-
[QUOTE=Nelliebly;4572649]Cosplayers are lovely but WB does not care about how people cosplay nor does it make them revenue.
They also don’t care about “couples merchandise.” Once they sell the license to someone, WB could genuinely care less. It’s not how they make money. Wonder Woman and Superman are often used by companies to show male/female binary. It does not hold the weight you think it does.
What WB and DC care about is the revenue from media franchises. Smallville, for example, remained on the air for 10 seasons, in part, (and this is according to WB big wig at the time Peter Roth) because it sold like gangbusters on DVD and was a literal goldmine for WB. Smallville made so much money that it was, at the time, (and might still be tbh) the 2nd highest selling franchise in WB history —second only to Friends.
Media is where WB/DC make a fortune. Cosplayers are very cute but they care about as much about people cosplaying as Superman or Wonder Woman as they do about people cosplaying as Batman or Poison Ivy (a popular one) or Batgirl. It doesnÂ’t bring them any revenue.[/QUOTE]
Cosplayers are a visual representation of the characters, showing the fan interest of said characters and the cosplayer dedication. Especially those who put in real work in detail of their costumes. Couples take pride for their weddings or maternity or any other special occasions that is meaningful to them in cosplay. It varies from just being cute to having a meaning behind it.
By merchandise, that makes no sense that they don’t care. If a concept isn’t marketable or doesn’t make money, they wouldn’t give the licenses in the first place but given again Superman and Wonder Woman are marketed as a couple, it has to be known as such. The product whatever it is has the DC/WB label on it.
It goes from his/her pajama set, rings, to the bigger partnering with JPG for his/her fragrances and so on and so forth.
-
[QUOTE=Deiasilva10;4572693]No, they will never be completely happy, we are human we never agree 100% on anything. I believe DC will explore more of the multiverse in the near future and different aspects and realities of the characters ... it's a natural and necessary evolution.[/QUOTE]
I hope so.
The future of the DCU is something DC won't commit to anyway as one concrete ending. It will always change. This is why Hypertime or the multiverse is great. Marvel understand this so well they have laid the road down so well to the multiverse and "what if's. "
The Golden Child allows us to meet an offspring of Clark and Diana, who is going to be a combo of two worlds. This will be exciting.
-
[QUOTE=hellacre;4572676]The thing is the franchises will always have opportunities to be separate and or amalgamate other DC properties because there is something called multiverse and multimedia. It started from the time they decided to do Justice League and have franchises crossover and AU. And the most ironic thing is how many TV series eg the CW TAKE other properties and their characters, or villains or plotlines etc to boost certain TV series because they know alone they cannot sustain a show that can run for seasons with just one property. And Legacy characters, heck they fall in an area whereby they are the future. They do not stop Superman from being Superman ( unless they take his history) or Wonder Woman from being Wonder Woman. Jonathan of the DK verse is a legacy character who was born decades AFTER his mother and father did their thing and still do their thing.
And canon is stagnant. To stay with one status quo we have to tolerate and read a lot of silliness at times or constant reboots. I have no problems a franchise evolve like this in another verse than constant convoluted retcons just so characters can do the same stuff over and over. I mean are all of fandom ever truly happy? Seems to me many are not with current canon given the complaints I see and the flagging sales and WW has nothing to do with SM nor SM with WW in Rebirth. SM and WW have issues on their own which AU has nothing to do with as far as I see.
Also these properties are destined to eventually go into the public domain where someone will take them and do as they please. Also DC being the owner can do as they please. Like you I am happy to have choice in terms of what I can read and different ideas etc explored. And DC giving us more DK verse and Black Label means they understand this.[/QUOTE]
So then Lois and Clark finally getting married after decades is “stagnant?” Lois and Clark overcoming in-story infertility (keep in mind their infertility was an actual plot point on LnC and remains one of the more sensitive portrayals of that subject in media) is canon remaining “stagnant?”
Seems to me, Superman has been anything but stagnant in recent years. His narrative has evolved so that the central relationship that is at the foundation of his myth has evolved to the next level of a loving marriage, partnership and parenthood. Please explain how that’s “stagnant.”
Is Superman flying also stagnant canon? (Mind you, he loved Lois before he could fly that’s how central she is to the narrative). How about being from Krypton? Martha and Jonathan? His heat vision? Is that stagnant canon? It seems as though you aren’t actually arguing against canon or else you would have a problem with all that stuff. Stuff that, btw, Lois Lane predates. You aren’t arguing for Superman to evolve—not really. You are arguing for the only other person to appear in Action #1 with him to be pushed aside. That’s not “stagnant canon.” That’s singling out a woman in a story with 50 other things. That’s the problem here.
Superman consistently loving the same woman in a relationship that has evolved and changed a great deal in 80 years is not stagnant canon: it’s consistent and genuine character development.
-
It's marketable because it's a male/female superhero set. Not because it's some grand statement about love and marriage. And the market for that type of stuff just isn't significant compared to the individual licensing. I dressed my son and daughter up in Superman and Wonder Woman gear, does that mean I want them to be siblings? Realistically it's not the indicator it's played off to be.
-
[QUOTE=Nelliebly;4572689]Some fans may not like it, others will like it, most can love it, this is life, my dear...
Where is your proof that “most” will love this? Please provide evidence that does not mention cosplayers or random people’s Instagram accounts.[/QUOTE]
Evidences? Why should I prove anything to you, my dear? If you do not think so continue with your opinion I continue with mine. I know what I see and the numbers I see, if you only see what you want to see there is nothing I can do.
[QUOTE]As for the families of the creators of the characters, well they should understand, just as most parents must understand, that their creations cease to be their own the moment they become public, the moment they gain fans they belong to the world and evolve with it. If they wanted them unchanging they should keep them in their private little circle. It is like having a child and raising him/her ... at a certain time he/she leaves home and takes over the world and starts to live influenced by it.
[B]Well, we could get into the controversy over how WB treated the Siegel family but, frankly, it’s pretty depressing and off topic[/B]. But you would be hard pressed to argue that Superman and Wonder Woman as franchises have not changed and grown in 80 years. They most definitely have. Believing a franchise can change and evolve with the times and believing that the franchise should literally be combined with another franchise and no longer stand on its own isn’t remotely the same thing but ok. [/QUOTE]
Again the day I want to know how they were treated I promise I will buy the official biography. I swear at heart, until then my sympathy for them goes along with the dollars I pay for the books.
[QUOTE]That’s a sad comment coming from someone who claims to love Wonder Woman as much as you do. They are a lovely family and you are missing out but ok then.[/QUOTE]
I love WW I don't know or want to meet any of his heirs. If they're adorable ... better for them, right?
[/QUOTE]And how is uniting WW with a male character of her power level misogyny? For me it's equality. O[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]If you judge equality solely by physical godlike power and appearances than, sure, it’s “equality.”[/QUOTE]
Where am I judging equality only by almost divine powers and appearance? I have spoken at the power level because you have quoted so but everyone knows that they are equal in power, character, compassion, respect and love for humans and all living beings.
[QUOTE]would WW feel insecure with such a powerful, kind, and honest man at her side? [QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Well, of course not. But, of course, she already has that with Steve Trevor. Her canon love interest. Unless, of course, we are back to defining “power” under such narrow terms as superpowers. There is also the pink elephant in the room that Wonder Woman has queer roots and is almost explicitly canon bisexual. She doesn’t need to be paired with a man at all but, oddly, literally always is. But probably best not to get into the inherent homophobia around that here as that’s a whole other ugly kettle of fish even aside from DC continuing to repeatedly tie Wonder Woman to Superman. [/QUOTE]
It has been more than proven that WW lives well and better without Steve Trevor by her side, her best periods were without him as a love interest. And as you said she is bisexual so I see nothing wrong with her loving a man, especially if he is above average, a Superman
[QUOTE]I recommend the book “Superboys” by Brad Ricca. It talks in depth about the reality that Jerry and Joe quite literally did it all “for a girl.” Her name was Joanne Siegel. You may have heard of her: [B]she was the original model for Lois Lane[/B]. It’s a great book, very emotional. The history channel actually did a great piece on it and it’s very well done. I hope you get to see it at some point as I would think all Superman fans would appreciate such an intimate look at the history.
Jerry and Joanne’s daughter, Laura Siegel, has been pretty outspoken with her disdain for SM/WW. But, more importantly, she speaks fairly regularly in Cleveland and has been on some pretty amazing panels that talk about both Lois Lane and Wonder Woman. I truly hope you do get to see it at some point. It’s thoughtful and illuminating![/QUOTE]
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH Darling the last thing I want to read in my life is a book about "the" original Lois Lane! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
-
[QUOTE=Yoda;4572707]If it has fans around the world, they don't buy comics. Because it seems like most comic reader don't care about it (or any ship) at all actually. As sales of all the books, including SMWW show, the relationship isn't any different than any other gimmick. Their book was selling in the low 40's after a year and needed crossovers to boost it. [B]Bendis is selling better[/B]. It was then ignored by the greater DCU since almost it's inception. This idea that it's some central concept to publishing success is a pipe dream. It was a gimmick that even the creators got bored with. It's not some formula for success.
And can someone explain how purported fans of such "equality" support Frank Miller as a "genius?" Just curios how that tracks.[/QUOTE]
Yeah Bendis is selling better, 2 or 3 k better, with him married, with a son a huge sagas... if numbers are important here we can say the super marriage with son is a failure. "And can someone explain how purported fans of such "equality" support Frank Miller as a "genius?" Just curios how that tracks..." clarify please...
-
[QUOTE=Deiasilva10;4572748]Yeah Bendis is selling better, 2 or 3 k better, with him married, with a son a huge sagas... if numbers are important here we can say the super marriage with son is a failure. "And can someone explain how purported fans of such "equality" support Frank Miller as a "genius?" Just curios how that tracks..." clarify please...[/QUOTE]
So then it's a wash. SMWW failed. Bendis "failed". Though he's selling better in a worse comic market, so arguably he's doing better. He also hasn't had any major crossovers to boost his sales. SMWW was selling in the low 20's and I think may have even dipped into the teens. So where's all this success? It also was ignored across the line pretty quickly, os the idea that it or their relationship is integral isn't supported either.
Google "Holy Terror" and see how big a fan of equality Frank Miller is. Or read any of the criticism of his treatment of women in comics. If equality is so important to you how do you support his work?
-
[QUOTE=LoveStar;4572709]Cosplayers are a visual representation of the characters, showing the fan interest of said characters and the cosplayer dedication. Especially those who put in real work in detail of their costumes. Couples take pride for their weddings or maternity or any other special occasions that is meaningful to them in cosplay. It varies from just being cute to having a meaning behind it.
By merchandise, that makes no sense that they don’t care. If a concept isn’t marketable or doesn’t make money, they wouldn’t give the licenses in the first place but given again Superman and Wonder Woman are marketed as a couple, it has to be known as such. The product whatever it is has the DC/WB label on it.
It goes from his/her pajama set, rings, to the bigger partnering with JPG for his/her fragrances and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]
I never said it didn’t have meaning. I bought my husband a Superman/Lois Lane “happy birthday Husband” birthday card from Target. It had plenty of meaning to me personally. But it has literally nothing to do with the future success of the Superman franchise anymore than cheap Superman/WW pajama sets do. This isn’t how WB decides how to run their billion dollar media franchises.
I hate SM/WW and I’ve bought Superman and Wonder Woman pjs for my niece and nephew. I only have a son but if I had a daughter I might do the same. Because it’s a male/female binary. (A dying concept anyway.) Siblings wearing Superman/WW pajamas is not some grand statement on the power of anything other than that’s just what they sell at Wal-Mart.
-
[QUOTE=Yoda;4572731]It's marketable because it's a male/female superhero set. Not because it's some grand statement about love and marriage. And the market for that type of stuff just isn't significant compared to the individual licensing. I dressed my son and daughter up in Superman and Wonder Woman gear, does that mean I want them to be siblings? Realistically it's not the indicator it's played off to be.[/QUOTE]
I bought Superman and WW pjs for my niece and nephew. I guess that means I want them to get married or something. LOL. Or, it means, I like Superman and Wonder Woman as concepts and thought the Pjs were cute.
Male/female binary.
Wonder Woman is, of course, bisexual so it’s offensive that she’s only ever marketed in a male/female binary but better leave that for another day.
-
[QUOTE=Yoda;4572759]So then it's a wash. SMWW failed. Bendis "failed". Though he's selling better in a worse comic market, so arguably he's doing better. He also hasn't had any major crossovers to boost his sales. SMWW was selling in the low 20's and I think may have even dipped into the teens. So where's all this success? It also was ignored across the line pretty quickly, os the idea that it or their relationship is integral isn't supported either.
Google "Holy Terror" and see how big a fan of equality Frank Miller is. Or read any of the criticism of his treatment of women in comics. If equality is so important to you how do you support his work?[/QUOTE]
Simply by understanding the world he created, not trying to transpose into our confused world, seeing a little further. That simple. No bigger crossover? Jesus, what is Leviathan? What is almost every DC story now trying to validate how important SM and Lois marriage is? Even the Watchmen are there to try to validate this and shut up the opposing fans!
-
SM/WW never fell into the teens. It didn't fail. Neither is Bendis's run. It doesn't have to be, and in this case is not, one or the other. SM/WW did good to fair. Bendis right now is selling pretty good.
-
[QUOTE=Deiasilva10;4572784]Simply by understanding the world he created, not trying to transpose into our confused world, seeing a little further. That simple. No bigger crossover? Jesus, what is Leviathan? What is almost every DC story now trying to validate how important SM and Lois marriage is? Even the Watchmen are there to try to validate this and shut up the opposing fans![/QUOTE]
Leviathan is a miniseries. Not a line wide crossover. It’s not Doomed. I think you’re projecting about the rest. As for their importance, Lois and Clark are the founding characters of DC Comics. That they’d play a role in Doomsday Clock isn’t out of line and I’m not sure how you think that is “propping” things up. So nothing is being propped up. I mean, we were sold SMWW as some ultimate “power couple” that would shake the foundation of the DCU yet the relationship was ignored across the line pretty quickly. Was that propping them up as well?
-
From Superman sales thread:
[QUOTE=Yoda;4570200]
Lois & Jimmy are selling pretty well for what they are - second tier books in the greater Superman franchise. Batgirl, Nightwing, Batman & The Outsiders, RH&TO all are in the same or worse position. Honestly, the fact that they are in that range is pretty good considering Batman and Detective have stronger followings and higher floors than Superman and Action Comics. Not to mention they are in the ballpark of Aquaman, which Lois actually outsold.[/QUOTE]
You are cherry picking about sales if you can claim that Jimmy and Lois books are succesful and outselling batfamily and aquaman books but dismissing smww sales.
[QUOTE=Yoda;4572759]So then it's a wash. SMWW failed. Bendis "failed". Though he's selling better in a worse comic market, so arguably he's doing better. He also hasn't had any major crossovers to boost his sales. SMWW was selling in the low 20's and I think may have even dipped into the teens. So where's all this success? It also was ignored across the line pretty quickly, os the idea that it or their relationship is integral isn't supported either.
[/QUOTE]
SMWW did not need a crossover to boost. The complaint was the crossovers were a disruption. It’s been said multiple times, sales were never a problem for SMWW.
The series ended up in the lower 40k when they changed direction under Tomasi. But it never went to the teens.
-
I think the lowest SM/WW ever went was 22k once. But this is neither here nor there. Things are getting massively off-topic as always. And no, that's not asking for this to become an appreciation thread. But there is a difference between constructive criticism of an upcoming project and/or a currently underway project and what's become spam at this point that he's a racist and a bigot. If that's how one feels that's how one feels. But we get it at this point. Its not about the content of the book(s) anymore be it actually discussion of the contents or speculation of such (as would have to be the case here). The same thing happens in the Year One threads to the point its hard to even discuss the content of a particular issue. Its tiresome at this point. So, might as well retire from yet another toxic thread.
-
[QUOTE=Yoda;4572810]Leviathan is a miniseries. Not a line wide crossover. It’s not Doomed. I think you’re projecting about the rest. As for their importance, Lois and Clark are the founding characters of DC Comics. That they’d play a role in Doomsday Clock isn’t out of line and I’m not sure how you think that is “propping” things up. So nothing is being propped up. I mean, [B]we were sold SMWW as some ultimate “power couple” that would shake the foundation of the DCU[/B] yet the relationship was ignored across the line pretty quickly. Was that propping them up as well?[/QUOTE]
Hahahahah and that's exactly what they are !!!! So much has they shaken the foundations of DC that even today they are protagonists of passionate and warm discussions like this one! How long have we been without them? 2 or 3 years? And yet those who hate them cannot forget them or go without thinking about them one day ... a child of both in an AU is considered to be a threat and an offense to a canon couple for how long? 80 years? Power, my dear ... this is power. This, my dear, is success.
