with The Avengers and you know what? I can't tell you what has happened in New Avengers in any detail since issue 11. Why? BECAUSE I STOPPED READING IT.

The same folks complaining about reboots seem to have intimate knowledge of the various reboots and the details behind them. That tells me that they must have been reading the various reboots. I don't read what I don't like and I don't buy it. Point blank. Stop bellyaching and do something of real substance to make change.

Again, fans buy it. So it will continue to be what is put out there.

And some characters are truly better off dead - Gwen Stacy. Norman Osborn. Barry Allen. Jason Todd. Especially Jason Todd.

Disagree with all except Norman Osborn. Jason Todd had potential but DC's editorial and writing staff were too inept to pull off what had a promising start. Over at Marvel where they are better run and stocked with better talent they made Bucky's resurrection work. It's not the character, it's the talent.

As someone who's always been a GL fan but hadn't regularly bought the comic for a long time, I have to say that this rebirth-of-Hal era is really working for me. Ever since shortly before the Sinestro Corps War, I've been buying and enjoying both GL and Green Lantern Corps. (GLC writer Peter Tomasi and artist Patrick Gleason deserve some credit here too.)

It's not that I love Hal Jordan so much — if pressed to pick a preferred protagonist, I'd probably opt for Kyle, then a tie between Hal and John Stewart (although my fave Lanterns are two non-humans, Kilowog and Mogo). The reason the two titles are working so well right now (and their sales are way up, which shows that lots of people are loving them) (although I'll surely admit that high sales don't necessarily mean good comics!) is because Geoff Johns has such a fulfilling long-term plan for the series. He's folding in all sorts of past elements into one bigger canvas. From Sinestro to Carol/Star Sapphire to the Lost Lanterns to his use of Ysmault (greatly expanding Alan Moore's bizarre little short story, tying it into Hal's origin and making it home of the Red Lanterns), it's all clicking. I'm thoroughly on board for the War of Light and the "rainbow corps." (Though I do wish he'd have had the good sense to ignore the tertiary indigo, which is not a distinct color in the spectrum, no matter what Roy G. Biv has to say about it.)

Anyway, I guess continuity matters — if it can be used in enriching ways. Johns himself recently told a panel at a recent comic-con that he felt Hal Jordan was so important because he has all this history with these various characters that can be developed and exploited into more stories; Kyle didn't really have that. Agree or disagree, but he has a point. Kyle probably would've had a much longer-term run as "the" Green Lantern of Earth if the editors (or writers or whomever) hadn't also jettisoned everything else about GL mythos. For me, the drastic switch meant that I never bought Kyle's solo title until much later, after Grant Morrison had sold me on the character in JLA and when Judd Winick (I know, I know) started writing GL. (To be fair, Winick turned out some good GL comics then. When was that, about 8 years ago? Among other things, he had the good sense to restore John Stewart and Jade to their former fully-abled, full-powered selves. In other words, Winick started rectifying some of the mistakes of the '90s.)

Meanwhile, to offer another answer to your primary question about why successful properties keep experiencing reboots/revamps/etc. (I think there are clearly several different reasons): Sometimes I think it's an ego thing — ie, a writer (usually one with a bigger following) just insists on putting his stamp on a title. This is often an ill-advised move, as it results in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My prime example is what John Byrne did to Wonder Woman, which was to make her change cities and introduce an entirely new supporting cast. No more Steve, Etta, Julia, Vanessa, etc. I think those sorts of wholesale changes are often just stupid, as it results in alienating existing readers, and I'm not sure why editors let writers get away with it.

I know when I watch an old Star Trek, it takes place in the universe where Vulcan was never destroyed and if I watch a new Star Trek, it takes place in the universe where Kirk was raised without a father. The old Star Trek still "happened" and is still valid - that universe is just completed and done and a new universe with a new canon is moving forward. Fair enough.

However, if I don't know what is "canon", stories I cared about become meaningless. I would have much preferred they restart Spider-Man continuity and start fresh than to bring back Aunt May and Norman Osborn a decade or so ago and now render Peter and MJ's marriage null and void. All those issues which I spent so much time and money acquiring feel sullied because I don't know how they fit in these days. However, if they just ended Spider-Man and restarted it, I would be clear that in the old version, the Goblin died, and that is fine and dandy and it still happened and it still has impact because it hasn't been nullified... the old story simply ended and a new version started.

Invalidating classic comics with sloppy ret-cons angers long time collectors. Thoughtless ret-cons are the true problem, not reboots in and of themselves. This is why I loved early Ultimate Spider-Man and hated regular Spider-Man since the Clone Saga. Bringing back Norman Osborn in regular continuity was a personal insult to me and all the other long-time readers, but I loved seeing him reimagined in the Ultimate universe. (His being alive in the Ultimate universe has no effect on my copies of ASM #121 & 122, after all).

That said, I will admit I did finally start reading Spider-Man again since Brand New Day, because Ultimate Spider-Man is being ransacked right now and I need my Spidey fix. And although the storytelling is pretty good and it feels fresh and new, the lack of explanations and half-assed continuity is starting to drive me batty.

Marvel should have either have said everything from the late-80s until One Last Day only happened in pre-Mephisto Spidey and not post-Mephisto Spidey, which I can live with, or immediately identified what has happened and what hasn't and get on with it.

Instead, they drag out the resolution of post-Mephisto continuity and give me bits and pieces. I like that they explained how Harry is alive (although Goblim Serum = Immortality was lame, still is lame, and always will be lame), but everything else is so muddy that to me the new stories feel ladened with overwhelming inertia. I can't look forward to what happens next because the gaping black hole behind me keeps dragging me back and distracting the hell out of me.

How did Spidey pull off the erasing of his secret id going public? The explanation with the recent story guest starring the FF only made me more confused. Instead of some cryptic half-answer, why not say "Well, pre-Mephisto Spidey revealed his ID, but post-Mephisto Spidey never did" - a clean break, a new story.

If MJ and Peter never married, how does that affect the Death of Kraven or the early Venom stories or even the fact that Pete stopped wearing the sewn version of the black costume that Felicia made for him? None of these things should be in my mind at all - because Marvel should just say "All that happened in pre-Mephisto Spidey... Post-Mephisto, it's a new story". Really make it a Brand New Day, jettison all the baggage of the past few decades, and only keep the classic foundation stories that set up the Spidey mythos and the other most loved stories - the early Stan Lee stories, the death of Capt Stacy and Gwen and Norman, the original Jackal story, the original Carrion story, the Death of Jean DeWolfe, the fight with the Juggernaut, the time Spidey took down Firelord singlehandedly, etc. Marvel could just state "For those who care, these are the issues that are still canon" and list them out - and then moved forward.

Then, it is a clean break. The stories that aren't part of the canon anymore, like the Death of Harry Osborn, are still valid because they still happened, just pre-Mephisto, and that story ended and now we are reading a new story. Instead, they are ransacked and ret-conned and dragged along like an unwanted burden, insulting everyone involved and defeating the purpose of a Brand New Day.

Instead, in the shared universe some decides to make Norman Osborn the Marvel version of the post-crisis Lex Luthor because they are too lazy to come up with a new character and have to take an old, better-off-dead character, and make him into something he's not. And since Spidey is a major part of the Marvel shared universe, we can't just put Norman back in the grave, even though we had the perfect opportunity (just say Post-Mephisto, Goblin Serum does not equal immortality. If you want to have Harry still alive, say without the marriage to MJ, Peter had more time to get involved with Harry and saved him from going off the deep end).

I know I'm rambling. Sorry. Point is, a reboot is fine if it is a true reboot. Retcons are fine if they make sense and are well thought out and tell a good story/fix a bad story (such as Green Lantern Rebirth or even erasing Ned Leeds as the original Hobgoblin, which never made sense - a terrible character like Kingsley as Hobby is still better than Ned Leeds which made no sense at all). But half-assing either is just drags everything down - and therefore retcons and reboots should be used sparingly, be well expressed, exceedingly clear, and done quickly.

And some characters are truly better off dead - Gwen Stacy. Norman Osborn. Barry Allen. Jason Todd. Especially Jason Todd.

Take the new Trek. Rather than just say "We want to tell stories about the crew when they were younger" they do an incredibly dumb story involving the most boring villain in Trek history going back in time and killing Spock's mom.

Christopher Nolan didn't have Calendar Man go back in time and kill Batman's parents...he just started over.

The Bond films didn't have Blofeld go back in time and kill Bond's mom..they just rebooted.