You may have noticed that superheroes are much bigger than just comics these days. Franchises like the Avengers, Batman, and Spider-man rakes in billions of dollars for their respective movie studios and inspire all manner of video game, animated TV, and toy offshoots. Many of these spinoffs wind up circling back around and impacting the evolution of the comics in turn. It's all one big circle. But as neat as it is to see these properties become gigantic entities that appeal to millions of people across different media, there comes a time when too much superhero synergy is a bad thing. Marvel and DC should be celebrating the unique qualities that distinguish the various incarnations of these characters, rather than working to unify everything.

The motivation behind all this synergy is understandable enough. Companies like Disney and Warner Brothers want to build recognizable brands that maintain a certain level of consistency in every incarnation. No matter what form characters like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy take, they're always instantly recognizable. You know what to expect from these characters in terms of their personalities and how they interact with one another. Similarly, Disney works to make sure the Avengers have a set of consistent, iconic qualities in every incarnation. Whether you look at the Marvel Studios films......the Avengers Assemble cartoon......games like Disney Infinity 2.0......or even the comics...

Earth's Mightiest Heroes featured a larger and more interesting cast.

This wasn't worth the effort required.

...you know the story will be anchored by that core cast of heroes - Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. That's what the first Avengers film established as the core Avengers roster, and that's what many fans recognize.The problem is that this sort of dependability can become boring and repetitive. Honestly, what's so special about that particular Avengers roster? Joss Whedon focused on those six heroes in Avengers not because they're the best Avengers that ever existed, but because those were the characters that had been introduced in previous Marvel movies. That specific roster had never even existed in the Avengers comics before 2012. Yet now we see that lineup (and small variations of it) cropping up all over. It's in every medium.That Avengers roster is a perfectly fine one when handled well. Whedon did it right, although the Avengers Assemble animated series has generally missed the mark. One need only compare Assemble to its predecessor, Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, to see what damage synergy can cause. Earth’s Mightiest Heroes did what a good, long-from adaptation should. It drew in characters and elements from across the history of the Avengers franchise - classic storylines like The Kree/Skrull War, modern greats like Ed Brubaker’s Captain America, and so on. The show was like the spiritual successor to X-Men: The Animated Series in that regard, albeit with much stronger animation and action. Earth’s Mightiest Heroes took the time to spotlight a wide cast of heroes, many of whom have yet to make a splash in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.Assemble, on the other hand, followed up its predecessor by shrinking the cast to the movie’s six character (plus The Falcon). The show’s dynamic is much the worse for wear because of that change. Heck, Black Widow might as well not even be on the show most of the time. Are we really going to have to wait for more Marvel Studios films to hit before characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel get their due on TV again?Marvel’s biggest misstep when it comes to cross-media synergy is their handling of Nick Fury. Traditionally, Fury has been portrayed as a grizzled WWII vet-turned-modern-day spymaster. The Ultimate Universe Nick Fury, however, was modeled closely after actor Samuel L. Jackson in both looks and personality. That latter take is what was used in the Marvel movies, and because of that it’s become the de facto standard across all media.Marvel’s big mistake came when they tried to inject that version of Fury into the regular comics. The 2012 mini-series Battle Grounds very awkwardly introduced a new character called Marcus Johnson who turned out to be the illegitimate son of Fury. By the end of the book, Johnson had lost an eye, shaved his head, taken his father’s name, and become an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. The Marvel Universe now had a Sam Jackson-style Fury.The problem is that this character’s resemblance to the Fury from the films is only skin-deep. He doesn’t have the same personality. Other heroes know he isn’t the original Fury, and they treat him as such. This Fury doesn’t even have the same role within S.H.I.E.L.D. the film version does. Until very recently, Fury Sr. was still running around the Marvel Universe playing super-spy. Original Sin, one of Marvel’s most high profile comics of 2014, focused on Fury Sr. heavily and Fury Jr. not at all. Looking at all of this, how did Marvel’s decision to introduce a Sam Jackson-style Nick Fury make their comics more accessible to newer readers? If anything, it only made their current continuity more confusing and convoluted.On the DC side of things, there's been a definite trend towards emphasizing the New 52 in all things. Their direct-to-DVD animated movies have becomes increasingly devoted towards adapting New 52 storylines. The majority of merchandise released by DC Collectibles is focused on New 52 characters and designs. Even Man of Steel followed the general example of the New 52 in trying to present a slightly darker, edgier, and more grounded take on the DCU. And that take is going to inform most of the DC movies hitting theaters over the next decade.The most glaring example of DC overemphasizing one take on a particular character is Green Arrow . The character achieved a newfound level of popularity thanks to the TV series Arrow. And that's great. I'm a big fan of Arrow. What I'm not a fan of is seeing Arrow's Oliver Queen become the Oliver Queen across all media. DC ended a terrific Green Arrow run by Jeff Lemire and Andrea Sorrentino so that they could revamp the comic again and make it more like the TV show. Even the Green Arrow in Lego Batman 3 is specifically modeled after and voiced by Stephen Amell.

The thing about Green Arrow is that the divide between who he was before the New 52 relaunch and who he is now thanks to Arrow is so huge that the two versions may as well be completely different characters. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Both are perfectly valid takes on a decades-old character. But what about the people who love classic Ollie and want to experience more stories starring the swashbuckling, middle-aged hippie who dresses like Errol Flynn? What about fans who were enjoying the new and very different Green Arrow mythology Lemire and Sorrentino were building in their comics?To DC’s credit, they haven’t completely ignored classic Green Arrow in recent years. The Injustice: Gods Among Us prequel comic features a distinctly pre-New 52 take on most of the characters, Green Arrow included. But even in that example, the Injustice comic is based on a video game that began development before the New 52 or the Arrow show existed. Will DC still be willing to explore the classic Green Arrow beyond Injustice and the short-lived Convergence event? Here’s hoping.Just because a particular project does something cool and interesting with a character doesn't mean that idea has to be adopted and replicated across all media. I enjoyed how X-Men: First Class revamped the relationship between Charles Xavier and Mystique. That doesn't mean I want to see their sibling-like relationship in the comics. What if DC suddenly chose to start depicting Batman as an aging recluse in all their media because of how the character is being portrayed in Batman v. Superman? What if DC begins revamping more of their ongoing comics solely to align them with upcoming TV projects like Supergirl?To be fair, you can point out just as many examples of cases where Marvel and DC's comics diverge from the movies and TV series. DC pretty much let Grant Morrison go wild with his Batman work, never really worrying about whether the comics conformed to the Christopher Nolan films. Marvel may be building towards Avengers: Age of Ultron on the movie front, but their current comic book status quo includes a black Captain America, a female Thor, a hyper-intelligent Hulk, and an Iron Man who dresses like a human iPod.However, even as Marvel is working to make some characters different and new, they're still bringing others more closely in line with the films. The recent Avengers & X-Men: AXIS mini-series revealed that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch aren't actually Magneto's children. The assumption is that Marvel is revamping their origin to eliminate the mutant angle and help align the characters with their Hollywood selves. Assuming this is the case, will this change actually result in compelling new stories for the Maximoff twins? Or will it be like the Nick Fury debacle - a case of cold synergy dictating story?I'm sure we'll never get to the point where these superhero universes become identical across all media. But there is a worry that Marvel and DC are limiting their potential by focusing too much on aligning characters and stories rather than simply letting writers and artists go wild and be creative. If the comics don't focus on telling unique and interesting stories, how are the movies supposed to find new material to draw from?

Jesse is a mild-mannered writer for IGN. Allow him to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket by following @jschedeen on Twitter , or Kicksplode on MyIGN