Why having the universe revolve around Batman is a problem.

[Güicho]

. If anything Marvel proved that striking gold with one character and piggybacking off of him is a fantastic way to start a franchise

Again, was just calling out the "DC doesn't know how to make movies" argument.

Actually it's you reducing it to that, and ignoring the actual argument.

[Agent Z]

Actually it's you reducing it to that, and ignoring the actual argument.

I'm not reducing it to that. I'm pointing out an inaccuracy but whatever.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'm not reducing it to that. I'm pointing out an inaccuracy but whatever.

It’s not inaccurate. When DC was struggling and Marvel was succeeding it had to do with quality, not the characters that were used. Ignoring the context to say “well maybe you missed that DC had released some good films lately” fundamentally missed the point

[Dr. Ellingham]

I think its pretty much bog standard and accurate. Thought it may not be their self-proclaimed "FAVORITE" but charaters that someone feels for whatrever personal reason are more deserveing of a push.

Exactly. We're all fans, not necessarily business analysts.

However - DC has analysts, and they've been crunching numbers for decades now, forecasting revenue for what books will sell, what kind of money each license will bring in. If you think DC doesn't grasp what Batman is worth as an IP, compared to say, Captain Atom or Swamp Thing, then you're out in the wilderness crying the wind is an angry god.

DC is part of a large corporation, and their leadership is judged on their financial performance vs expectation. They know what will sell, where, and why. There are surprises, but after decades of market maturity they are few and far between.

There is no conspiracy to contain all our pet favorites to B-list status.

[The tall man]

But then, wouldn't it make sense that they'd want to you know, compete with Marvel?



Except, what characters have really gotten significant pushes in recent years outside of Batman? And I'm not talking about characters who "got a miniseries" or even those who get ongoings. A single title doesn't mean a lot if they don't promote it, don't make the events therein central to their universe, and/or don't put an A-list creative team on it. Mr. Miracle? Maybe, but I haven't seen any significant follow-up on the popularity of that title or any attempt to push Scott in the larger DCU and that series might even have been made out-of-canon. We'll see how they follow up with Adam Strange.

However, even accepting your principle, we then also have to accept that the converse is true too: i.e. that if a property shows potential to be popular, it should receive a push. I've brought this example up again and again, but not only did Wonder Woman have a movie that performed extremely well both critically and financially, catapulting her to a new stage of pop culture awareness, but in January of this year, Wonder Woman #750 was also literally the #1 selling title. And yeah, that was a milestone issue, but nobody would buy that much of Wonder Woman if they weren't interested in her. Oh, and yeah, she has another highly anticipated movie that is due to come out this year (if that still happens). So, how did DC try to build hype around Wonder Woman's movie and then later, her newfound popularity in the general public? Uh, they came out with Dark Knights: Metal and then three years later, Death Metal, both blockbuster events centered around Batman...both in years where Wonder Woman was due to debut at the box office...So yeah....



Well, I was more so talking about the diversity of fanbases (i.e. that "not-fans" of Spider-Man and X-Men still have plenty to enjoy), but I'm sure that it's appreciated that Marvel has consistent representation of people of color, women, LGBTQ characters, and other underrepresented groups.

How much did Wonder Woman #749 sell, how much did #751 sell? Milestone issues almost always sell big depending on the character much like #1 issues. The thing is do those characters sustain high numbers consistently, the answer is no. At best most stay at the low to moderate level, just above cancellation numbers. Batman does not, he sells in the high numbers range thus justifying DC's desire to put out more Batman related content. He is a reliable money maker for DC and in the end that's all that matters. Business executives don't give two craps about fans favorites or pushing of certain characters over others. What they care about is profits and the bottom line.

[Gaius]

How much did Wonder Woman #749 sell, how much did #751 sell? Milestone issues almost always sell big depending on the character much like #1 issues. The thing is do those characters sustain high numbers consistently, the answer is no. At best most stay at the low to moderate level, just above cancellation numbers. Batman does not, he sells in the high numbers range thus justifying DC's desire to put out more Batman related content. He is a reliable money maker for DC and in the end that's all that matters. Business executives don't give two craps about fans favorites or pushing of certain characters over others. What they care about is profits and the bottom line.

Seems more an indictment of DC Comics than the characters if they apparently can't do anything meaningful to ride off the success of their films that have zero Batman in them.

[batnbreakfast]

Seems more an indictment of DC Comics than the characters if they apparently can't do anything meaningful to ride off the success of their films that have zero Batman in them.

When I think of the Aquaman movie I imagine a team-up with Warlord. The comics could go in that direction and spin Warlord off Aquaman. Done.

[Holt]

[The Darknight Detective]

Exactly. We're all fans, not necessarily business analysts.

However - DC has analysts, and they've been crunching numbers for decades now, forecasting revenue for what books will sell, what kind of money each license will bring in. If you think DC doesn't grasp what Batman is worth as an IP, compared to say, Captain Atom or Swamp Thing, then you're out in the wilderness crying the wind is an angry god.

DC is part of a large corporation, and their leadership is judged on their financial performance vs expectation. They know what will sell, where, and why. There are surprises, but after decades of market maturity they are few and far between.

There is no conspiracy to contain all our pet favorites to B-list status.

I completely agree, but good luck convincing everyone of that. There are people who think some at DC would gladly give up a profits and also their jobs as long as their favorites kept getting preferential treatment.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

How much did Wonder Woman #749 sell, how much did #751 sell? Milestone issues almost always sell big depending on the character much like #1 issues. The thing is do those characters sustain high numbers consistently, the answer is no. At best most stay at the low to moderate level, just above cancellation numbers. Batman does not, he sells in the high numbers range thus justifying DC's desire to put out more Batman related content. He is a reliable money maker for DC and in the end that's all that matters. Business executives don't give two craps about fans favorites or pushing of certain characters over others. What they care about is profits and the bottom line.

Here's the flaw with that argument: Yes, Wonder Woman usually does sell in the 26-30k range and #751 was no different (though the bar for what is and isn't a top-selling comic gets lower and lower every year as some of the ones in the top 10 only sell about 50k). However, do you know what else sold in that range? Iron Man (29k). Captain America (27k). Deadpool (29k). Dr. Strange (23k). Dr. Doom (22k). Black Panther (14k).

As has been established in this thread, despite their lower sales, those characters are not only considered fan-favorites but have had entire in-universe events dedicated specifically to them. Now, by your logic that would be a crazy move given that they don't really sell as much as the X-Men or Spider-Man but...I mean, as has been said, Marvel not only finds success with this model, but they are consistently #1. Because that's the difference: their brand is about the larger universe, not just specific individual characters that sell well.

And note, nobody is saying DC shouldn't publish Batman titles or that they can't rely at least a little bit on Batman's sales, but literally making him the center of the multiverse is a bit much. People are just saying instead of 27 Batman titles, maybe there could be like 15 just to give some other characters a shot. Or next time a specific character has a much-lauded and beloved blockbuster (again, like Wonder Woman), maybe publish an event centering on them instead of on Batman...again. They don't have the excuse of "our other characters don't sell well" or "they don't appeal to people the same way Batman does" when a) Iron Man or Captain America apparently don't sell well either and b) Wonder Woman apparently does appeal to people because, again, most people consider her movie to be the best part of the DCEU.

Exactly. We're all fans, not necessarily business analysts.

However - DC has analysts, and they've been crunching numbers for decades now, forecasting revenue for what books will sell, what kind of money each license will bring in. If you think DC doesn't grasp what Batman is worth as an IP, compared to say, Captain Atom or Swamp Thing, then you're out in the wilderness crying the wind is an angry god.

DC is part of a large corporation, and their leadership is judged on their financial performance vs expectation. They know what will sell, where, and why. There are surprises, but after decades of market maturity they are few and far between.

There is no conspiracy to contain all our pet favorites to B-list status.

I completely agree, but good luck convincing everyone of that. There are people who think some at DC would gladly give up a profits and also their jobs as long as their favorites kept getting preferential treatment.

Nobody is saying it's a "conspiracy." What they are saying is that the business decision to make everything about Batman is, well, a little short-sighted. There's a reason people say things like "don't put all your eggs in one basket." And corporations are not infallible. Corporations are made up of people and as such, are capable of mistakes or just not taking everything into account. I mean, there's a long history of bad decisions made by companies (and some bad decisions made by DC and Marvel themselves) to back that up.

[SiegePerilous02]

Here's the flaw with that argument: Yes, Wonder Woman usually does sell in the 26-30k range and #751 was no different (though the bar for what is and isn't a top-selling comic gets lower and lower every year as some of the ones in the top 10 only sell about 50k). However, do you know what else sold in that range? Iron Man (29k). Captain America (27k). Deadpool (29k). Dr. Strange (23k). Dr. Doom (22k). Black Panther (14k).

As has been established in this thread, despite their lower sales, those characters are not only considered fan-favorites but have had entire in-universe events dedicated specifically to them. Now, by your logic that would be a crazy move given that they don't really sell as much as the X-Men or Spider-Man but...I mean, as has been said, Marvel not only finds success with this model, but they are consistently #1. Because that's the difference: their brand is about the larger universe, not just specific individual characters that sell well.

And note, nobody is saying DC shouldn't publish Batman titles or that they can't at least a little bit on Batman's sales, but literally making him the center of the multiverse is a bit much. People are just saying maybe instead of 27 Batman titles, maybe there could be like 15 just to give some other characters a shot. Or next time a specific character has a much-lauded and beloved blockbuster (again, like Wonder Woman), maybe publish an event centering on them instead of on Batman...again. They don't have the excuse of "our other characters don't sell well" or "they don't appeal to people the same way Batman does" when a) neither do Iron Man or Captain America and b) Wonder Woman apparently does appeal to people because, again, most people consider her movie to be the best part of the DCEU.

27 is still a ridiculous amount, and I think 15 would be as well. Historically, I don't think the big names of DC are going to ever NOT be Batman and Superman, at least not for very long, but I agree making him the center of the multiverse is ridiculous. Even explicitly making Superman the center of the Multiverse is a little much.

But back when Superman was overall #1, comics were more mainstream accessible and moved way more units than they do now. And even then, how many regular titles did he have tied to him? Like 6 (Superman, Action, Superboy, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, DC Comics Presents)? 7 if we count the Legion of Superheroes since they were a spin off which still featured him and Supergirl. And the content wasn't as decompressed. Yeah DC goes where the money is, but they've franchised Batman's world to a ludicrous degree. Which honestly makes him boring too.

[skyvolt2000]

Seems more an indictment of DC Comics than the characters if they apparently can't do anything meaningful to ride off the success of their films that have zero Batman in them.

That falls on management.

What they care about is profits and the bottom line.

No one is saying dump Batman-they are saying the world should not revolve around him.

What is NOT being done to get Wonder Woman to Bat's level or close to it?

That is not fan entitlement. Those are questions business executives ASK or they SHOULD.

You have to evolve. Image did not stop working because they had Spawn, YOungblood and the rest. They kept looking for the next big thing. They got Walking Dead, Saga, Sex Criminals, Sex, Bitter Root and so on.
Boom did not settle with Lumberjanes. They got Buffy, The Woods, Power Rangers and others.
Dynamite didn't settle on John Carter, they got others.
Scout, Vault and others are not settling.

So why is it acceptable for DC to settle on Batman in everything?

A business executive needs to ask "I am looking at the top selling trades on Amazon and I see Batman but I see Black Panther and Miles Morales in the top 100. I look further and I see other black lead books in the top 500 before I see one of OURS. Why is that? Because all I heard is no buys black lead books. Yet data keeps showing something different. What are we not doing?"

Batman aside-those are legit concerns. That saying "we got Batman or we can make Luke Fox Batman" will not solve.

Because what they are doing is sending folks to the competition. Then everyone wants to play dumb when Saga or Cap Marvel or Vampirella are outselling everything not starring Batman.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I apologize for not noticing your link, since it didn't show up as one on my computer initially.

According to the report, women only account for 22% of superhero comics, FWIW.

That’s largely because female readers feel that the superhero genre doesn’t cater to them. Imagine if those readers did feel welcomed by more female characters actually having titles.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Again context of discussion...

MCU didn’t succeed because they had variety. Iron Man, Cap, and Thor were the three characters to launch the first Avengers film. Iron Man had two films, there was a failed Hulk film which was ignored that Iron Man was shoved into, Captain America pushed Iron Man’s father into the first film as much as possible. So really only Thor didn’t rely on Iron Man in phase one. Not to mention Iron Man’s character arc was the driving force of the initial Avengers.

Then after that they allowed Iron Man to create Ultron, they used Iron Man to basically co lead Civil War, both Spider-Man films basically revolves around using Iron Man. His death was the lynchpin to the Thanos saga as well.

Variety and an over reliance on Batman has nothing to do with any issues with the films receptions in the DCEU. Marvel relied far more on Iron Man to hold its series together. The only difference is DC has a perceived quality issues in there first few films while Marvel didn’t. It’s a mistake to say the problem is Batman. It was a quality issue. DC got better, but it didn’t get better because they didn’t use Batman. And Marvel didn’t succeed because of variety. If anything Marvel proved that striking gold with one character and piggybacking off of him is a fantastic way to start a franchise

Dude, I don't think that argument holds up. The MCU made Iron Man a big part of it, but he's not prioritized to the extent that he was the only favorite. Tony was literally in Incredible Hulk for like five seconds. Howard Stark was in Captain America but he was not the biggest star of that movie, not by a long shot. Tony co-created Ultron with Banner, so saying that that is a way to make Tony the center of the show means you have to say it did the same with Banner. And Iron Man co-led Civil War because that's how the actual comic book story arc went. Iron Man and Cap led the rival factions. That's like saying that, because Spider-Man was also in Civil War, that he is obviously the favorite of the MCU. That's just how the story went in the comics. Tony recruited Peter to his side. And even in Civil War, Tony's narrative only serves to drive Steve's. Remember how in the comic, Tony "wins" the conflict, and Steve is dissuaded because the people no longer support him, yet, in the movie, Steve is actually vindicated by the fact that he was (partially) right about Bucky and Tony was wrong? So Tony is very much there in a supporting capacity.

The only point that might actually support your argument is that Iron Man was a big presence in both Spider-Man films, But that applies to Spider-Man. It doesn't mean that he was the only "main character" of the MCU or that everything revolved around him. Tony did not appear in any of the Thor films. He didn't appear in Winter Soldier. He didn't appear in Ant-Man or Guardians of the Galaxy nor did he appear in their respective sequels. And now there are movies in development from Marvel where he's definitely not making an appearance.

So, in sum, Iron Man served a main role, but he didn't serve a disproportionate role to the extent that he significantly outshined the other main characters, except for maybe Spider-Man. But that's a whole other topic.

[manwhohaseverything]

Wb seriously doesn't care for the superman ip other than as an antagonist or sidecharacter to the batman. Superman being "what batman is not" has killed the franchise.