Rumours and news about DC Titles: 2022 edition

[9th.]

That's just as much to blame on the fans as well. Whenever the big two do try to create a new character, it rarely ever sells. Look at New Age of Heroes.

New Age had some dope titles, I wish it stuck around a little bit longer. That's the new titles in the Big 2 though, no one cares unless it's attached to an already successful franchise.

[HsssH]

Lets not forget that in June we are getting Black Label Andromeda and a team up with Flash in Voidsong. And I think team up book with Green Arrow is ending this month only? What this means in practice is that Aquaman franchise has been doing 2-3 books a month for a while now and only in May we will have one book? Lets not forget that even during New 52 second Aquaman series (Aquaman and the Others) didn't last.

On one had it is great that DC is providing many options for Aquaman fans and I'll definitely be picking up Andromeda (and maybe Voidsong). But Aquaman ain't Batman or even Superman, fanbase is too small and as a result sales for each of those series are in the toilet. It obviously doesn't help that creative team is not very liked or that Z-lister is being pushed as the next big thing, but DC has made it real easy for us to ignore Jackson and still get some Aquaman fix.

[Johnny]

That's just as much to blame on the fans as well. Whenever the big two do try to create a new character, it rarely ever sells. Look at New Age of Heroes.

Blaming any of this on your customers is little more than excuse for companies to not put enough effort into what they're doing. The audience doesn't need to feel obligated to get invested into something just because it's new. And if these companies think their only way of trying to get any traction is to keep changing pre-existing characters the fault clearly isn't on the fans, it's on creative bankruptcy and using the "it won't sell" argument as an excuse to not try to be more creative. If these people want instant gratification, instead of putting the effort into producing something that could turn out to be more sustainable on a long-term basis, how could this be the fans' fault too? Imagine if Claremont never created all those new X-Men characters at the time and just said to himself "Noone would care about this Rogue chick, let's just make Cyclops a woman instead". How can these people working at DC or Marvel call themselves "creators" if they don't actually create anything like their predecessors did. They take established characters who've had an audience for years, change them out of the blue and then proceed to demonize the fans should they choose not to buy what they're selling. How are the fans to blame for this? Looking down on people that look up to you is the worst thing you can do, especially in this industry. The audience doesn't have to support something that doesn't appeal to them, whether that's changing an old character or introducing a new one that may not seem all that interesting. It's not the fans' job to prove to these people they're somehow "worthy" of what they're trying to sell them on, it's the writers and editors' job to show the fans that what they're selling is worth the price tag.

[Digifiend]

That's just as much to blame on the fans as well. Whenever the big two do try to create a new character, it rarely ever sells. Look at New Age of Heroes.

Yeah, look at Marvel's Mosaic too. Yeah, he's an Inhuman, but that's not why it didn't sell. And there's a reason they called Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel, a pre-existing IP, instead of Ms. Fantastic which would've matched her powers better (given she stretches like Reed Richards).

[HsssH]

Yes, fans are to blame that they were not interested in buying comics where Sook, Reis and Lee bailed after the first issue.

[Restingvoice]

That's just as much to blame on the fans as well. Whenever the big two do try to create a new character, it rarely ever sells. Look at New Age of Heroes.

Which one are they again?

Yes, fans are to blame that they were not interested in buying comics where Sook, Reis and Lee bailed after the first issue.

Oh wait

They're the lineup of characters they're trying to sell while fans were waiting for JSA and Legion. I remember that was my reaction, like what are you doing, people asked for JSA and Legion as teased by Rebirth, not this.

I guess Rocafort staying contributes to Sideways being one of the popular one

Silencer stayed the longest wasn't she?

[Noodle]

Blaming any of this on your customers is little more than excuse for companies to not put enough effort into what they're doing. The audience doesn't need to feel obligated to get invested into something just because it's new. And if these companies think their only way of trying to get any traction is to keep changing pre-existing characters the fault clearly isn't on the fans, it's on creative bankruptcy and using the "it won't sell" argument as an excuse to not try to be more creative. If these people want instant gratification, instead of putting the effort into producing something that could turn out to be more sustainable on a long-term basis, how could this be the fans' fault too? Imagine if Claremont never created all those new X-Men characters at the time and just said to himself "Noone would care about this Rogue chick, let's just make Cyclops a woman instead". How can these people working at DC or Marvel call themselves "creators" if they don't actually create anything like their predecessors did. They take established characters who've had an audience for years, change them out of the blue and then proceed to demonize the fans should they choose not to buy what they're selling. How are the fans to blame for this? Looking down on people that look up to you is the worst thing you can do, especially in this industry. The audience doesn't have to support something that doesn't appeal to them, whether that's changing an old character or introducing a new one that may not seem all that interesting. It's not the fans' job to prove to these people they're somehow "worthy" of what they're trying to sell them on, it's the writers and editors' job to show the fans that what they're selling is worth the price tag.

I didn't say it was only the fans fault. I said they were part of the blame. If only Batman sells comics, of course most new characters are going to be derivative Bat-characters tied to that brand. It has nothing to do with "creative bankruptcy" (which in itself is a dumb term, as it implies that something has no creativity just because the person using the term personally dislikes it). It has to do with tying a new character to an existing brand in the hopes that it will give it the boost needed to succeed. Heck, your own X-Men example is proof of this.

Yes, fans are to blame that they were not interested in buying comics where Sook, Reis and Lee bailed after the first issue.

Then those fans were buying it for the creator and not the character, which puts us back at square one for "why don't new characters sell."

[Johnny]

I didn't say it was only the fans fault. I said they were part of the blame. If only Batman sells comics, of course most new characters are going to be derivative Bat-characters tied to that brand. It has nothing to do with "creative bankruptcy" (which in itself is a dumb term, as it implies that something has no creativity just because the person using the term personally dislikes it). It has to do with tying a new character to an existing brand in the hopes that it will give it the boost needed to succeed. Heck, your own X-Men example is proof of this.

Creative bankruptcy is lacking ideas and going back to the old well, but keep trying to twist my words into whatever "implications" suit your own narrative and trying to act like you know what goes on inside my head better than I do. Rogue was created to be a member of the X-Men but she wasn't a reimagined version of a pre-existing character or a legacy character altogether. She is not a pansexual Jean Grey or a female version of Wolverine like X-23. There's a big difference between making a new character and putting them on a popular team and taking a classic member of that team and changing them. If current writers think a new character can truly only stand out if they are associated with a popular IP, the problem lies with them, not with the audience.

[Vordan]

Ram V has a DC book announcement this week

[Johnny]

If Albuquerque is on art that's gotta be something dark... right?

[Hypo]

Ram V has a DC book announcement this week

C'mon man, how are you not going to mention the artist.

If Albuquerque is on art that's gotta be something dark... right?

Not necessarily, didn't he do that Superman pastiche book with Millar that was meant to be a rejection/critique of dark and gritty Superman or whatever?

Anyways looks like it'll be an ongoing not a mini.

[Noodle]

Creative bankruptcy is lacking ideas and going back to the old well, but keep trying to twist my words into whatever "implications" suit your own narrative and trying to act like you know what goes on inside my head better than I do.

Please, explain to me what my "narrative" is. All I said was that fans don't buy new characters and you turned it into this giant rant about race and gender swapping.

Rogue was created to be a member of the X-Men but she wasn't a reimagined version of a pre-existing character or a legacy character altogether. She is not a pansexual Jean Grey or a female version of Wolverine like X-23. There's a big difference between making a new character and putting them on a popular team and taking a classic member of that team and changing them.

And there is very little "changing" of old characters. Jon Kent isn't changing Clark. Jace isn't changing Bruce. The actual number of characters that have been "changed" is little. DC has been built on the idea of Legacy since the Silver Age.

If current writers think a new character can truly only stand out if they are associated with a popular IP, the problem lies with them, not with the audience.

If the audience doesn't buy that new character, then they have justification in their reasoning in not creating a new IP.

[sifighter]

Not sure if it’s related to Ram V but now Daniel Sampere is teasing something

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sampere_a...18918148755466

[Hypo]

Would assume Sampere is talking about new Dark Crisis stuff.

Ram V/Albuquerque's book is getting announced midweek.

[Johnny]

Please, explain to me what my "narrative" is. All I said was that fans don't buy new characters and you turned it into this giant rant about race and gender swapping.

You narrative is your prior claim that using the term creative bankruptcy implied personal dislike on my part. Creative bankruptcy is lacking ideas, that's literally the definition of the term.

And there is very little "changing" of old characters. Jon Kent isn't changing Clark. Jace isn't changing Bruce. The actual number of characters that have been "changed" is little. DC has been built on the idea of Legacy since the Silver Age.

Ask Wally West fans what they've had to deal with for years, or how even after Wallace became a separate character, he's still the likely version to be prioritized in outside media while using Wally's content at the same time.

If the audience doesn't buy that new character, then they have justification in their reasoning in not creating a new IP.

And you truly believe that has nothing to do with lack of ideas on their part? How did any of the characters not related to a popular brand manage to stand out all those years ago then. How did Daredevil become a fan favorite character. How did Doctor Strange or Punisher stand out. Hell how did Wolverine become popular when he wasn't originally introduced as a member of the X-Men. They didn't use the X-Men specifically to try to make Logan stand out, they put him on the team after the fans already liked him in his introduction. That was in 1975. In 2022 the audience is as hungry as ever about new things, if they don't buy a new character, that shows the writers didn't do a great job with them, not the audience being unwilling to give the character a chance.