Off My Mind: Should Comic Books Have An Ending?

With some seriess an ending makes sense.
However with others where the main focus is the character things can go on and on.
At the momment I'm wishin' X-men and Batman had ended a few years ago but I'm hopin' they hit a run I can enjoy again.
I'm lookin' forward to JMS's Superman  even though I've not enjoyed it for a while.
 
DC do kind of end things and restart fairly often with the many, many crisis's.

Maybe it should just stay the same. "To Be Continued" has been around since comics started. Maybe they should start ending the story and starting anew.

It's a difficult subject to approach.
 
My love for Watchmen is well known, yet I was glad that it ended in the manner it did, mini series or not.  It is better, in my opinion, for series to end when the creator wants them to, when there is a specific and clear goal in mind and not just to prolong it forever.
 
That being said, that particular mentality would not work for say, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, X men, etc because those titles are too big to have a "ending".  Granted, Alan Moore did write perhaps the best Superman story ever in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.  If anyone has not read that book, I advise you to strongly consider it.
 
Comics are definitely different from manga, and should be treated as such, for the most part in regards to how they "end"

G-Man I think you make a valid point and I would agree that many characters would have benefited from ending while their on top rather than years of recycled plots. I think Nolan the Dark Knight director also agrees as he plans on ending his take on Batman in the next movie. However I just don't think I could bare it to see characters like Spider-Man or the X-men to have an end, I would just be too disappointed. It is for this same reason I'm glad Spidey 4 was cancelled as they planned on concluding the movie with Peter giving up being Spider-Man.

YES! YES THEY SHOULD! 
 
Obviously not every comic, I think that there are some that just go on and on and they are like always classics, no matter how new they are. But I absolutely HATE it when a series could have finished very well, but continued on and just ends up getting cut anyway because no one reads them anymore

They should have endings, but on comics we see ongoing series getting volume endings or special stories telling a supposed or possible ending. I think that is as much an ending we can get on some series.

As far as the medium called comic books goes in some books it is very acceptable to have an ending. But to appease the fans and still make a profit I really don't see how it is possible. World renown characters such as Spider-Man and Super-Man, you really can't have an "ending" per say due to the fact that they have such a wide range of rogues that they must face and therefore the story continues unless the hero "dies". Which as we all know that it doesn't really happen, it is pretty much inevitable that the hero comes back in some dramatic fashion to fight the powers of evil once more. I think story arcs can end, but the main story of the battle between good and evil will never end.    

It's better to burn out than to fade away. 
 
That said, someone else always wants to play in the same sandbox, someone will always have a superman or a batman story to tell. Only creater owned or non universe things (such as Preacher, Invisibles, Y, Rex Mundi etc...) will truly ever end.

Nah, just keep 'em running. The only reason why I started reading comics again because I already knew the characters. When I was young I started reading them and now that I'm not that young anymore (now I didn't use the word old :) I still read 'em and it feels like coming home. A bit of variety never hurt anyone but to completely start over time and time again would be ridiculous. Some character, team ups are already so known, so familiar that I'd hate for 'em to just go away. 
 
It's like them soaps on TV, a cast of 10 persons and they last well, 30 to 40 years. That's a hell of a long time with (give or take a little) the same cast. In comics for me, it works like that to. I get to live for about 70 years, why shouldn't they ?

I prefer stories that have an ending.  In this sense I prefer Graphic Novels that you can pick up without knowing all the backstories. (I prefer films to soap operas.) 

But if Superman ended, or Batman, Spider-Man or X-men ended I wonder would we just see new characters invented to fill the archtype and to do the same sort of stories? and if there were dozens of X-men rip offs, they might never become as popular as the original franchise or as widely distributed.  (I would never have heard of the Authority unless I went into a comicbook shop compared to the X-men who had a cartoon that got me hooked as a kid)

That's hard...On the one hand I absolutely loved The Luna Brothers' Sword series primarily because it was a straight up story. On the other hand, if I couldn't get a weekly fix of X-Men then I probably wouldn't read comics anymore. And then we have She-Hulk, who's a perfect example of a character who should have had a limited series with an end date. The poor girl...Old Yeller had a better sendoff than She-Hulk in her ongoing.

On second thought, some titles are better of without endings. It gives us the opportunity to enjoy a good character with different writers and artists. Imagine all the stories we would've missed if they had an ending. 
Comic industry is more like creating an idea (character) and giving it to a company to have other people work with it, create stories with your character, create more and more history to it as time goes. I think that is what has made our characters so good over the years. 

I think having an ending in mind is a good idea. It would help to keep storylines focused. The problem I have with really long running comics is that in five years you could have half a dozen different writers all with their own plans on where to take the title, not all of which are good. I think this is best shown with constant character resurrections. One writer wants to create a deep response out of the reader by killing off a loved character in a heroic moment, then the next writer a year later brings him back. If there was a limited run with a minimum number of writers I might care more that Captain America died if I didn't know in my heart that he was coming back soon.

You are asking a question that just can't be answered categorically.
 
For certain stories, where the events have been planned out with an ending in mind, a definitive ending obviously makes sense. But to permanently retire characters or concepts that are still interesting to prevent someone "ruining the character" (incredibly subjective by the way) further down the line? If the ending is part of and compliments the story being told it can enhance the story as a whole. That's a good thing. Ending a story just because "stories should end" seems pretentious and unnecessary, just as continuing a series with a planned end just because of popularity compromises artistic integrity.

Stories, as distinct from characters, end all the time in comics. However, those characters are still around to tell new stories as long as people find them interesting. That's not an excuse to use those characters to tell bad stories, but then there's never an excuse for bad stories, is there?
 
Think of your favorite comic book character. Is your favorite storyline featuring that character his/her origin story?

I think they kind of already do. I would argue that the Bendis run on Daredevil is one long story, with a beginning, middle & end, made up of several inter-related chapters. Same with Brubaker's run on Daredevil. Or Miller's. Not every story is going to be as grand or far reaching as Gaiman's Sandman or Robinson's Starman, but if you come at a particular title from a different angle, you can choose to take a writer's run on a book as a self contained story. The iconic characters are always going to continue to be published, but if you really want  an ending for any one of them, you have several to choose from. All that's required is that you walk away from that character afterwards, & never look back.

By asking this question though, you then enter the idea of "is it easier to create a selling comic book hero than to kill one off?". This is beyond the idea of easy to answer, for we all know you could never replace the foundation of iconic heroes like Batman or Superman with a fresh face. We glorify these characters for their title of a foundation in our reading styles and storylines. Now, given that there are indeed lesser characters in our "graphic" universe, i would agree to the fact that it does indeed  add momentum to a truly great story to threaten the life of one of our superheroes, but killing off such heroes should never become a common thing. I would hate to see that become a decade's trend in writing.

Yes they should end - or do a Phantom generational thing to satisfy the corporate need for cash cow characters.  Batman should've been Dick Grayson a long time ago - the characters should age (not in real time of course) and progress somewhere.  Unless you utilize the "super" character like Eisner did with the Spirit - where everyman tales can be told in the hero framework but often focusing on other characters.  I think the Watchmen and other notable classic stories are made better because of the idea of an exit point.  How much better would Claremont's X-Men run have been with a planned exit (or movement to the New Mutants actually taking over the X-men Mantle)?  I guess I don't have a problem with ending a series and rebooting.  But suffering through mediocrity awaiting the next good run that will have to last us for a few years seems foolish to me (as an adult).  On the flipside - would we lose cross-generational icons then?

see, i honestly believe we would. We should have faith in the "writers that be" to support a somewhat interesting storyline to get us from points A to B in our attention span. If we relied on the method of killing off what couldn't support itself in the comic book world, for instance if one of the multiple Batman storylines were to fall, we would lose a sense of leadership amongst a swelling group of new identities. In the past, we have needed a good character to introduce the "greats" we have nowadays. Ex: Punisher, Wolverine, Hulk.

I guess my thinking is this, they have story arcs for a reason, some good arcs some bad, comics are based around the characters themselves and in a sense the universe the represent (Marvel/DC/Image/Boom),I think that some books should have a definite ending ( IMO Irredemable can be one of those books). They have mini series with an ending in mind,but for long run characters (spidey, x-men, GL, Batman) it's more about the development of the character. 
 
As for TV I'm really PO'd that they ended Pushing Daiseys when they did.. there was no closure and I hate that.

@G-Man:  This is a great question.  It is one I have wondered about as well, but not quite as clearly as you state.  
 
I think that several characters need to end their run.  Oh, I'm going to get some hate my way, but really, Spider-Man and even Batman need to move on in one form or another.  With Batman you can at least pass the mantle, but with Spidey, I don't know, I always had in mind that his powers would eventually fade in some way, that they were always temporary although he never knew it.  
 
Have some characters "retire".  Like Alan Scott and Jay Garrick.  Great characters, but they've been milked for all their worth, time to let the teats get a break.

The problem is not that comics need an ending. The problem is that a "version" of the character has been entrenched in the publics mind due to other mediums. 
 
People have a perception of what Superman, Batman, Spider- Man or Batman should be. The characters CAN'T change. I'm sure this is why Marvel, for Example, have been simply changing the background setting each couple of years. You can't change the characters so change the surroundings. 

Captain America should ended after Civil War #7. It was the perfect ending

It really depends on the comic. Comics like Y the last man, 100 bullets ect are great because they have an ending, but superhero stories are bascally our versions of soup operas. I cant imagine x-men ending, even though they have had tons of stories that "show the end of the x-men"
But superhero comics kinda do have endings right now. Look at the heroic age, thats ending almost 10 years of stories and starting anew. new Avenegers just "endned" So you do have the option to stop reading them instead of continuing onto the next 10 years of stories.
 
I think for some books it works others it dosent. I loved when fables ended in vol.8 but then the story kept going, which i didnt like. Y the last man I couldnt keep reading if it didnt have an ending. I feel when it comes to comics like that I'd preferr an ending Because I'm already involved in a bunch of other soup operas and dont want to start a whole new universe.
 
On another side, When I try to get my friends into comics they enjoy the y the last man approch because its just a story with an ending and they dont have to worry about what happened to one chacracter in the 80's to understand  whats happening. They can pick it up read it and then they are done, which i feel most new readers enjoy. (well new readers who are my older age ha ha)
 
So it depends, Superhero comics in a way do have endings you just have to choose to stop reading. For example My brother is still deciding if hes gonna keep reading marvel because he has an opertunity to have the story finished after seige, and dosent know if he wants to start a new 10 years of the soup opera. ha ha
 
Personally I love the stories and i will keep moving forward with them always. But I do enjoy a good book to read and finish and dont have to worry about it again after that. But one thing that does bug me is lack of aging in comics! ha ha

they should 
i would also prefer if comics followed real time 
thats why judge dredd is so awesome 

I've been saying this to my brother for a while now!Yes, some books need to end so they can start over! If the story runs the risk of becoming this ugly nonsensical beast,end it! 

i dont want towrite too much, but if there is no plan for a ending at the beggining , then an ending would be stupid.

Watchmen, Bone, and Y:The Last Man worked because there was an end. There are story arcs that still trancend decades later like Tony Stark's battle with alcoholism because the writer was allowed to see the arc through to the end. The publisher should allow the story arc to see it's conclusion through so that it and the characters will always be memorable. When the story arc is not seen through to the end or takes to long then the readership wants a new direction in story or a new voice.  

Thing is with Marvel, is that it is a huge universe and especially now due to Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign etc, every character in that universe (or at least the popular ones) get affected. So if you did make a series with  an ending, in these big stories the reader would be like - "Huh? where is this character in all this?"
 
I think if you want to make an ending, you've got to make a whole different universe, as with Watchmen, or Film Universes... 

I think you bring up a great point G-Man. I would love to see some series/character have an ending, but on the other hand, I know that some series should never end. I think that the major characters should continue on and perhaps have the minor characters that never really found their niche say goodbye. Maybe not though. That is a hard call to make. I would have been sad if someone told me that Barbara Gordon retired forever after she was shot.

One of my favorite books was Starman by James Robinson. He may be known or infamous for other things, but that is probably one of his best works. It ended when Jack Knight - who didn't want to be a super-hero in the first place, chose family over anything else. 
 
I think Batman and Superman should shift to graphic novels, trade paperbacks and 12-issue mini-series. Got a Superman or Batman story to tell? Tell it in one of those three ways. Otherwise you're telling pretty much stories that have been collected and recollected and re-recollected over the last 70 or 80 years now. Don't get me wrong, I like both Superman and Batman, but they are prime examples of characters that have been over-exposed. "Like Batman? Okay, here, comic book fan/junkie, let's give you four Batman titles and another half-dozen bat-family titles to satisfy your fix." I know that Batman's "war on crime" and Superman's "never-ending battle" are pretty much set in stone, but I kinda think that stone's been wrung dry.  
 
I'd argue that Spider-Man, X-Men and now The Avengers are at over-exposure. I'd probably lose the argument, but I'd argue it. 
 
I believe some characters should end. It worked for a character like Jack Knight. He was written unique that way. Should Spider-Man keep being Spider-Man like a Supreme Court Justice? Or like Batman or Superman? I don't know. What's better? Four crappy books a month for one character or one really good book? My wallet can't handle multiple titles. I'd rather read one really good story than a bunch of really bad ones.  
 
How 'bout this: What purpose does the Justice Society of America serve today? To me, they're all about WWII, or politics. I have a hard time believing that Jay Garrick, Alan Scott or Ted Grant shouldn't be given a break.   

i think endings are the easy way out. how much narrative art has an ending; everything does, but comics. its a cool facet to the medium. to keep telling the stories so what if the character evolves and becomes a subject counter to what you as a normal everyday reader first enjoyed or identified with those comics take on a life of there own

It mostly would depend on the story...
 
Stories that have been made to have an ending should not be tried to continue... what I mean is after Snow White or Cinderella got their Prince they lived happily ever after... there's no story worth telling after that (unless you approach as Fables did).
Then there are stories where it focuses on a hero... if the story has more than one antagonist then the stories should go on to milk out all of those possible antagonist...
 
Ex: Snow White just had the Evil Witch Queen who gave her the apple vs Spider-Man has Green Goblin, Rhino, Lizard, Kraven, Chamelion, Mysterio, Doc Ock.....

Every story has a beginning and an ending....it's how long the story takes to end the tale. Sometimes a finished story could mark the beginning of new one as it becomes a neverending story.
 
For example: Milestone Media made great beginnings for Icon, Hardware, the Blood Syndicate, Static, Shadow Cabinet, Xombi, and Kobalt until the writers of '95''96 messed things up as the books were canceled as they were left unfinished. By 2008, DC decided to bring Milestone back to our time and generation as Static is a member of the Teen Titans, and everyone has settled in there new universe as they meet the mainstream characters.

It's like a soap opera. That stuff doesn't end. No season finales. No cancellations. You get some casting changes but that's it.

I certainly think that a lot of titles could benefit from a clearly structed start & end.  Whether that is limited or maxi series, it has a clear beginning & end.  It could allow for the characters to grow.  It'd give a new jumping on point for readers on a more regular basis.   It'd also allow for stronger creator continuity without merging & blurring of storylines.
 
The "ongoing" is just an acceptable way of saying "soap opera"

I completely agree sometimes things should end. Although hopefully not end in a cliffhanger...

No I feel that comics should never end because comics is not like a tv show with one plot and that is it.  It has many different stories. It is kind of like saying not to have magazines or tv it is never going to happen. We still have books and that has been used for years and years.

Overexposure kills (See: Ghost Rider, Venom, Punisher, Deadpool)
 
But having a book that will keep running doesn't kill a character. It's all depending on the writer. Sure, there are ones that jump the shark sometimes (JMS on Spider-man), but there are also ones that make the character more fun to read than ever! (Fraction on Iron Man)

First off, G-Man. Happy Birthday!!
 
Well, I don't see why a book can't continue for decades and have an end. That happens with many Japanese mangas. They bigger named titles can last for ten years or more before reaching their finale. As I have said before. One Piece has been going on for 13 years now and the story is barely at the half way point.
 
There is also all the Gundam anime series. Those have been going on for decades, but they are never doing the same story. It's always a reboot after a few seasons.
 
I like stories to have an end, but that doesn't mean if has to be a sprint to the finish. It could take longer.
If a story just drags on. Events started to stretch to a ridiculous level, because you are always trying to top what was done previously.

Well i don't think a comic book should have an ending because sometimes people like me only like a few heroes and like if one ends you don't really have nothing else to do and if they end up dieing at the end then that just makes you sad when you're hero died and for example my favorite hero was an Elektra and when i found the comic book that she died in when they found out she was a skrull it really tore me apart because she was my favorite hero ever and will always be but now she's back so YAY!!!!

I'm sort of mis-quoting this but Stan Lee said that he made the Spider-man Story arcs at the beginning filled with "Heavy Doses of Soap Opera", which most if not all writers of comics have done from that point onwards, and the main element of a soap opera is that it never ends.
I get how some people want a conclusion to it; a finale, but they have that in the story arcs.
It's not like Spider-man or Batman are going to stop being a hero as there is always crime and heroes are needed to stop that. The only way around it is to kill off a character, but we all know that never sticks in comics. :P