https://www.newsarama.com/36759-dc-s...se-return.html
I wonder what this could mean what does everyone else think.
https://www.newsarama.com/36759-dc-s...se-return.html
I wonder what this could mean what does everyone else think.
Are we supposed to care?
Still, I'm a little surprised. When Alan was doing the ABC Line, he wouldn't even let DC put ads for other DC superheroes in them.
Huh, I always thought he was a creator-owned character. (googles) I guess not!
It's interesting how Gaiman maintains a measure of control over his corporate-owned characters but Moore never bothers to do so. If that's a fair read of the situation.
With Gaiman it's a gentleman's agreement as opposed to actual contract. With Moore I figure they've already burned those bridges so they might as well.
I've got to respectfully disagree. He's a character created by Alan Moore who ran for several successful series and gets the periodic miniseries still. I think the last one was just last year, and if I'm not mistaken, had Doc Shaner on it as well.
That's kind of the premise of his old series, that he was an adventure hero in the vein of those old school heroes. The first issue had a make believe essay about his non-existent publication history. And some of the early issues had parodies of golden age/silver age comic book covers.
Saying he has several successful series is a contradiction unless dealing with a set mini or limited series, he either had one successful series that went on, or he had several failed series that people tried to relaunch several times without the public taking it.
So his appeal is that he's obsolete even before he's arrived?