Perhaps, but since that hasn't been attempted in the decade since the demise of his title, I'm not holding my breath.

I also have to question the thought, brought up by you and a few others up thread, that what happened with Animal Man was all right because it was done to a "third-tier character". It's as if to say that no one is really watching, so it's OK to do whatever they want because Animal Man isn't Batman, Superman or Spider-Man.  I have a problem with that.  I'm not citing Morrison specifically, but the notion that some of the talent out there focuses on third-tier characters in order to radically change them because of their perceived status, or lack there of, in a company's character strata seems wrong to me. Luke Cage's treatment for the MAX line or many of the characters in Giffen and DeMatties JLA titles and spin-offs are perfect examples of just such treatment of characters who are not among the elite. As much as I love the character of Blue Beetle, I find it hard to believe anyone will take him seriously after nearly two decades of mockery and BWAHAHAHA's.  Given that there's only room at the top for a few first tier characters (not every character created, even every good character, can be #1), does that give talent carte blanche to do what they will to less popular characters?

Zaki Hasan wrote: Morrison also had a lengthy stint on THE FLASH, as well as his own AZTEK, THE ULTIMATE MAN, both of which were pretty straight-ahead standard superhero stuff.  Maybe that's why no one really talks about them.

When did nine issues become a "lengthy stint"?  Mark Waid took a year off from writing THE FLASH.  Morrison co-wrote the title with Mark Millar from #130 - 138, and Millar took over writing from #139 - 141, with Waid returning to the title at #142.  It was pretty straight-forward, but because of his situation as a fill-in writer (maintaining status quo until Waid returned) and his collaboration with Millar, it's not all that surprising.  One instance of Morrison writing standard superhero fare doesn't negate the majority of his less than standard work on mainstream, company owned characters.

AZTEK lasted all of ten issues. Again, written in collaboration with Mark Millar.  I bought the series and I remember it feeling like a Morrison book.  It wasn't all that straight-ahead standard superhero stuff, but that was fine with me because he created the character.

Matt Reed wrote: Given that there's only room at the top for a few first tier characters (not every character created, even every good character, can be #1), does that give talent carte blanche to do what they will to less popular characters?

If you're the Powers-That-Be at DC or Marvel, would you prefer that your less popular characters drift along, putting in the odd guest appearance in crossovers and the like, or would you prefer to try to generate some interest in said characters, in the hopes of turning a third-tier character into a second-tier one?

Or, to put it another way, if you own the characters, surely it's up to you to decide if the writer is going too far?

Zaki Hasan wrote:  Wayne Osborne wrote: Exactly! The only "toys" he left in good shape after he played with them were the JLA. And if I was a betting man, I'd have to say that was probably more DC's doing than Grant's. WO So no need to worry about SEVEN SOLDIERS then.

But That was with the JLA (tippy top tier characters) - what DC thinks about the 7 Soldiers and the New Gods might be a different ball of wax.  Like I said, we'll see.

WO

Matt Reed wrote:  Even though he put the pieces back together, so to speak, I have a feeling that most think of the character in a way that's not conducive to being a player in the DCU because of Morrison's association with him.

Good point, Matt.  I was going to mention this as well last night (before I got busy with some real life stuff).  It seems like whenever a character has been deconstructed, whether by Morrison or not, and regardless of if it's put back together ie. Animal Man (questionable) or left in pieces like Doom Patrol - there remains a "taint", for lack of a better word, that prevents it from ever being the same. 

WO

Or, possibly, nobody has any ideas for how to write an Animal Man series, much as they didn't before Morrison came along, which suggests a lack of imagination on the part of either DC editorial, or the writers.

Out of interest, any budding writers have any interest in writing an Animal Man title? And if so, are you really being put off because of Grant Morrison's 'taint'?

I really wasn't thinking about a "taint" from a writer's perspective but one in the eyes of "fandom".  Once you've seen Animal Man go completely outside his four-color world and meet his "creator" it's kinda hard to view him in the same way no matter if he's "put back together" at the end.  It was all a dream is a cliche of a cliche.  And to stay with Morrison, I think the same holds true with Doom Patrol.  Once you've seen the Chief as the head of a manipulating bastard in a jar, it's tough to forget about that and look at the character in a new light.  Sometimes you just can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again............

WO

John Mietus wrote:  Eric Kleefeld wrote: Animal Man was about man's discovery of God.  In this case, it was symbolically done as a comic book character discovering his author. I preferred how that story was handled in Cerebus. A lot more entertaining. "What a maroon." Morrison has never impressed me.

Oh I would have to say the Daffy Duck version was the best.

This idea isn't new unto itself, but then what story is?  It is how a story is explored that makes it worth reading.