I guess it depends whether "editorial sabotage" means that there was a clear intention to destroy the property, or whether an attempt to abruptly change the property is similarly acceptable. While "Sins Past" was a terrible terrible idea, I'm not necessarily convinced anyone was blatantly trying to destroy the franchise.

Using the latter definition, I'd point to Dark Knight Returns, which, from many perspectives, was a tremendous success and watershed achievement, but, to a fan of the Batman that already was, this was a desecration and a guarantee that we'd never see that Batman in popular culture again.

I think most Batman fans can be lumped into one of two groups: either you love The Untold Legend of The Batman, or you love DKR.

Having now said that, I'm sure someone will chime in to explain why that doesn't account for their particular tastes in Batman at all

So am I, but it is Untold Legends of the Batman that I view as featuring the "real" Batman. The Dark Knight Returns, much as I love it in its own right, always felt like a What if..? type of story to me.

Both works, or both interpretations of the character? Like RR, I enjoy DKR, but not as my definitive version of Batman.

Spot-on, R²!

I think of Green Arrow becoming a flat-out killer. My memory's hazy on when and where this took place; I may have even given up on him before then. And, not to put too fine a point on it (no pun intended, really), but I'm not sure it qualifies as "sabotage" so much as vandalism.

So many reasons this kind of thing doesn't work. Hey, I've got nothing against somebody telling the story of a vigilante archer on a "Death Wish" campaign to wreak vengeance on criminals. Just don't call him "Green Arrow" expecting me to accept that it's the same guy who used boxing-glove arrows to subdue the Clock King. Make up your own damn characters; don't crap all over someone else's b/c you can capitalize on the brand and the name to show that there's a "dark" aspect to humanity and heroes.

Spare me the adolescent nihilism and the supposedly courageous iconoclasm of eviscerating and exposing the silliness of a character rather than trying to show natural progression and development.

Mark Evanier just was asked what Kirby would have thought about the "Captain America, Hydra Agent" storyline that's getting all kinds of press now. He said Kirby first would have asked, "Is it a good story?" I'd have to say, "Yes, it seems like it could be." But, and it's a but of Kardashianesque heft, this particular storyline and many, many others, seem not to be the kind of intriguing "What If," "Imaginary Story" versions, variations, or speculations on a character that make for a clever, insightful reading experience, but flailing attempts to be scandalous, edgy, whatever, and which are so obviously desperate attempts at making an immediate PR splash no matter the damage done.

The constant rebooting of characters and universes is of the same ilk: temporary fixes that rely on sensationalism rather than the craft of storytelling. The comics lurch from "event" to "event," lose all sense of continuity and connection to a tradition.

Evanier used a nice analogy to show the difference between the good story and the cheap trick: It's in the excerpt below.

"I'm a little reticent to say how Jack would have felt about some things. I know his strong feelings on some topics. On others though, you have to remember that Jack was a vast thinker who didn't always view the world or some aspect of it as we (mere) mortals would. He sometimes surprised me with his "take" on some issue and when he did, it was usually because I was looking at a tree and he was looking at the entire forest.

That said, I feel safe to say that the first question Jack would probably ask would be "Is it a good story?" If it isn't, then it's a bad idea right there. If it is, then you go on to Question Two, which would be "Does it box the current and future writers in and damage their ability to create good stories?" If the answer is no, then fine. If it's yes…well, that's why these premise-altering storylines are usually reversed and the dead character is brought back to life or the marriage is forgotten or the whole thing turns out to be a dream or a clone or they just plain reboot the strip and start over.

I would guess that just of stories that continued Kirby characters after he'd departed and were issued during his lifetime, Jack probably never looked at 90% of them. Of the remainder, he rarely recognized anything but the characters' visuals — and sometimes not even that — though he was usually too polite to say so. I can think of a few times he objected to something if he found it personally offensive…and if this new series has Captain America spouting anti-Semitic slogans — yeah, probably. But then he would have objected if they had someone else's hero spouting anti-Semitism, too.

You're right. He didn't much mind what others did with his characters. If they could take what he left them and use it as the starting point to craft new, excellent issues, that was great. He just objected to anyone claiming that he and his successor were collaborating on a single body of work. To Jack, his issues were his issues and they were independent from that other guys' issues. It's kind of like 'Build on the land I've left you but please don't strip-mine it.' That's good advice in many aspects of life."

www.newsfromme.com

Link to classiccomics.boards.net/thread/2444/who-batman

It seems to me that almost every Marvel comic from the 90ies until Joe Queseda took over was more or less editorial sabotage
What is true about it s that back then, for a long time, the head editors at Marvel believed that creators did not matter, and hoped for a long time that mage would miserably fail, outdoing Image in their marketing tactics.