Why Can't DC Get it right?

[antonydelfini]

I just love the fact that DC and most of the world love Hal Jordan and Barry Allen as characters. Just look at the sales and their upcoming projects. While the few angry fan boys who are so against Hal and Barry will continue to whine.

 

[REDophile]

No way is Hal boring, there is a lot more depth to him than WW or Aquaman, same thing with Barry.

 

[dnno1]

As far as I can tell, sales weren't a problem with any of the titles. According to Cully Hamner, Mosaic wasn't cancelled because of sales, but because it didn't fit into the overall "editorial direction". And, by all indications, Mosaic was the least selling of the 3 monthly GL titles at the time with the last issue selling 70,000 copies. (4 if you count the Quarterly started in 1992.) Really, Emerald Dawn in 1991 had given GL a pretty solid boost.

GL had only had one period, between the cancellation of GL/GA in 1972 and the revival in 1976, when he wasn't a regular presence on the newstand. And, heck, it was the pivot title around the Millenium event. While GL may not have been the hottest title on the market in 1994, it was in no danger of cancellation either.

If anything, DC made the move not because of sales, but because of what they perceived as potential sales as they chased the Image market. Younger, hipper, edgier was the call of the day. Potential sales that were never really realized once Emerald Twilight was over and they ended up with one solid but not spectacular seller, replacing three solid sellers, in short order. It's no coincidence that not only is Hal Jordan back, the Corp and supporting characters are back too.

Getting back around to a more general point, in many respects Wally West and Kyle Rayner have benefited and been hurt by modern storytelling. They've had an internal character arc that has been completed. Wally West has gone from immature hero with some self doubts about fulfilling his uncle's legacy, to mature, confident adult who's found the love of his life. He's had a nice 20 year plus run completing that journey, but where do you go from there? Kyle was thrust in way over his head, and grew to earning the title of Green Lantern. They're terrific characters, but perhaps not great archetypes. Neither is fighting a never ending battle for truth and justice or warring against crime and chaos. By actually telling their stories to their logical outcome, the question of what next has arisen. It's why having Peter Parker win the lottery and come to terms with the idea that he doesn't have to accept so much responsibility would be pretty much a dead end for the character. Or Bruce Banner putting his internal demons to rest permanently. Or Oliver Queen getting over his sense of adventure and becoming a responsible, sensible adult with more moderate ideals.

Well, first of all, you have to consider the time period. From 1968, sales of comics (from both Marvel and DC) had been dropping continuously. You also have to consider that comics were a lot cheaper (relatively speaking) than what you can buy today, so the expectation for sales were higher ("Green Lantern: Mosaic" sold for $1 in 1990, which would be equivalent to $1.64 today and today comics sell for around $2.99). Case in point. one of the top selling comics in 1990 was "Fantastic Four", which would never sell less than 150,000 copies in any given month and sold as many as 400 copies on a good month. Seeing your sales plummet from over 200,000 to 70,000 in the space of 18 months while your competitor (Marvel) is beating the pants off of you with its titles is/was a problem (especially when you look today and find that Green Lantern can sell about 80,000 copies in a month at a relatively higher price).

Furthermore, Green Lantern (since the silver age) was canceled in the 1970's (after being retitled "Green Lantern/Green Arrow") and then retitled as "Green Lantern Corps" (from issues 200-223 - this title was then canceled and later moved to "Action Comics Weekly"). One could argue that if the comic was doing so well, they wouldn't have changed it. We all know what happed after "Rebirth". Note that green lantern has 4 volumes, meaning it had to be canceled at least 3 times to get there.

 

[Evil Twin]

Well, first of all, you have to consider the time period. From 1968, sales of comics (from both Marvel and DC) had been dropping continuously. You also have to consider that comics were a lot cheaper (relatively speaking) than what you can buy today, so the expectation for sales were higher ("Green Lantern: Mosaic" sold for $1 in 1990, which would be equivalent to $1.64 today and today comics sell for around $2.99). Case in point. one of the top selling comics in 1990 was "Fantastic Four", which would never sell less than 150,000 copies in any given month and sold as many as 400 copies on a good month. Seeing your sales plummet from over 200,000 to 70,000 in the space of 18 months while your competitor (Marvel) is beating the pants off of you with its titles is/was a problem (especially when you look today and find that Green Lantern can sell about 80,000 copies in a month at a relatively higher price).

Furthermore, Green Lantern (since the silver age) was canceled in the 1970's (after being retitled "Green Lantern/Green Arrow") and then retitled as "Green Lantern Corps" (from issues 200-223 - this title was then canceled and later moved to "Action Comics Weekly"). One could argue that if the comic was doing so well, they wouldn't have changed it. We all know what happed after "Rebirth". Note that green lantern has 4 volumes, meaning it had to be canceled at least 3 times to get there.

I'm well aware of sales trends. Again, though, the artist on Mosaic specifically said that the book was cancelled not because of sales, but because of "editorial direction".

Also, unless you're named Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, chances are you're not on your first volume. X-Men went under in the 70s as well, and have been doing fine since their revival. Iron Man is on something like his 4th or 5th solo series. Heck, remember Teen Tony? Hulk and Thor too. Captain America too. Can anyone figure out what to do with Dr. Strange these days? There are few comic book characters that are perenially popular and immune to the changing tastes of the audience. Heck, even Batman once faced the prospect of cancellation in 1963. That doesn't mean that any of these concepts are inherently flawed, it just means that they're not to everyone's tastes perenially.

And, really, there's nothing to Barry Allen or Hal Jordan that necessitated that they truly needed to be replaced as much as given a fresh shakeup. Not writing the characters, including Barry, Hal, and Oliver Queen, as middle aged would have been a fine start. There were plenty of other directions besides killing them off as none of them were really broken at the time. Heck, Barry could have taken a job for a private corporation, pulled down a bunch of money, and joined the "life in the fast lane" on an author's whim in the 80s if it had been pitched that way, for instance.

 

[dnno1]

I'm well aware of sales trends. Again, though, the artist on Mosaic specifically said that the book was cancelled not because of sales, but because of "editorial direction".

Also, unless you're named Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, chances are you're not on your first volume. X-Men went under in the 70s as well, and have been doing fine since their revival. Iron Man is on something like his 4th or 5th solo series. Heck, remember Teen Tony? Hulk and Thor too. Captain America too. Can anyone figure out what to do with Dr. Strange these days? There are few comic book characters that are perenially popular and immune to the changing tastes of the audience. Heck, even Batman once faced the prospect of cancellation in 1963. That doesn't mean that any of these concepts are inherently flawed, it just means that they're not to everyone's tastes perenially.

And, really, there's nothing to Barry Allen or Hal Jordan that necessitated that they truly needed to be replaced as much as given a fresh shakeup. Not writing the characters, including Barry, Hal, and Oliver Queen, as middle aged would have been a fine start. There were plenty of other directions besides killing them off as none of them were really broken at the time. Heck, Barry could have taken a job for a private corporation, pulled down a bunch of money, and joined the "life in the fast lane" on an author's whim in the 80s if it had been pitched that way, for instance.

There was a spell from 1970-1975 where there were reprint stories in the comic (some say due to poor sales), but from what I remember, X-Men added another title, and became one of the hottest properties under the Marvel umbrella by the end of that decade. This discussion was about Green Lantern, though. Even though the artist on "Mosaic" said what he said (and he was free to state his opinion), the fact remains that its sales went from over 200,000 a month down to 70,000 a month (a negative trend) while competing titles were selling at a higher rate and average. It might sound like nothng when someone says they wanted to go in a different editorial direction, but then again, you go in a different direction when the one you are going on at the time is not adequate. Had it still been selling over 200,000 copies a month, I seriously doubt they would have pulled that title (irrespective of whether you are named Superman, Batman, or not).

 

[Evil Twin]

There was a spell from 1970-1975 where there were reprint stories in the comic (some say due to poor sales), but from what I remember, X-Men added another title, and became one of the hottest properties under the Marvel umbrella by the end of that decade. This discussion was about Green Lantern, though. Even though the artist on "Mosaic" said what he said (and he was free to state his opinion), the fact remains that its sales went from over 200,000 a month down to 70,000 a month (a negative trend) while competing titles were selling at a higher rate and average. It might sound like nothng when someone says they wanted to go in a different editorial direction, but then again, you go in a different direction when the one you are going on at the time is not adequate. Had it still been selling over 200,000 copies a month, I seriously doubt they would have pulled that title (irrespective of whether you are named Superman, Batman, or not).

I'll say this, Cully Hamner is a lot more reliable than a couple of guys on the internet speculating about the nuts and bolts of why a decision was made. And, of course, editorial was chasing higher sales. Whether they were right about it, is, of course, open to debate. You can look at the monthly sales squabbles over BND and 3x a month Amazing Spider-Man to see how editorial decisions might not have a clear outcome.

Regardless, with sales of GL perhaps the highest they've ever been relative to the rest of the industry, I think we can get a good idea of what really drives GL sales. It's not so much Hal vs. Kyle vs. Guy vs. John, but large scale, big stakes, space opera that sells the GL concept. Nobody really wants to read about a guy with a powerful ring travelling America to help out the downtrodden while doing soul searching. They want to read about a guy with a powerful ring fighting intergalactic wars, diving headlong into battle against powerful monsters and villains, and exploring new strange places. Illustrated in dynamic fashion by the likes of Gil Kane, Ethan Van Sciver, or Ivan Reis. GL has always sold much better when big things were happening, rather than being introspective.

 

[dnno1]

I'll say this, Cully Hamner is a lot more reliable than a couple of guys on the internet speculating about the nuts and bolts of why a decision was made. And, of course, editorial was chasing higher sales. Whether they were right about it, is, of course, open to debate. You can look at the monthly sales squabbles over BND and 3x a month Amazing Spider-Man to see how editorial decisions might not have a clear outcome.

Regardless, with sales of GL perhaps the highest they've ever been relative to the rest of the industry, I think we can get a good idea of what really drives GL sales. It's not so much Hal vs. Kyle vs. Guy vs. John, but large scale, big stakes, space opera that sells the GL concept. Nobody really wants to read about a guy with a powerful ring travelling America to help out the downtrodden while doing soul searching. They want to read about a guy with a powerful ring fighting intergalactic wars, diving headlong into battle against powerful monsters and villains, and exploring new strange places. Illustrated in dynamic fashion by the likes of Gil Kane, Ethan Van Sciver, or Ivan Reis. GL has always sold much better when big things were happening, rather than being introspective.

Sure, Hamner is entitled to his own opinion, but the fact remains that "Green Lantern: Mosaic" was cancelled and it is usually an editorial decision that is made when a series is cancelled. Furthermore, the sales of the comic dropped by 65% since it's first isssue and at the time of cancellation, the comic was not in the the top 10 in sales. I am sure the editorial decision was to cancel the Mosaic storyline begin the "Emerald Twilight" saga. This would disband the entire Green Lanern Corps and start afresh with a new sole Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) that was attempt to attract youger readers this has been documented by other . Why would someone even try that (pretty much dump the entire franchise for a reboot) unless the sales of the existing titles were not doing well? I, sorry, but Hamner was just trying not to incriminate himself and make it sound more PC by saying it was and editorial decision rather than say that the franchise was not cutting the mustard back then.

 

[Hound55]

Sure, Hamner is entitled to his own opinion, but the fact remains that "Green Lantern: Mosaic" was cancelled and it is usually an editorial decision that is made when a series is cancelled. Furthermore, the sales of the comic dropped by 65% since it's first isssue and at the time of cancellation, the comic was not in the the top 10 in sales. I am sure the editorial decision was to cancel the Mosaic storyline begin the "Emerald Twilight" saga. This would disband the entire Green Lanern Corps and start afresh with a new sole Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) the was attempt to attract youger readers this has been documented by other . Why would someone even try that (pretty much dump the entire franchise for a reboot) unless the sales of the existing titles were not doing well? I, sorry, but Hamner was just trying not to incriminate himself and make it sound more PC by saying it was and editorial decision rather than say that the franchise was not cutting the mustard back then.

That's how I read it too...

 

[The Batman]

I just love the fact that DC and most of the world love Hal Jordan and Barry Allen as characters. Just look at the sales and their upcoming projects. While the few angry fan boys who are so against Hal and Barry will continue to whine.

This. And say what you will about Hal getting replaced throughout the 70's-80's...at the end of the day, they always went back to him.

 

[Evil Twin]

Sure, Hamner is entitled to his own opinion, but the fact remains that "Green Lantern: Mosaic" was cancelled and it is usually an editorial decision that is made when a series is cancelled. Furthermore, the sales of the comic dropped by 65% since it's first isssue and at the time of cancellation, the comic was not in the the top 10 in sales. I am sure the editorial decision was to cancel the Mosaic storyline begin the "Emerald Twilight" saga. This would disband the entire Green Lanern Corps and start afresh with a new sole Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) the was attempt to attract youger readers this has been documented by other . Why would someone even try that (pretty much dump the entire franchise for a reboot) unless the sales of the existing titles were not doing well? I, sorry, but Hamner was just trying not to incriminate himself and make it sound more PC by saying it was and editorial decision rather than say that the franchise was not cutting the mustard back then.

I don't think Hamner was protecting the franchise as much as being proud of his work.

As far as I can tell, GL at the time was a solid seller. Every book was above general cancellation levels, but none of the books had any of the heat of Knightfall, Death of Superman, or Image.

And the shakeup really never made it to those levels. GL settled in above the previous sales levels of the flagship, but it did so partly at the cost of 2 other titles and a quarterly. Is 1 book selling 200K better than 3 books combining to sell 230K? Were there less destructive ways to get there that could have brought along some of the existing fanbase? Would the fall of the GL corps had been better managed if instead of total destruction you had saved Kilowog and others? Those aren't easy questions to answer, but the new direction didn't provide a definitive answer to that either, as Kyle Rayner is the only thing from that era that's managed to stick around. The other big things have been undone.

But, as I said, it's largely irrelevant now, as GL has never been this relatively popular. The big scale space opera approach is clearly the one that resonates with fans and represents what the concept can do that helps make it unique. And to bring it back around to the topic, that's clearly something the filmmakers should remember. We want Sinestro Corps Wars from GL, not hard traveling heroes.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm convinced that Vincenzo Natali will work on a DC movie. I know that he's interested in Swamp Thing but that's in legal trouble.

There's another reason why WB and Joel Silver bought Splice in the first place. Kinda like how WB bought Edge of Darkness after they signed Martin Campbell for Green Lantern.

Hmmm. Keep an eye on Natali

 

[Panthro]

No way is Hal boring, there is a lot more depth to him than WW or Aquaman, same thing with Barry.

They can all be great characters if the writers give them the chance to be great characters. Or just give them the chance to actually be, well, characters.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

They can all be great characters if the writers give them the chance to be great characters. Or just give them the chance to actually be, well, characters.

True that. Nobody cared about Mr. Freeze until "Heart of Ice."

 

[Octoberist]

i think Mr. Freeze got burnt (waka waka) since Batman & Robin in 1997. Such a wonderful character (his cartoon version) is not being underused in the comics.

 

[dnno1]

I don't think Hamner was protecting the franchise as much as being proud of his work.

And that is why he said what he said, because anything else woudl have incriminated it.

As far as I can tell, GL at the time was a solid seller. Every book was above general cancellation levels, but none of the books had any of the heat of Knightfall, Death of Superman, or Image.

And the shakeup really never made it to those levels. GL settled in above the previous sales levels of the flagship, but it did so partly at the cost of 2 other titles and a quarterly. Is 1 book selling 200K better than 3 books combining to sell 230K? Were there less destructive ways to get there that could have brought along some of the existing fanbase? Would the fall of the GL corps had been better managed if instead of total destruction you had saved Kilowog and others? Those aren't easy questions to answer, but the new direction didn't provide a definitive answer to that either, as Kyle Rayner is the only thing from that era that's managed to stick around. The other big things have been undone.

It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. There is a saying that goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Why would DC allow such a drastic change to the Green Lantern franchise if its sales were a solid seller (you ever ask yourself that question)? From what I remember his sales were pretty poor (as were the sales of the titles of some of the other popular DC characters - expecially Superman). This article by comic book collector, Dave Geiber vindicates what I have been posting: the fact that Green Lantern's sales were slumping in the 1990's which is what influenced the decision made by editor, Kevin Dooley to make the changes that he did. It is pretty much what I read back then in other articles, so you can't tell me that myth about his sales being solid.

But, as I said, it's largely irrelevant now, as GL has never been this relatively popular. The big scale space opera approach is clearly the one that resonates with fans and represents what the concept can do that helps make it unique. And to bring it back around to the topic, that's clearly something the filmmakers should remember. We want Sinestro Corps Wars from GL, not hard traveling heroes.

No, no, you are not gettng off that easy. You started this discussion by saying that nobody liked the idea of turning heroes into murdering psychopaths (a matter of opinion) and I was just showing you that this was done in an overall strategy to boost sales and target a new demographic. That is not irrelevant. If you would notice by the way, "Emerald Twilight" is still selling in paperback (something you wouldn't expect to see if it was as bad as you are trying to advertise). You should also notice that even with the improved sales of the comic today, Green Lantern has never separated itself from the fact that Hal Jordan once went rogue either.

 

[REDophile]

What Nolan just said about not doing crossovers with Batman and Superman makes me wonder what DCE's strategy in the movies is. We may get to see more DC heroes like Flash, WW, Aquaman and the like, but it doesn't sound like they are taking Marvel's strategy of a shared film universe. So I wouldn't expect a build up to a Justice League film littered with easter eggs and crossovers as Marvel does. Martin Campbell also said that they won't have any other DC characters in the GL movie.
Its not as fun, but I don't care as much about the films set in the same continuity. They just need to get more DC movies out there besides Supes and Bats.

 

[dnno1]

DC characters might be a little more complex for that. There are a lot of licensing and filming rights issues, which Marvel did not have the same problem with, that need to be dealth with before you can discuss crossovers with DC characters.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Looking by the comic books, DC strength is in the single character or franchise comics while Marvel strength is in the team or crossover comics. Batman or GL can have 2-3 different solo books in a month. Compared with Marvel, even Spiderman only has 2 solo books per month. On the other hand, Marvel churn out many team books like Avengers or X-Men per month. Summing up, DC will do well if they expand the universe inside each character instead of following Marvel path emphasizing crossover tales while solo universes still lack depth. So in other words, Nolan is right.

 

[jmc]

What Nolan just said about not doing crossovers with Batman and Superman makes me wonder what DCE's strategy in the movies is.

I think WB's strategy is relatively easy, and it's something I believe Nolan has drilled into them - simply make good films. That's all the strategy they need.

 

[El Payaso]

I think WB's strategy is relatively easy, and it's something I believe Nolan has drilled into them - simply make good films. That's all the strategy they need.

 

[Docker2.0]

DC characters might be a little more complex for that. There are a lot of licensing and filming rights issues, which Marvel did not have the same problem with, that need to be dealth with before you can discuss crossovers with DC characters.

Are you serious? Concerning the licensing and film rights, they are all under WB. So while I do understand WB has different departments under it's studio, it's still under the same house, while Marvel has it's heroes under Marvel, Sony, Fox, and Lions Gate. Saying DC doesn't have the licensing problems that Marvel does is mindboggling.

 

[Evil Twin]

And that is why he said what he said, because anything else woudl have incriminated it.

Because he was proud of the work on an artistic basis? Because he believed editorial sabotaged them to an extent?

Heck, because it was the truth?

Saying that DC wasn't satisfied with sales on GL is obviously true. Saying that these sales wouldn't have been perfectly fine for a title like Jonah Hex, with different expectations, is something else.

It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. There is a saying that goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Why would DC allow such a drastic change to the Green Lantern franchise if its sales were a solid seller (you ever ask yourself that question)? From what I remember his sales were pretty poor (as were the sales of the titles of some of the other popular DC characters - expecially Superman). This article by comic book collector, Dave Geiber vindicates what I have been posting: the fact that Green Lantern's sales were slumping in the 1990's which is what influenced the decision made by editor, Kevin Dooley to make the changes that he did. It is pretty much what I read back then in other articles, so you can't tell me that myth about his sales being solid.

That article has no numbers. That article proves nothing.

Heck, nobody disputes that GL wasn't a best seller at the time. But nobody has ever suggested that if Hal Jordan wasn't replaced that the book would have been cancelled either.

And, you remember wrong in regards to Superman. The Death of Superman and followup moved a ton of comics. 1993 was a record year for comics at the time and Superman was a big part of it. Also Knightfall. And the Clone Saga.

Everything I've read indicated that GL was a solid mid-tier title. Probably the weakest of the Big 5 at the time, but also able to support multiple books, GL, Guy Gardner, Mosaic, GL Quarterly, a couple of Emerald Dawn mini-series, which must have been popular as it created the demand for a sequel, and feed out supporting characters to other titles. If GL was so unpopular, as you claim, how come there were so many series and sequels?

But, DC had revamped Superman, Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, and Hawkman in the 1980s. All with some success. GL was the next logical title for that makeover with the goals of higher sales. (And Marvel would bring over Liefeld, Lee, and others from Image in a few years to revamp FF, Captain America, Iron Man, etc.)

And, the results are mixed. Emerald Twilight was a sales success and that carried over to Kyle Rayner for a while, but GL was never the success in that period that Batman, Spawn, Wolverine, and Spider-Man were enjoying. (Or the long term critical success of Sandman or Starman, books that are still in print.) Or the sales success that GL is now. And the rest of the GL line collapsed without the Corps mythos. Again, is one relatively good selling title better than 4 mid-tier titles? You don't get off easy either dodging that question.

OTOH, the GL Rebirth revamp has lead to GL being near the top of the sales charts. Has spun off titles and mini-series, also at the top of the charts. And seems to be directly leading into a movie version. Restoring the Corps and Hal Jordan was more successful than Emerald Twilight ever was. So, was destroying Hal Jordan and the Corps a good thing, or something that while attention grabbing was not in the long term interests of sales? Because restoring Hal Jordan and the Corps is a total success.

No, no, you are not gettng off that easy. You started this discussion by saying that nobody liked the idea of turning heroes into murdering psychopaths (a matter of opinion) and I was just showing you that this was done in an overall strategy to boost sales and target a new demographic. That is not irrelevant. If you would notice by the way, "Emerald Twilight" is still selling in paperback (something you wouldn't expect to see if it was as bad as you are trying to advertise). You should also notice that even with the improved sales of the comic today, Green Lantern has never separated itself from the fact that Hal Jordan once went rogue either.

Sure boosting sales was the goal. That doesn't mean that because an editorial direction is implemented, it's good long term. Or successful.

Emerald Twilight is still canon. And what helps it is that GL is popular these days. Emerald Twilight is riding the coattails, not driving sales on GL. Rebirth, Sinestro Corps War and Blackest Night are driving sales. Heck, I might just as well point out that the Hal Jordan tpbs are selling, and Emerald Twilight is a Hal Jordan story, rather than the Kyle Rayner tpbs.

Heck, people are still buying Dark Knight Strikes Again.

And, I'm sorry, but if people actually liked the idea of turning heroes into murdering psychopaths, it would happen more often and it would stick. When has it ever stuck instead of being ultimately rejected? Anybody think the idea of turning Bruce Wayne into a murdering psychopath is good and logical? Or Clark Kent? Or Barry Allen? Or Peter Parker? Or Steve Rogers? Or Wonder Woman? People like their heroes to remain heroes. Even Hal Jordan's time as a villain was relatively short lived until he was "redeemed" in Final Night and sent off to be The Spectre for awhile. At best, it's a short term stunt, which leads to retconning/"redemption" of the hero, not a viable long term direction.

Let me summarize my points again.

GL wasn't a hot seller in 1993, but neither was it near cancellation. Was it in need of a shakeup to boost sales? Yes.

Emerald Twilight did boost sales on GL. But it killed the rest of the GL line. And Hal Jordan had an extremely short term shelf life as a villain. Was it an overall win? Perhaps, but long term GL settled right back into being a mid-tier seller.

GL Rebirth has been an amazingly successful revamp undoing much of Emerald Twilight. Top of the charts. Multiple titles. It's no wonder that this version of GL is what is getting a movie made.

So, was Emerald Twilight necessary? Yes, whether that exact story or another shakeup. Was it good? That's subjective, but I'd say the good work done with Kyle is separate than the plot points of turning Hal Jordan into a murdering psychopath. And Hal Jordan, murdering psychopath didn't seem to sell a single book past Emerald Twilight.

 

[The Batman]

Looking by the comic books, DC strength is in the single character or franchise comics while Marvel strength is in the team or crossover comics. Batman or GL can have 2-3 different solo books in a month. Compared with Marvel, even Spiderman only has 2 solo books per month. On the other hand, Marvel churn out many team books like Avengers or X-Men per month. Summing up, DC will do well if they expand the universe inside each character instead of following Marvel path emphasizing crossover tales while solo universes still lack depth. So in other words, Nolan is right.

I've been wondering for a long time whether or not someone besides me agreed with the idea that DC characters are stronger in the respective universes in contrast to a shared one. Its like marvel heroes were designed to fit together in the universe...in fact they were, which is why they all live in ny. DC did not design their heroes to be a universe, and it shows in the comics. When Superman teams with someone, hes always made dumber and more brute strength. When Batman interacts with the heroes, they write him like a prick instead of an actual dark knight...and dont even get me started on how wonder womans diminished. All in all, its smarter and not an obvious rip off of marvel in regards to keeping the universes seperate.

 

[jondoe]

Regarding the concern of Why Can't DC Get it right? centering only around supes/bats, hope this is a sign of good things to come starting w/ green lantern. Hope GL proves a success to DCE how iron man was to MARVEL Studios. And if all goes according to plan then the wheels will start in motion w/ film adaptations of flash, wonder woman & aquaman w/ their respective dcu dtvs.

For now, let us be content w/ dc showcase shorts and batman the brave and the bold. Let us sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. And do our own little part to make this all a success and make it happen.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

Amen brother, Amen!