Advertisement

Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Comics, Fans are Stuck in the Past

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Spektre
User avatar
Swedish Pinata of Death
 
Posts: 3726
Likes: 159 posts
Liked in: 192 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Re:

Postby Spektre » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:31 am

Kurosawa wrote:
I'm sure you do not understand Wonder Woman, either.



Characters do not exist in a vacuum. A character like Superman is not like a mythological character whose stories were passed down through oral traditions. No, Superman was created by people, people who we do know about, and yes, their vision and their development of the character is the most important thing. This applies to all characters-the people who create them, or the people who develop them the most during their developmental period (like Wolverine, created by Len Wein but mostly developed by Chris Clairemont) are the best guide to figuring out what the characters are and what they are about. To understand Superman and to write Superman, any writer should be familiar with Jerry Siegel's work. And yes, just like with ALL writers, there were things that changed, story ideas that were touched on then abandoned (like Xavier's attraction to Jean), but if you understand comics at all, you know that you look at the entire body of work to see where a writer was going with a character. And Siegel's Superman overall, the body of work, paints a very consistent character. It should, as Superman is his character and was a very personal creation. These comics are done by humans, not robots, and humans change. It's just the law of averages, really. Jerry Siegel wrote a Superman for 4 years who killed on very rare occasions and a Superman for 15 years that did not kill. 15 is more than 4. Therefore, in the vast majority of Superman stories written by Jerry Siegel, which is the vast majority of Superman stories written by any writer-Superman did not kill.

It's not that damn hard to do. Unless you think Superman always sucked until John Byrne got ahold of him and threw the baby out with the bathwater, that is.



Claiming Siegel changed Superman most every month is a complete and total lie. Period. And the only reason you are bothered that I appeal to any authority is the authority I appeal to is not you, or the ones you approve of. All I can say is, put Mark Waid, Zack Snyder and John Byrne all in a room and ask them a ton of questions about Superman. I think we all know who will win.



Actually, it does. But it bothers you because I do not define Superman as being a creation of John Byrne.



Lucas willingly sold Star Wars of his own accord, but he does have at least an advisory role. I'll judge the new movies on their own merits, but I also admit that if they seem too far removed from what he did, using elements like flashbacks, etc, then I will certainly divide SW into Lucas and a Post-Lucas designations just like DC is divided into Pre and Post-Crisis.



Except you do exactly what I do-you pick and choose the books you count as defining the character. You ignore all the work by the characters creator, and you ignore all the books that were the most successful and introduced the most new characters and concepts, and instead you embrace the books by a writer who treated the character and his basic concepts with contempt. So your definition of Superman comes from your personal affection for John Byrne. My definition of Superman comes from the aggregate of Superman stories from 1938-1986. I use the stories to reach conclusions-in most Superman stories, he has a code against killing, consistently from 1942-1986. So since most of the time he didn't kill and had a code against it, Superman does not kill. Law of averages.



Again, you are wrong and you fail to understand how I look at things. Superman does not kill because the vast majority of evidence shows he does not.



No, those are the Superman comics that sold the most in terms of overall copies and more comparable, market share. Superman's most successful decade by FAR is the 60's. That's not my opinion, that is fact. Consistently, year in, year out, 6 of the top ten books always Superman Family comics. Lois Lane sold more in the 60's than Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, or even Uncle Scrooge. That is how dominant Superman was in that time. He never dominated sales charts like that before or since. That's not my opinion. That is a fact.



Everyone knows that the cut-off date for Superman being done in a manner that was evolved from Siegel and Shuster's original ended with Byrne's MOS when he destroyed their concept as Clark Kent and Superman being different characters and made him the same guy in and out of costume. The claim was Clark was the "real" persona, but in reality Clark and Superman acted almost just alike-the was only one persona. What Byrne did in his revamp that hurt the most is he got rid of Clark Kent. And that is when the talk of Superman being impossible to relate to really exploded and became the way a lot of people felt. At least before you could point to Clark and show how Clark was an expression of Superman's own flaws and fraility. But Byrne's version was a god 24/7.

You don't hear people talk much about Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis Batman. That's because although a lot of details were changed, the Post-Crisis Batman was true to the spirit and the core concepts of the Pre-Crisis version, while the Post-Crisis Superman was not. He was a more modern Batman but he was a clear evolution of Finger and what's-his-name's original.



Well, that is a completely different debate, but with Superman there is data that completely supports that the 1938-1986 Superman was more successful than the 1987-2002 Superman, and that the 60's Superman was the most successful of all. And that's not because I like the 60's version most (I like the 70's stuff and Maggin's novels a little more), but because it simply WAS the most successful. Again, numbers. Cold, opinionless numbers.



I love Superman because in the vast majority of his stories, he has morals and ethics that appeal to me. And yes, the versions of Superman that I accept have killed and have not killed, but the best version to me-the Silver/Bronze Age version-absolutely did not kill and would renounce his powers if he did. The version you accept killed three unarmed and depowered people because they goaded him into it. He is not just as bad as the MOS version, he is worse. At least the idiot in MOS killed a Zod with his powers.


Lots of low hanging fruit here but all I have is my phone to type on, so I'll get to it later.

One part just stood out though with your "justification based on averages".

If a man kills 10 times in his life, but lives for 70 years, I suppose you consider him someone who doesn't kill right? After all, he only killed at maximum 10 days of his life but he lived over 25000. 10<<<25000 so he doesn't kill.

:lol:
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Advertisement

Amoebas
User avatar
Son of Stein
 
Posts: 20652
Likes: 195 posts
Liked in: 385 posts
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Auburn, MA
Title: Amorphous Anomoly


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby Amoebas » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:35 am

Fact - Superman has murdered people before (even Siegel/Shuster's original creation).

Opinion - well, that was early on and it's best to just ignore that.

Insanity - I detest all Supermen that have ever killed (except for the one true Siegel/Shuster Superman who has never ever killed before (even thought I admit he has killed before).

:lol:

2 people like this post.

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 448
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:53 pm

Spektre wrote:
Lots of low hanging fruit here but all I have is my phone to type on, so I'll get to it later.

One part just stood out though with your "justification based on averages".

If a man kills 10 times in his life, but lives for 70 years, I suppose you consider him someone who doesn't kill right? After all, he only killed at maximum 10 days of his life but he lived over 25000. 10<<<25000 so he doesn't kill.

:lol:


It is justification based on averages because these are fictional stories about fictional characters, and if they writers, artists and editors of these characters choose to change them, then that is their right. Why you cheer for John Byrne and DC's decision to change Superman's core concepts and deride Jerry Siegel and DC's decision to eliminate the use of fatal force is beyond me. I guess it all comes down to you agreeing with Byrne and people like Snyder that Superman was a flawed creation and had to be completely changed in order to work. That's pretty sad, but that's clearly your position.

The Shadow wrote:To play devils advocate here you're being a bit loose with your interpretation and statement of facts.

Firstly, Fantastic Who? Spider-Whatnow? Those (along with the X-Men, Avengers, Hulk, Daredevil etc.) were all brand spanking new characters when they began debuting in 1961 through 1965 beginning with the Fantastic Four whereas Superman was an established name (his TV show had just ended) that was in continuous publication from 1938 onward.

You also fail to mention that from 1960 to 1968 (coincidentally the very decade you're putting so much focus on) all Marvel Comics were being distributed by National Periodical (DC Comics) and National restricted Marvel's output of comics to the point that Marvel was only allowed to sell eight titles a month which was down SIGNIFICANTLY from the 75 titles they were putting out in 1957. That's also the reason books like Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish had two stories.

Also, you cite 6 of the top ten books always being in the Superman Family of comics, well, when your competitor can't have more than 8 total titles (several had two stories in them) that all feature new characters and you pump out 6 comics connected to the most popular and well known character in comics who is just coming of a popular TV series which ran from 1952 to 1958, it is not really a fair comparison.

So, yeah, you're right but with a slew of astrixes.


A few things:

First of all, for most of the 60's, Marvel was not DC's main competition. There were several other major publishers at the time, including Gold Key and Dell Comics, Harvey Comics, and Archie Comics. Several of these titles also filled out the top ten alongside DC/National titles, and Archie was the top book in a couple of years. Also, Dell was the biggest selling publisher in the 50's with their Disney titles and other licensed books. None of these publishers were affected by DC's distribution.

Also, Marvel published more than 8 titles, they just could only publish 8 titles a month-some of their titles were bi-monthly, as were some of DC's. JLA, for example, was published 8 times a year, as was Batman and several other titles. They cut Marvel's allotment to 8 books a month because Martin Goodman was notorious for flooding the market with books that hurt everyone.

EDITED TO ADD: Do you really, and I mean REALLY want to use sales figures as the mark of quality? That would mean that Titanic is a better movie (adjusting for inflation) than Doctor Zhivago? Raiders of the Lost Ark? The Godfather? Citizen Kane? Casablanca? Schindler's List? ... I can go on and on and on...


No, and of course that is always a complicated thing..the Beatles sold a ton of records, but so did some terrible groups. But it does show that the period when Superman sold the best is what the Post-Crisis reboot was very much against, and to go against what worked the best for a character is pretty stupid. You update it, of course, but to completely reject it is a bad idea.

Again, numbers. Cold, opinion-less numbers with a spin (see above for a bunch that also apply here too)

Sales of ALL comics were declining in the 1970's for a variety of reasons from the beginnings of the direct market comic books stores, comics not being carried at newsstands and grocery-type stores, the non-return policy of Diamond and the other comic distributors etc.

I would argue the biggest cost of sales was the increases in cover prices which were rising faster than inflation (which is even a problem today with the $3.99 price tag). Comics were $0.12 for a decade (imagine comic prices staying the same for a freakin DECADE!) but it was also this period when comics seemed to increase in price every year, with the price quickly escalating from 12 cents, to 25 cents, in just four years and they quickly jumped to $0.25 to $0.50 just as quickly.

Another problem was the rush to discover the 'next big thing' from horror to sword and sorcery comics but they were horribly watered down due to the Comics Code Authority so as the audience matured the CCA kept the comics from maturing with the audience.

Then the sales rebounded in the 90's with the speculators (with books like Spawn #1, Youngblood #1 and Superman #75 all selling millions of copies each... in fact McFarlane's Spider-man #1 sold 2.6 Million, X-Force #1 3.9 million but ALL pale in comparison to the king... X-Men #1 [and its 5 covers] sold nearly 8 million copies) but when that bubble burst sales quickly fell again.

So, again, you're right but with another slew of astrixes.


That's true, and that's why I say what is important about Superman's success in the 60's is not raw numbers because comics will never sell in those numbers again, but in market share. Having 6 of the top 10 titles be Superman family is probably never going to happen, but if they ever handle the character right, his two main titles should be consistently top 10. And at times, they have. There's parts of the new 52 version I have liked apart from the costume, Morrison's stuff in particular.
Last edited by Kurosawa on Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Rob Thompson
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2208
Likes: 712 posts
Liked in: 678 posts
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:49 am
Title: Soldier. Teacher.


Re: Re:

Postby Rob Thompson » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:01 pm

Kurosawa wrote:
It is justification based on averages because these are fictional stories about fictional characters, and if they writers, artists and editors of these characters choose to change them, then that is their right. Why you cheer for John Byrne and DC's decision to change Superman's core concepts and deride Jerry Siegel and DC's decision to eliminate the use of fatal force is beyond me. I guess it all comes down to you agreeing with Byrne and people like Snyder that Superman was a flawed creation and had to be completely changed in order to work. That's pretty sad, but that's clearly your position.

I sometimes wonder if your zealotry occasionally bothers you.

2 people like this post.

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 448
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:13 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:I sometimes wonder if your zealotry occasionally bothers you.


What bothers me is how people have so little respect for Superman and how they stand for DC fucking the character over.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Rob Thompson
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2208
Likes: 712 posts
Liked in: 678 posts
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:49 am
Title: Soldier. Teacher.


Re: Re:

Postby Rob Thompson » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:17 pm

Kurosawa wrote:
What bothers me is how people have so little respect for Superman and how they stand for DC fucking the character over.

And by "fucking the character over" you mean doing things with the character you disagree with and/or do not enjoy.

See -- zealotry.

2 people like this post.

dairydead
User avatar
Zombie Guard
 
Posts: 9798
Likes: 52 posts
Liked in: 136 posts
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:12 am
Location: Detroit


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby dairydead » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:33 pm

I can never wrap my head around why fanboys/girls often believe that characters can't change, and that characters shouldn't evolve or deviate from previous convictions held.

Do these people really think that they haven't changed themselves? Are they really that delusional to think that if someone wrote a story about them, there would be "consistent characterization"?
The Firelord to Hawk's Galactus

Amoebas
User avatar
Son of Stein
 
Posts: 20652
Likes: 195 posts
Liked in: 385 posts
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Auburn, MA
Title: Amorphous Anomoly


Re: Re:

Postby Amoebas » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:51 pm

Kurosawa wrote:
What bothers me is how people have so little respect for Superman and how they stand for DC fucking the character over.

You want respect for Superman? My son was named Kalvin Lawrence before he died. He wasn't given that name by accident.

So why don't you come down from your pedestal and stop pretending that you're the one and only Superman fan on the planet.

Superman is a hero. Heroes sometime face tough choices. End of fuckin' story.

dairydead likes this post.

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 448
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:22 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:And by "fucking the character over" you mean doing things with the character you disagree with and/or do not enjoy.

See -- zealotry.


What I'm afraid you guys don't and can't understand is that Superman changed a ton from 1938-1986, but it was all natural growth and evolution. Of course the character has changed. All characters do. But some characters evolve naturally, and never have a huge, status changing event that turns the core conceit of the character around 360 degrees. What DC did in 1986, and what MOS did was they took the very core part of Superman and they threw it away. And that core idea is this: he lives a double life with a true alter ego, not a secret identity, an alter ego, and that while the heroic Superman may have been the "true" self, it is the invented self-Clark Kent-that Superman himself cared the most about and that made the fans care the most about the character. It's not Superman killing or not killing (although I fall on the side of him not using lethal force), it's not even the costume (although the costume is perfect and the trunks are the most personal part of the design to Shuster), it's Clark Kent-the nebbish Clark Kent-that makes the strip work, and since they ditched that part of the strip, it has not worked. It's why the Post-Crisis Superman failed, and it's why MOS fails.

Now look at Batman. How different is Batman in 2014 from Batman in 1939? A lot, but the core idea of the character remains. And that is why Batman thrives while Superman withers. They have kept Batman true to his core.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 67176
Likes: 997 posts
Liked in: 778 posts
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Toronto, ONT, Canadah
Formerly: /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby The Old Doctor » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:33 pm

I look forward to the Batman version of this thread that will come after the movie comes out. 60+ pages of comic book guys slap fighting it all out. It's like watching a bar fight but the fighters are snails and only butthurt is the damage.

Amazed there is not one for Avengers or Spider-Man or X-Men or TMNT... oh wait, there was one. Okay Transfor.... yeah, that covered too. Hmmmm...
"Why are you pointing your screwdrivers like that? They're scientific instruments, not water pistols."
"Oh, the pointing again! They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?"
"Are you capable of speaking without flapping your hands about?"
""Timey" what? "Timey wimey"?"

Image
IvCNuB4 wrote:The Old Doctor is Cat-Scratch ?
Well that explains a lot :lol:

Newtype
User avatar
SUSHI FISH
 
Posts: 236
Likes: 21 posts
Liked in: 99 posts
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 3:45 pm
Location: Right in the middle of nowhere
Formerly: A happy, well adjusted person pre-universal reboot


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby Newtype » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:47 pm

The thread's almost at a hundred pages!! We can make it!!

Unless of course this post pushes it to a hundred, in which case: FUCK YEAH

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 448
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby Kurosawa » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:55 pm

The Old Doctor wrote:I look forward to the Batman version of this thread that will come after the movie comes out. 60+ pages of comic book guys slap fighting it all out. It's like watching a bar fight but the fighters are snails and only butthurt is the damage.

Amazed there is not one for Avengers or Spider-Man or X-Men or TMNT... oh wait, there was one. Okay Transfor.... yeah, that covered too. Hmmmm...


Will never happen. Batman is kept to his core concepts and the Batman fanbase is not fractured like the Superman fanbase is. The only fanbase that is nearly as fractured as Superman's is Star Wars, and even SW fans (of which I am one) are more unified overall. OT purists have more nice things to say about the PT than Pre-Crisis purists have to say about Post-Crisis Superman, and vice versa (well, PT fans almost all love the OT too).
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Rockman
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 27747
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:25 pm
Formerly: AMS


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby Rockman » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:58 pm

I find that hard to believe.

First that there is anyone who would actually prefer the prequels to the OT in star wars

secondly that any of the horrible things whined about the PT can be topped by post crisis DC whining.

Chessack
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 1462
Likes: 19 posts
Liked in: 346 posts
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: North Carolina
Title: Kara Zor-El's biggest fan


Re: Zack Snyder Trolls Fans, Says His Superman is True to Co

Postby Chessack » Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:06 pm

dairydead wrote:I can never wrap my head around why fanboys/girls often believe that characters can't change, and that characters shouldn't evolve or deviate from previous convictions held.

Do these people really think that they haven't changed themselves? Are they really that delusional to think that if someone wrote a story about them, there would be "consistent characterization"?


With fictional characters, certain traits or characteristics make them who they are, and if they change in too dramatic a way, the character becomes unrecognizable and no longer seems to be who he or she once was. And since you are comparing it to real people, it can happen with real people, too. In fact, it just happened where I work last week.

There is an older gentleman. He's a few years from retirement. He has always been extremely polite and reserved. He has for a couple of years worked with our department chair quite well. They were friends - or so everyone (including the chair) thought. Then a few days ago, he sent this 2 page long email full of venom and bile criticizing everything about the chair from how she assigns duties to practically her choice in mouthwash. He sent it not just to her but to everyone in our department. We had to have a meeting about it, the thing was so bad. During the meeting, one of the people said to him, "This seemed so out of character for you." Everyone felt like we didn't even know the guy. (And he really didn't adequately explain why he wrote it, nor did he seem the least bit sorry about writing it.)

Now you're going to say, "See! That's realistic." And yes, it is. Because it really happened.

But.

I dunno how the guy is going to be able to work with anyone again from now until he retires. Everyone in the department thought he behaved in an thoroughly unprofessional way, and speaking for myself, I don't know how I can really be friends with him after this (since I was even better friends with the chair long before this). Either he was a really good actor for years (which is probably the more disturbing option) or else he suddenly changed, but one way or the other, I don't know if this is a person I want to be friends with any more.

So yeah, change can happen, but it's possible for a person's character to change in ways that make you not want to be around them anymore.

And the same is true with fictional characters.

Sure you could write a Harry Potter where Harry turns into some badass who slaughters house-elves and goes around killing muggles and purifying the "blood," but it's not a Harry I'd want to read about.

And sure you can turn Superman into this bleak, hope-draining character who doesn't protect innocents and snaps Zod's neck, but it's not a Superman I want to read about. Change may be inevitable but one shouldn't expect me to automatically like the new version of the character just because I used to like the old one, particularly when the two have nothing in common other than a name and a costume.

And getting back to the very original topic here, which is that Zack Snyder is pissed that so many people seem not to like his version of Superman... that's the risk he fucking took. He decided to change the character into something so at variance with the one we liked that he ran the risk of turning it into something we wouldn't like. And then when that happened, instead of owning the thing, he blamed us for being "stuck in the past."

He needs to stop blaming us and own it. He made a bleak, unpleasant Superman and not everyone ate it up. He should just deal and stop trolling fans.

The Shadow
User avatar
Motherfucker from Hell
 
Posts: 2525
Likes: 203 posts
Liked in: 238 posts
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:20 am
Location: Saskatchewan
Title: Loves porn. What?


Re: Re:

Postby The Shadow » Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:17 pm

Kurosawa wrote:First of all, for most of the 60's, Marvel was not DC's main competition.

No kidding... but that's because DC restricted Marvel's output to 8 monthly titles. No wonder they weren't any competition.

Kurosawa wrote:There were several other major publishers at the time, including Gold Key and Dell Comics, Harvey Comics, and Archie Comics. Several of these titles also filled out the top ten alongside DC/National titles, and Archie was the top book in a couple of years. Also, Dell was the biggest selling publisher in the 50's with their Disney titles and other licensed books. None of these publishers were affected by DC's distribution.

You said "Lois Lane sold more in the 60's than Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, or even Uncle Scrooge." Two of the three titles you mention are Marvel books. Also, many characters that were competing against Superman such as Magnus Robot Fighter, Solar, Man of the Atom etc. were also all created in the early 1960's like Marvels were, so again, you're comparing Superman to brand new characters.

Kurosawa wrote:Marvel published more than 8 titles, they just could only publish 8 titles a month-some of their titles were bi-monthly, as were some of DC's. JLA, for example, was published 8 times a year, as was Batman and several other titles. They cut Marvel's allotment to 8 books a month because Martin Goodman was notorious for flooding the market with books that hurt everyone.

6 of one, half dozen of another... the end result is Marvel could ONLY have 8 books out in any given month... that's two new comics per week in a 4 week month and even less in those pesky 5 week months. So while they make have had some comics on an erratic or bi-monthly schedule, they still couldn't put out enough books to compete.


Kurosawa wrote:No, and of course that is always a complicated thing..the Beatles sold a ton of records, but so did some terrible groups. But it does show that the period when Superman sold the best is what the Post-Crisis reboot was very much against, and to go against what worked the best for a character is pretty stupid. You update it, of course, but to completely reject it is a bad idea.

It shows an immensely popular character in Superman (just coming off a hugely successful TV show) who had been in continuous publication since 1938 and his family of books sold the best when competing against a slew of new characters, new companies and a restricted competitor. It also shows that the tie in books to that character, when a market is flooded, is no different then as it is today with the slew of X-Men books that populated the top 10 regardless of quality.

Kurosawa wrote:That's true, and that's why I say what is important about Superman's success in the 60's is not raw numbers

Wait, what? :smt017

You said "it simply WAS the most successful. Again, numbers. Cold, opinionless numbers." which implies you DO think the numbers are the basis of success.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], MSN NewsBlogs and 34 guests

Advertisement