I think the most important thing about ending the devotion to tropes is just how much it can open things up for good stories.
Avengers is a really good example of this -- hey, I recognize just as much as anyone that how "Disassembled" was done was awful. Some of it was truly, truly brutal, shortsighted.
But at the same time, let's look at it through the prism of time passed.
Avengers was stuck in a rut. The franchise was just...stuck. It felt old and boring and stale.
But Bendis, after the horrific storyline that began his tenure, did one thing that I feel makes Avengers the best franchise in comics today, even after his departure:
He asked "why not."
Why can't Spider-Man be an Avenger? Why can't Wolverine be an Avenger? Why can't Luke Cage be an Avenger? Why can't Iron Fist and the Sentry and Doctor Strange and Ben Grimm and so on and so forth...not be Avengers?
I am NOT, repeat NOT, saying all of it worked. That's not what I'm saying at all.
But that's the point: It wasn't all working before that. But what Avengers has, and has had for years now, is ENERGY. Not just the fact that change will take place for the sake of change, but that the change is meant to create a more cohesive Marvel Universe with a vibrant franchise.
Yes, Marvel has dipped into the "Civil War," "AvsX" well of heroes vs. heroes far too often. I don't dispute that -- and that trope needs to end, too.
But at the same time, when I read Avengers, I do kinda wish "Marvel rules" would be applied to Justice League.
I'm sick of seeing one or more of the "Big Six/Seven" be "off-planet" or unavailable. It's tiresome and boring and ridiculous.
Why? Because we've all read hundreds, if not thousands, of adventures of Superman. What matters now is how Superman interacts with other heroes. What team-ups do we see? What relationships are built? What makes them work together so well?
Is there a risk of too much structure, as Jude suggests? Perhaps. But I would argue that having a cohesive plan that moves characters forward, while clearly delineating roles and responsibilities, has helped Marvel immensely with Avengers and X-Men.
Personally? I think the just completed "Utopia Era" of X-Men was better than Chris Claremont's run -- and I used to think that run would be UNTOUCHABLE, with everything Claremont introduced and accomplished. But moving the X-Men, giving them definition and purpose, led to amazing stories and character development.
Same with Avengers. Bendis isn't quite the writer that Mike Carey and Matt Fraction, etc., were for X-Men, but at the same time, there were plenty of good things that came from Avengers over the past seven or so years.
Most importantly? Those books are fun. They don't have to be perfect every month. But it's not too much to ask for these characters to be enjoyable.
The heroes of DC Comics don't have to be dicks. They don't have to be rude, argumentative, arrogant and condescending. They can be "team players." They can be competent and intelligent and resourceful.
It's unfortunate that, with Geoff Johns and others, that kind of treatment is reserved for the villains, while the heroes are left with "miraculous victories" and "fresh-faced rookie enthusiasm."
*Sniff, sniff* "Damn it, Diana...If I'd known they would trade us in for a JT Krul-written Captain Atom and "The Savage Hawkman," I'd have let Superboy-Prime destroy all reality.""Superman flies and is really strong...what the fuck else do you need to know?!"
-- Hitler, expressing his displeasure about DC rebooting and complaints about continuity