Would be cool to see The Terrifics and Tom Strong’s family have a friendly rivalry.
DC has their own version of Doc Savage now. Plus one of the Immortal men seems like The Shadow. Would love to see some more pulp heroes in the DCU.
Would be cool to see The Terrifics and Tom Strong’s family have a friendly rivalry.
DC has their own version of Doc Savage now. Plus one of the Immortal men seems like The Shadow. Would love to see some more pulp heroes in the DCU.
Last edited by Robotman; 10-06-2017 at 01:07 AM.
I can't disagree with your logic, but this always come back around to letting corporations off the hook ethically. Plus they're hurting themselves in the long run seeing has how there hasn't been a new breakout character in 25 years. What possible justification (beyond monetary) do modern entertainment corporations have in not offering part ownership to creators when they create something new? (I'm talking your mainstream stuff now, not Vertigo) The draconian notions that just because a company supplies distribution and promotion, that this should 100% obscure and invalidate a creators right at part ownership* is just that.
*I of course don't believe that creators should own all the rights to characters created at Marvel and DC. It's true that creators benefit greatly just by being associated with those publishers. I can see justification for a publisher to maintain majority control in terms of the comics themselves, but outside of that I think creators should have the most to say in terms of films, TV, etc. Ultimately it's the creators ideas and talents that make Marvel and DC relevant. Otherwise they're just empty warehouses.
At DC, Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns have certainly not shied away from creating new characters, particularly during his GL run and, over at Marvel, I think Deadpool, and Runaways were both created less than 25 years ago, but your point is taken, which is why DC & Marvel put profit participation in any new characters created. I would also chalk up the lack of new characters to the fact that most creators are more interested in playing with the toys they grew up reading about than creating new ones--with the notable exceptions of Morrison, Johns and Bendis.
I think the ethical considerations should always be there, but past transgressions by people who aren't even working for these massive corporations are not something I am all that bothered by unless that mistreatment is continuing into the present. DC didn't have to do right by Bill Finger, Tony Isabella, Gerry Conway and others. They were free and clear legally, but they decided to do right by the creators whose work these movies and TV shows are building on. If Moore wanted it, I'm sure DC would love to do right by him as well, but he's clearly not interested in having any more interactions with them, and I don't really blame him, nor do I blame DC for using any of his creations they own.
Well, I like Tom and don't care about the legal drama. This sounds like it's going to be the most exciting thing aside from baker drawing static.
Of course Alan Moore isn't some sort of slave in DC's dungeon, and he is probably doing well economically, but I just find it a little weird having the Watchmen and America's Best Comics characters cross paths with the DC characters because Moore has been very vocal about him not wanting the Watchmen brand and to a lesser extent, the ABC brand in DC's hands. While Alan Moore is probably not suffering all that much for his messy relationship with DC, I just think it's a little surreal and awkward to have Alan Moore's original creations interact with DC's.
A good character is a good character. I love Tom Strong and his world, so I love seeing them absorbed into DC's larger Multiverse. I mean, should fans feel weird about enjoying a Shazam comic published by DC? DC literally sued Fawcett into bankruptcy, and bought them. How is that less ethically dodgy than Alan Moore's creations being used by DC?
Honestly I don't think it would hurt DC if they just left the Fawcett characters alone. They don't really integrate well with the DC universe, nor has Shazam/Captain Marvel truly been successful the same way Batman/Superman/The Flash/Wonder Woman/Green Lantern/Robin/Nightwing/The Joker has, even though Shazam/Captain Marvel is supposed to be (People just kind of ignore him, but some people pretend he's supposed to be an A-list character.) an important character.
Last edited by Timothy Hunter; 10-06-2017 at 06:19 PM.
And I know that Batman and Superman fall into the same category as Shazam and the Watchmen, their creators were screwed over as well, and I know that they are DC's two most successful and iconic characters, but if DC lost both characters early on, I don't think they would be hurt TOO badly. (Siegel and Shuster sued for ownership of the Man of Steel in 1948, so let's imagine if they won that lawsuit, and shortly after that lawsuit Bill Finger declares a lawsuit for ownership of Batman and Bill Finger won) It probably was and definitely is in DC's best interest to keep Superman and Batman, as if you look at the annual comic sales charts, the Superman books sold far more than any other character, but I think DC would survive if Batman and Superman weren't owned by them. I think both characters would be one of those cases were they were the most prominent comics of their day, but they would fade into irrelevancy in a couple decades or so, sort of like many Golden Age heroes, characters that used to be household names, selling excellently, but nowadays the character's impact only being honored through a measly Dynamite revamp that sells only 4 to 5 thousand copies per issue. Also there's a possibility that another 2 DC characters would take Batman and Superman's place as icons. Maybe instead of the Bat- mania caused by the campy 1966 Adam West Batman show, there would be a craze for an alternate 1966 Flash television show, and what if in 1978 instead of a hugely successful and influential Superman film, there was a hugely successful and influential Green Lantern film released?
I agree. Without continuous publication, a character really doesn't have a chance. Case in point: Captain Marvel was the biggest selling character of the golden age, the first superhero on the big screen and a household name. He was not published from 1954 to 1972 and that pretty much sealed his fate. Of course DC hasn't helped by giving the character only two ongoing series in 45 years, and nothing since 1999. It almost surreal that he is getting his own movie.