Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68
  1. #31
    Phantom Zone Escapee manofsteel1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Planet Houston
    Posts
    5,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    Yeah they certainly never tried to update/change Superman's Look before 2011.









    You sure Showed me.

    That's just an aside. Costumes are made to be changed and updated and to be generally made to appeal to people right now. No one goes to the circus anymore. Strongman style tights don't make any sense in the modern context. They evoke an image that basically no one is familiar with - its the same reason why even when they make Dick Grayson go back to being Robin in flashbacks they dont make him wear an acrobats outfit. Why would the red tights are half iconic and half one of the most often made fun of things about the guy.
    First picture was a sales gimmick story line, second was a short term change that lasted 3 years and the last was just artistic license on Frank Miller's part.

    Costumes should change from time to time to make things interesting, but you can go overboard as well. The classic Superman uniform, trunks aside, is timeless. It worked for 7 decades and it can work for several more. All those characters mentioned in the above post won't even be remembered in 5 years and frankly I myself almost forgot about them. it's a valid point. The more you actively try to modernize something often times yields the opposite result. It can be said the Jim Lee New 52 armor for Superman falls into that category. It's safe to say even if the New 52 Superman survives the events of Rebirth and eventually returns to star status, the Lee suit won't. He will likely inheret the suit Superdad is wearing now, but perhaps swapping the boot color back to red. In any case that costume is just a trunkless variant of the classic with blue boots.

    And to answer the OP, no there is no way to make everyone happy aside from time traveling to 1985 and preventing the hard reboot in 1986. I think that is the moment when the fan base became irrevocably divided and inherently we will always be divided to some degree. Even in the 90s and the books were doing great, you still had some grumbling " not muh Superman". The closest you could come to pleasing the largest number of people is bringing back KAL-L or Pre- Crisis Kal-El but even then you will have some division of people missing certain elements of pre and post Flashpoint Superman, so really you can't win.
    Last edited by manofsteel1979; 04-02-2016 at 07:31 AM.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    Is it really necessary to make everyone happy?

    Even All-Star Superman has its detractors. They should simply choose a clear direction, and follow it. Even if it means that someone won't like it and will stop reading Superman altogether. The TRUTH debacle, and somehow the current situation too, largely depends on the fact that they don't want to follow any artistic direction through the end.

  3. #33
    Extraordinary Member hellacre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    You just keep building the new Superman. Same as DC did back in the day. They didn't give up on post-Crisis Superman five years in. They built up. There was then and always continued to be a contingent who never warmed up to the character, but he got popular You can't make absolutely 100% of everyone happy. There's no point in even trying. But what you do is stay generally true to the basic concept of a character, doing right by them that way, then just telling the best stories you possibly can. DC has failed in both arenas as of late what with the constant half-assed crossovers for new Superman, and now this replacement debacle. If this is a temp thing an they're not giving up on the new Superman okay. I'm still not going to read about the old guy, I'll wait it out, but you don't give up on the main guy completely.
    This is exactly what they should have done. The younger Superman is the Superman you go with and believe me he is far far far more inspiring and interesting than the Timmverse one, the DCEU or the Injustice one that we have kicking around. Heck better than the Smallville one. There are many incarnations of Superman and New 52 is by far from the worse. In fact to me they were getting on track with him finally with Morrison and Pak etc. It's their own blinkered vision if they think he is only interesting if they depower him and make him act like Batman. DC appears like they have no conviction in their own creative decisions and can easily be swayed by some internet noise. Stick to your guns and give the guy some good creative teams.

    And yeah give old Superman and earth 2 booK, leading other heroes. The guy had his time. Let him go mentor and inspire and raise his son and other younger heroes as the so called greatest Superman ( debateable though) with a wider setting. Older Superman should really be more expansive anyway. Not retreading the same ground as a young growing one. This guy has it all, storywise has done many things despite their lame attempt to say oh he lost so much now and this world he is in is so terrible...yeah right..He should be having bigger challenges.Not the same old same old and a team book like Earth 2 sounds more up his alley to me.

    It's a dreadful way and tone to start of Rebirth. Because they sound like they want to dump new 52 Superman compeletely with their lack of info on him, getting pre new 52 fans all excited and then if and when they bring back our Kal...the reaction would be just an annoyed as we feel. Have the spine to say this is your new 52 Superman and old man Supes just making a transition like the time they brough in earth 22 Superman etc. ( They didn't get rid of the younger one for him when he came. ) Nope not DC.
    Last edited by hellacre; 04-01-2016 at 04:10 AM.

  4. #34
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myskin View Post
    Is it really necessary to make everyone happy?

    Even All-Star Superman has its detractors. They should simply choose a clear direction, and follow it. Even if it means that someone won't like it and will stop reading Superman altogether. The TRUTH debacle, and somehow the current situation too, largely depends on the fact that they don't want to follow any artistic direction through the end.
    The answer is no. But don't forget to include yourself.

  5. #35
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    The problem with the comics is that despite having a multiverse to work with and no real reason to impose one continuity on their whole line, DC still insists that one Earth has to be the main Earth and most of the titles have to take place on that Earth to be legitmate.

    In the early '80s, they did have a few different ttiles that were set on other Earths, but they couldn't let that stand for long and had to have a Crisis. Which forced everything onto one Earth.

    Now DC has got back to having a multivese. But they still don't want to rely on that multiverse to give everyone what they want.

    Insisting on one main Earth would make some sense if DC could argue that people will get confused if there isn't a clear indication of what is in continuity and what isn't. But not only do the comics throw up all kinds of out of continuity puzzlers--there's many movies and TV shows that are in different continuities. There's even comics based on those screen versions or earlier screen versions of the characters.

    So there's an obvious and simple solution to the problem. DC can give everyone what they want. Publish several Superman comics in different continuites. Not everything needs to be connected. The titles that sell the best will emerge as the dominant version of continuity.

    DC doesn't do that because -- I don't know why, DC management is a mystery to me.

  6. #36
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beetee View Post
    The answer is no. But don't forget to include yourself.
    I don't. I don't think that superheroes are the only possible comics genre and I think that there are plenty of excellent alternatives in this form of art - almost all of them more interesting than current Marvel and Dc comics. If they will choose I directon I am not interested in, I will simply not follow it (well, to be fair I stopped reading superheroes altogether some months ago).

  7. #37
    Fantastic Member Lairston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    Yeah they certainly never tried to update/change Superman's Look before 2011.

    You sure Showed me.
    I picked out your things because they are things I disagree with so we'd never agree. But really picking the absolute worse things imaginable that they did? The Superman Blue drove me out of superman when they did it. The mullet was hard to overlook and made him look stupid. The bangs of steel there just look retarded.

    I think to make a point about costume change for Superman this would have been a better image:

    With that image I would break them down as followed for my tastes:
    Love: 20, 32
    Like: 5, 8, 12, 18, 37, 40
    Dislike: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 33, 38, 39
    Hate: 9,22,24,30,36
    Loath: 26,41

    And that's right. I don't really like the first four costumes he wore.

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    That's just an aside. Costumes are made to be changed and updated and to be generally made to appeal to people right now.
    I think costumes are made to identify the character to his world and ours. If they're going to be updated, they ought to be vast improvements. Unfortunately most of the time when they change characters costumes, its change for change's sake or they make the character look worse.

    For me, I think Marvel made Hawkeye go from having one of the best costumes to a laughingstock.

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    No one goes to the circus anymore. Strongman style tights don't make any sense in the modern context. They evoke an image that basically no one is familiar with -
    I was born in the 70s and have never been to a circus nor have I ever gone to a strongman exhibition. I think going to see people pick up barbells to sound extraordinarily boring. The only image the tights mean to me is superhero. I don't care where they pulled the image from in the real world because superheroes don't exist there.

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    its the same reason why even when they make Dick Grayson go back to being Robin in flashbacks they dont make him wear an acrobats outfit.
    Since I think its dishonest to put him in a different costume in flashbacks I think he should be shown for what he wore.

    And Tim Drake costume is one costume change that made the character vastly better in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardsdv View Post
    Why would the red tights are half iconic and half one of the most often made fun of things about the guy.
    I don't listen to the 99% of the people that ridicule me for reading comic books. I just consider them to be jackasses in that regard. THat's the same I feel for people that ridicule Superman for looking like Superman. And they've been doing that since the 40s according to my dad. Jackasses will be jackasses.

  8. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,547

    Default

    If you create a Earth where superdad and family can set up shot all you have to do is start by looking at that 1st rebirth teaser,you have jay garrick,so put the JSA on that world,it has a female GL,so have alan scotts daughter Jade there,it has a female Super,make that linda danvers/matrix,a young jacket wearing superboy make that kon,and a Flash with hair on top,make that classic wally.then you have the rest of the Convergence survivors show up there-Parallax,pre crisis kara,and pre crisis barry allen.that is a start of a entire world,and DC has pretty much set it up with Concergence and rebirth teaser.

  9. #39
    Astonishing Member DieHard200904's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Backwoods of Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stephens2177 View Post
    If you create a Earth where superdad and family can set up shot all you have to do is start by looking at that 1st rebirth teaser,you have jay garrick,so put the JSA on that world,it has a female GL,so have alan scotts daughter Jade there,it has a female Super,make that linda danvers/matrix,a young jacket wearing superboy make that kon,and a Flash with hair on top,make that classic wally.then you have the rest of the Convergence survivors show up there-Parallax,pre crisis kara,and pre crisis barry allen.that is a start of a entire world,and DC has pretty much set it up with Concergence and rebirth teaser.
    And DC continues to neglect the very multiverse that helped bring about its various fanbases, including the divide in Superman fanbase, if you know what I mean. Although I kind of want Linda back someday, as well as Kon or something like him (sigh).

  10. #40
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beetee View Post
    The answer is no. But don't forget to include yourself.
    I agree with Myskin on this (as I often do, cause he talks some sense!)

    One of my biggest issues with DC is that they've got no follow through. They start out doing one thing, then the reviews and message boards light up and they buckle under the pressure and switch gears in the middle of the story. You know how that ends? Loose ends, plot holes, and reader dissatisfaction across the board.

    As much as I hate to compare Marvel and DC, at least Marvel sticks to their guns most of the time. Superior Spider-Man actually lasted longer than they originally planned, but if DC had tried a similar thing, they'd have cut and run before the first six issues were finished.

    What I want from DC, especially in regards to Superman, is a clear direction. I want them to go out and explain exactly what they're doing, where it's going, and who is doing it, and I want reassurances that it's not all going to change at the drop of a hat because someone got a hair across their ass.

    Don't try to tease me with "Oh, Clark's around but its not what you think!" Nope. Not interested in the mystery. I'll drop the books instead, thanks. Sorry DC, you only get to be coy when I think you have a clue. And I dont. I think DC is a chicken running around with its head cut off; aimless, reckless, and dead on its feet.

    When DC can rebuild some semblance of consumer confidence, then I'll entertain their attempts to be clever and cryptic. But Superman has been rudderless for too long, too vulnerable to the frequently changing whims of management, for me to accept anything from them except a clear and concise statement of intent, and a promise to see it through.

    Even if I dont like the direction they go in, at least I'll respect them for sticking with it.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  11. #41
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myskin View Post
    Is it really necessary to make everyone happy?
    No, that would a very exaggerated and impossible goal. But obviously, you still want to get more and more customers, so you gotta shoot for something.

    Quote Originally Posted by hellacre View Post
    This is exactly what they should have done. The younger Superman is the Superman you go with
    DC appears like they have no conviction in their own creative decisions and can easily be swayed by some internet noise. Stick to your guns and give the guy some good creative teams.
    I didn't quote the whole post for size, and these two bits stuck out a little more. Naturally, there's a lot of subjectivity. When we talk about good creative teams, what is good? Is it a writer who is reliable, consistent, and proven? Is Zircher a good (albeit stiff) artist? From a business sense I'd imagine good is just whoever sells, but as a spectator I'm personally reluctant to imply someone isn't "good."

    Going with the young. Well, Superman was never the young and cool hero, though Morrison pulled it off. Writing Superman as a younger character is like buffing a weakness instead of improving a strength: people who are seeking that kinda hero are just gonna go elsewhere. And in comics, losing 10k readers (a hilariously small number nationwide) for a single reason, like better alternatives, is a killer.

    the so called greatest Superman
    Who called him that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    The problem with the comics is that despite having a multiverse to work with and no real reason to impose one continuity on their whole line, DC still insists that one Earth has to be the main Earth and most of the titles have to take place on that Earth to be legitmate.

    In the early '80s, they did have a few different ttiles that were set on other Earths, but they couldn't let that stand for long and had to have a Crisis. Which forced everything onto one Earth.
    I'd then turn to the problem that alternate Earths don't sell. People want "the real one," whichever one happens to designated "real." Publishing enough books to please everyone (by catching those who turn off on what turns on others) would bankrupt them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I agree with Myskin on this (as I often do, cause he talks some sense!)

    One of my biggest issues with DC is that they've got no follow through. They start out doing one thing, then the reviews and message boards light up and they buckle under the pressure and switch gears in the middle of the story. You know how that ends? Loose ends, plot holes, and reader dissatisfaction across the board.

    As much as I hate to compare Marvel and DC, at least Marvel sticks to their guns most of the time. Superior Spider-Man actually lasted longer than they originally planned, but if DC had tried a similar thing, they'd have cut and run before the first six issues were finished.
    Namor, Nick Fury, Fantastic Four, Hulk, and Cyclops? Yikes. We've had two replacement Caps in six years. Iron Man was mind wiped and turned into a bad guy in their last big push, which was totally derivative of what happened with Spidey. They even called it Superior Iron Man. Thor was whispered out of his shirt and it has been taken up by Jane Foster for like 18 months, who is even called Thor herself. Wolverine was melted down and replaced by.... yes, an older version from an alternate reality.

    Superior Spider-Man? Sold extremely well. I don't know the last time they had a main Spider-Man title that didn't. He is the Batman equivalent, not the Superman equivalent. You can bet that if Snyder handed the job to Joker or Two-Face, it would have sold. Marvel has a few evergreen characters, but in addition they realized the need for power plays when it comes to inflating sales. DC is actually runner-up with this strategy. But look at Superior and the chances it had.
    Marvel does a huge controversial thing:
    - fans are generally put off, talk up a huge storm, and it sells.
    - fans are mostly very keen, talk up a huge storm, and it sells.

    Google "Worst Spider-Man comics ever" and then check out some of the sales figures you get for those stories. It's just a little easier to deal with setbacks when you're ahead, y'know?

    What I want from DC, especially in regards to Superman, is a clear direction. I want them to go out and explain exactly what they're doing, where it's going, and who is doing it, and I want reassurances that it's not all going to change at the drop of a hat because someone got a hair across their ass.

    Don't try to tease me with "Oh, Clark's around but its not what you think!" Nope. Not interested in the mystery. I'll drop the books instead, thanks. Sorry DC, you only get to be coy when I think you have a clue. And I dont. I think DC is a chicken running around with its head cut off; aimless, reckless, and dead on its feet.
    But what if they stick to their guns and people prejudge the whole thing as they are now? DC lives on people actually picking up what they put on the shelves/database. Someone who buys a book and doesn't like a twist simply has more value to them than someone who gets the hook for free and bails. I find that things like this become a lot tougher to think about when I imagine that it's my own product that I'm trying to protect and push.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lairston View Post
    When in reality, the whole point of trunks is to one break up the costume color and also two artist aren't too interested in drawing the skin tight male anatomy which you can tell by the way the area is drawn today without trunks. Ie with Batman's new costume, I think he's wearing a diaper with that strange strap or bookmark looking thing. So having not skin tight trunks are useful for the flow of the costume as well as the fact artists don't really want to draw that area skintight. And also good since comics arent supposed to be porn and I wouldn't be interested in collecting them if they did
    Yeah, I point this out pretty often. And you notice how many promotional pictures are covering his crotch area. If you're wearing fabric tight enough to make out the grains of your serratus muscles... no wonder Spider-Man was called a menace.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superduperman View Post
    Is there a way to make everyone happy?
    No, of course not.

    But I think that the constant, zig-zagging changes in direction, with Retcons/Reboots/Relaunches/Rebrandings happening so often, drive away more readers than any particular version of a character might.

    Look, it's unlikely that they will ever go back to my "favorite" version of Superman. (I'm not going to get into a discussion of what that version might be.) I'm not even sure I want them to. The world's changed, and I've changed, since I've read those comics. (As someone once said: "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is 12." I don't really agree, but it makes a point.) And I can get interested in a new version of Superman, if they write good stories about him and move forward over time, following up organically on what they started. (Until it really is time for a reboot again. I'd say every 30 years.)

    But if the stories read as though the writers are bored, or just can't decide what direction to go in, or are constantly being overridden by editors and/or publishers who think they know "what the consumers want" but keep changing their minds - well, that's not likely to produce good comics for almost anybody, in my opinion. And that's what I think we've been seeing.

    (By the way, I said I could get interested in new versions, but that doesn't mean I can get interested in any or all versions. If they make changes that, in my opinion, miss some essential point of the character, then, even if they write stories that are good by some "objective standard" - which of course doesn't really exist - I'm still not likely to be a happy reader. I'd rather they write those "good" stories with some other, maybe brand-new, new-name-and-costume character! And with some characters in The New 52, they really have gone that far aground for me. But of course, different readers will have a different senses of what constitutes "an essential point of a character.")
    Last edited by Doctor Bifrost; 04-02-2016 at 12:55 AM.
    Doctor Bifrost

    "If Roy G. Bivolo had seen some B&W pencil sketches, his whole life would have turned out differently." http://doctorbifrost.blogspot.com/

  13. #43
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuwagaton View Post
    No, that would a very exaggerated and impossible goal. But obviously, you still want to get more and more customers, so you gotta shoot for something.
    I'd say that in most cases, customers can damage a character as much as bad editors. Maybe even worse. In my experience, relatively few superhero readers are really open-minded. In general, they just want more of the same or they simply don't know what they want. These days we are all "Ohh, if only Mark Waid could write Superman". But we keep forgetting that, when Birthright was published, the fan rage was HUGE. Waid - who at that time was a bit more willing to participate to fan forums - had some personal stalkers who kept demolishing his work whenever possible. It was really weird: at least one of them, the so-called MOTA - Man Of The Atom, was basically in every possible comics forum to speak ill about Waid. I think that he didn't sleep in order to damage Birthright as much as possible. Even the site Superman-The Ages stopped reviewing Birthright halfway, because they thought it wasn't worth it.

    And thank God Internet didn't exist when Byrne took over Superman in the 1980s.

    This is particularly evident when we talk about Superman and Wonder Woman, that is the characters who had some of the weakest artistic developments in the post-Crisis era (and maybe it is not by coincidence that among Supes and WW readers the fanbase is particularly nitpicky and aggressive). As I said several times, Batman is relatively safe because in the 1980s (that is, when artistic experimentation in the US market reached its climax) lots of writers and artists created very experimental Batman-focused stories and this allowed the character to develop "antibodies", and that's why experimental stories on Bats are still relatively well-received. Just to name an example: we find it acceptable that Dave McKean created a whole painted, eerie graphic novel about Batman, but a comparable experiment, if Superman-based (that is, with a different atmosphere but equally daring), would sound somehow "weird" or "wrong". But McKean's work was of vital importance in developing a new, original atmosphere for Batman comics which - several years later - became extremely profitable (just think of the Arkham videogames).

    Superman didn't have anything similar, except for some minor works and just ONE important maxiseries, that is All-Star Superman (the Death of Superman doesn't count: it is just a commercial gimmick). The result: these days, DC wants to appease older readers, which are often very close-minded, and conquer enough new readers to justify the existence of Superman series - even if new readers don't give a damn about Superman.

  14. #44
    Astonishing Member DieHard200904's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Backwoods of Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myskin View Post
    I'd say that in most cases, customers can damage a character as much as bad editors. Maybe even worse. In my experience, relatively few superhero readers are really open-minded. In general, they just want more of the same or they simply don't know what they want. These days we are all "Ohh, if only Mark Waid could write Superman". But we keep forgetting that, when Birthright was published, the fan rage was HUGE. Waid - who at that time was a bit more willing to participate to fan forums - had some personal stalkers who kept demolishing his work whenever possible. It was really weird: at least one of them, the so-called MOTA - Man Of The Atom, was basically in every possible comics forum to speak ill about Waid. I think that he didn't sleep in order to damage Birthright as much as possible. Even the site Superman-The Ages stopped reviewing Birthright halfway, because they thought it wasn't worth it.

    And thank God Internet didn't exist when Byrne took over Superman in the 1980s.

    This is particularly evident when we talk about Superman and Wonder Woman, that is the characters who had some of the weakest artistic developments in the post-Crisis era (and maybe it is not by coincidence that among Supes and WW readers the fanbase is particularly nitpicky and aggressive). As I said several times, Batman is relatively safe because in the 1980s (that is, when artistic experimentation in the US market reached its climax) lots of writers and artists created very experimental Batman-focused stories and this allowed the character to develop "antibodies", and that's why experimental stories on Bats are still relatively well-received. Just to name an example: we find it acceptable that Dave McKean created a whole painted, eerie graphic novel about Batman, but a comparable experiment, if Superman-based (that is, with a different atmosphere but equally daring), would sound somehow "weird" or "wrong". But McKean's work was of vital importance in developing a new, original atmosphere for Batman comics which - several years later - became extremely profitable (just think of the Arkham videogames).

    Superman didn't have anything similar, except for some minor works and just ONE important maxiseries, that is All-Star Superman (the Death of Superman doesn't count: it is just a commercial gimmick). The result: these days, DC wants to appease older readers, which are often very close-minded, and conquer enough new readers to justify the existence of Superman series - even if new readers don't give a damn about Superman.
    I am kind of bothered by this as someone phasing out of active collecting. No younger generation? I am honestly a fan of handing it down to the younger generation. I say this because I view Superman similar to other pop culture icons, or like Toy Story 3, I would gladly hand down toys to the kids at Daycare, because I am a guy who likes to share, and doesn't feel that these characters have to grow up with me. Guess it is time to create fanfics for the young, or something at DC has to change, not to mention something else has to change.

  15. #45
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    They can't publish an infinite number of titles, but the approach of modern comics (with DC and Marvel) is put out several titles featuring their most popular characters and paper the stands with their product to edge out their competitors. It's like throwing as many comics at the wall as they can and seeing which ones will stick. They might not be able to sell a lot of copies for one title alone, but the cumulative amount of comics sold in a month generates enough profit to justify the production of so many titles.

    In the '90s, DC produced a lot of Elseworlds one-shots and other out of continuity titles. There were some alternative concepts that sold well enough that they could have supported an ongoing title.

    With the multiverse, DC has the option to produce several different versions of Superman. Books like All-STAR SUPERMAN and GENERATIONS and SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN ADVENTURES. And they can monitor sales and see which of those titles are doing well and which aren't. Whichever concept of Superman sells best will just naturally generate the most comics. Let the market decide.

    But the entire comics market shouldn't be seen as one singular audience. There are a few different markets for comic books. And like the throwing everything at the wall approach--it's probably best for DC to try to satisfy a few of those markets, not just one. So that the total cumulative sales are enough to keep them in business.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •