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!

Scintillant-H
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1074
Likes: 997 posts
Liked in: 81 posts
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:51 pm
Title: Glitter Bitch
Formerly: Hal Shumaker


Re: Re:

Postby Scintillant-H » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:22 am

Spektre wrote:
Oh come on, you're usually better at this than...this.

Awww, you thought highly of me~ <3 And now you have been corrected. :twisted:

I'm not accusing him of caring about only what he wants to care about. I am accusing him of not thinking independently. His entire argument boils down to an apply to authority (with about 5 different provisos which I pointed out in an earlier post) which I guess does fit with a certain naiveté, but even just picking and choosing what YOU personally like would show original thought.


It's been a number of times that you, and I believe at least one other as well (long thread), make statements about Ku picking and choosing what he wants to care about. This, according to what you just said, "show(s an) original thought," and you encourage him to do this, even though you have already admitted in previous posts that he has done that.
So.... why are you telling him to do what he's already stated he does and you have stated he does?

It's like being in front of him and saying "Kurosawa, I would respect you if only you were wearing a green shirt!"
... and he's been wearing a green shirt the whole time. :lol:

True that the appeal to authority is something that shouldn't be held to so strongly, but he chooses what it's about, which is his independent thought. I'm sure if those authorities started sounding like you, he'd stop listening to them altogether.

I understand why some think you mad, but I still think you're just an egomaniac, which is how you forge/warp your views, which resemble madness.
Never ever change. :smt026 Not that your ego will let you (YAY!).
Image

Advertisement

Scintillant-H
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1074
Likes: 997 posts
Liked in: 81 posts
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:51 pm
Title: Glitter Bitch
Formerly: Hal Shumaker


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

Postby Scintillant-H » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:24 am

Kurosawa wrote:You are so full of shit. It's stuff like this that makes everyone hate you.

... I don't hate him... but then again, I appreciate menaces like Spektre, the trope, and Stephen's legs, sooo... maybe my opinion on Beasty (or anything else) doesn't count. :lol:
Though it's funny that he compares himself to Einstien. XD With Spiderwoman's ass right there next to it, now.
Image

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 67146
Likes: 996 posts
Liked in: 774 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 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:12 am

Scintillant-H wrote:... I don't hate him... but then again, I appreciate menaces like Spektre, the trope, and Stephen's legs, sooo... maybe my opinion on Beasty (or anything else) doesn't count. :lol:
Though it's funny that he compares himself to Einstien. XD With Spiderwoman's ass right there next to it, now.


wtf? I think I may be glad to have missed chunks of this thread.
"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:

Scintillant-H likes this post.

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

Postby Rob Thompson » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:19 am

The Old Doctor wrote:
wtf? I think I may be glad to have missed chunks of this thread.

Nah, you need to read this whole thing. It is epic. Plus, this is a slap fight that has the potential to get to 100 pages of entertainment! :shock: :lol:
"Observe. Orient. Decide. Act."

Popeye McFly
User avatar
Flying Mongoose
 
Posts: 615
Likes: 110 posts
Liked in: 136 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:47 pm
Formerly: SubjectDelta


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

Postby Popeye McFly » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:04 am

Rob Thompson wrote:Nah, you need to read this whole thing. It is epic. Plus, this is a slap fight that has the potential to get to 100 pages of entertainment! :shock: :lol:


So let us keep it going!

The Shadow
User avatar
Motherfucker from Hell
 
Posts: 2524
Likes: 203 posts
Liked in: 238 posts
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:20 am
Location: Saskatchewan
Title: Loves porn. What?


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

Postby The Shadow » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:27 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:Nah, you need to read this whole thing. It is epic. Plus, this is a slap fight that has the potential to get to 100 pages of entertainment! :shock: :lol:

Yup :derp:

The Old Doctor
User avatar
A Damn Cuddly Beast
 
Posts: 67146
Likes: 996 posts
Liked in: 774 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 » Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:31 pm

Rob Thompson wrote:Nah, you need to read this whole thing. It is epic. Plus, this is a slap fight that has the potential to get to 100 pages of entertainment! :shock: :lol:


I don't know... I went through the Epic Beard Man epic thread as well as many a political slap fight thread that caused some to leave here in tears and butthurt. This place as had some really epic threads. Meltdown threads have that as they often get locked.
"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:

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

Postby Rob Thompson » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:30 am

The Old Doctor wrote:
I don't know... I went through the Epic Beard Man epic thread as well as many a political slap fight thread that caused some to leave here in tears and butthurt. This place as had some really epic threads. Meltdown threads have that as they often get locked.

These are the best boards on the web!

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 447
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:16 pm

Scintillant-H wrote:Awww, you thought highly of me~ <3 And now you have been corrected. :twisted:



It's been a number of times that you, and I believe at least one other as well (long thread), make statements about Ku picking and choosing what he wants to care about. This, according to what you just said, "show(s an) original thought," and you encourage him to do this, even though you have already admitted in previous posts that he has done that.
So.... why are you telling him to do what he's already stated he does and you have stated he does?

It's like being in front of him and saying "Kurosawa, I would respect you if only you were wearing a green shirt!"
... and he's been wearing a green shirt the whole time. :lol:

True that the appeal to authority is something that shouldn't be held to so strongly, but he chooses what it's about, which is his independent thought. I'm sure if those authorities started sounding like you, he'd stop listening to them altogether.

I understand why some think you mad, but I still think you're just an egomaniac, which is how you forge/warp your views, which resemble madness.
Never ever change. :smt026 Not that your ego will let you (YAY!).


Well, I agree with Spek on some things and disagree with him on others, but you are right-it is mostly about him being right, while I feel the difference with my approach to these issues is to analyze the comics themselves and their creators and come to conclusions based on data. That's why I am willing to change my viewpoints in light of further information coming out. I've never considered these debates to be about me, I consider them to be about the characters and keeping them in character.

That's also part of why I have maintained that it is possible to depict a Superman who is willing to kill-it's not as interesting or as deep as a Superman who adamantly refuses to do so, but it is possible-it's just that MOS followed the John Byrne model of Superman killing and not the raw Golden Age frontier justice model. At least when GA Supes killed, the villains were so vile that they had it coming and he did it with no apologies.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Spektre
User avatar
Swedish Pinata of Death
 
Posts: 3717
Likes: 159 posts
Liked in: 188 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Re:

Postby Spektre » Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:05 pm

Kurosawa wrote:
Well, I agree with Spek on some things and disagree with him on others, but you are right-it is mostly about him being right, while I feel the difference with my approach to these issues is to analyze the comics themselves and their creators and come to conclusions based on data. That's why I am willing to change my viewpoints in light of further information coming out. I've never considered these debates to be about me, I consider them to be about the characters and keeping them in character.

That's also part of why I have maintained that it is possible to depict a Superman who is willing to kill-it's not as interesting or as deep as a Superman who adamantly refuses to do so, but it is possible-it's just that MOS followed the John Byrne model of Superman killing and not the raw Golden Age frontier justice model. At least when GA Supes killed, the villains were so vile that they had it coming and he did it with no apologies.


Oh come now Kurosawa, you've already admitted this not to be the case. Why go back to making the assertion now.

You have already said your concept of what Superman is is not what is gleaned from the books, or from any "data" but instead it is based on what you WANT him to be.

I say that Superman does not kill not because I don't want him to


I, on the other hand, apply standard definitions of continuity and logic to come to my conclusions.
- 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.

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 447
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:07 pm

Spektre wrote:
Oh come now Kurosawa, you've already admitted this not to be the case. Why go back to making the assertion now.

You have already said your concept of what Superman is is not what is gleaned from the books, or from any "data" but instead it is based on what you WANT him to be.



I, on the other hand, apply standard definitions of continuity and logic to come to my conclusions.


It's you, not me, who is bending and warping the content of a bad story where Superman murders three unarmed and depowered people by claiming the reality they came from "didn't exist". I instead just look at that story as what it is-a piece of shit written by a writer who does not understand Superman and was going for a cheap shock. Just like MOS the movie. It's the same kind of scenario, done by the same kind of people-people who do not like or believe in Superman as a character.

i don't want Superman to kill, but the reason I don't want Superman to kill is because I understand the character and know his history, and I know that for the vast majority of his history-from 1942 until 1987-he did not kill, and included in that history is his most important, successful, creative and influential era-the Silver Age from 1958-1970 under Mort Weisinger. That is looking at the comics and what the creators wanted and coming to a conclusion. You attempt to use weak technicalities that don't even hold up as technicalities to get Byrne's murderous Superman off the hook because for some crazy reason you consider that to be the first "real" version of Superman as a character, which is bullshit because Superman was a consistent character for years before that, not thousands of characters like you claim. It's also bullshit because Byrne's version of the character is one of the shittiest versions ever done, and he spits in the face of Superman's core concepts, even insulting his creators by taking their author avatar (Clark Kent) out of the strip and replacing him with a shitty Colossus/Peter Parker hybrid.

The character that Byrne created and wrote is NOT Superman. He bears only a physical resemblance to the real thing. He doesn't have Superman's personality, his ethics, his pathos or his depth. He doesn't have a Clark Kent-he is the same character in and out of costume. Superman is nothing without the nebbish Clark Kent. The character simply does not work when he is a perfect god as Superman and a studly ex-football player and near-god as Clark Kent. Clark has to be flawed and fragile for Superman to work as a concept. Making Superman the same character in and out of costume turns him into a Marvel character and destroys what makes him unique. There's a reason when you google "Clark Kent" you get a wiki entry on Clark and not Superman, and if you google any other superhero's secret identity, the entry goes right to the code name.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

Spektre
User avatar
Swedish Pinata of Death
 
Posts: 3717
Likes: 159 posts
Liked in: 188 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: Re:

Postby Spektre » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:27 pm

Kurosawa wrote:It's you, not me, who is bending and warping the content of a bad story where Superman murders three unarmed and depowered people by claiming the reality they came from "didn't exist". I instead just look at that story as what it is-a piece of shit written by a writer who does not understand Superman and was going for a cheap shock. Just like MOS the movie. It's the same kind of scenario, done by the same kind of people-people who do not like or believe in Superman as a character.


The word according to Kurosawa. Now if you turn your hymnals to the book of Wonder Woman...

We've been through this so at the expense of being redundant its much easier just to copy and paste.

So let me see if I have your clear and concise way of looking at characters as opposed to the "crazy" method I have.

What defines a character is the creator's wish when they create the character. This is sacrosanct and if anyone messes with this character they can eat shit and die!

Well unless the creator himself changes the character. Then we either ignore the change “Daily Planet, yellow boots, source of powers, progeny, etc.) or accept the changes (no killing, Boy Scout persona, flight, etc.).

This gets really confusing since the creator changed the character most every month, so in this case we appeal to authorities in the field to tell us what we read. (ENB, Waid, etc.) but only those experts that aren’t on our no-fly list (Byrne, Snyder, etc.). In these cases the creator’s wishes aren’t sacrosanct , these authorities are.

But but but but…hold on sometimes none of this applies because you don’t happen to care about the character. If you don’t care about the character, anything goes. And your consistent methodology doesn’t bother to define these characters.

Unless hold the phone! All bets are off if the creator, whose wishes are sacrosanct unless they aren’t, gets paid. Show Kurosawa the money, and the whole point is rendered moot.

Yes, yes, I can definitely see where that is much more consistent than, I dunno, reading the books and defining the character based on what you read


Kurosawa wrote:i don't want Superman to kill, but the reason I don't want Superman to kill is because I understand the character and know his history, and I know that for the vast majority of his history-from 1942 until 1987-he did not kill,


See more of the circular argument. You think Superman doesn't kill because you don't want him to kill. And you don't want him to kill because Superman doesn't kill.

You're just chasing your tail with this kind of debate framework.

Kurosawa wrote:and included in that history is his most important, successful, creative and influential era-the Silver Age from 1958-1970 under Mort Weisinger. That is looking at the comics and what the creators wanted and coming to a conclusion.


You leave an important modifier out of these assertions. Let me rephrase them..

"That is looking at the comics that I hand-pick and choose that stay within my self-defined comfort zone and the creators that I also hand-pick and choose. Those stories and creators that don't fall within my rose colored, self defined world view can eat shit."

Chasing your tail again Kurosawa. "Superman is this way because that's what the creators wanted." Well it's what the creators who happened to make the character the way you wanted him want him.

LOL. It would be akin to me suggesting laissez-faire economies are the correct economy because economists say so. Well yes, Austrian school economist do, but Keynesians would have a heart attack at the same ideas.

Kurosawa wrote:The character that Byrne created and wrote is NOT Superman. He bears only a physical resemblance to the real thing. He doesn't have Superman's personality, his ethics, his pathos or his depth.


Really, which ethics would that be. The ethics of the character who kills people, or the one who doesn't kill people? You're "Supermen" were both.
- 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.

Kurosawa
User avatar
crash test dummy
 
Posts: 447
Likes: 252 posts
Liked in: 141 posts
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:31 pm


Re: Re:

Postby Kurosawa » Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:56 am

Spektre wrote:The word according to Kurosawa. Now if you turn your hymnals to the book of Wonder Woman...


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

We've been through this so at the expense of being redundant its much easier just to copy and paste.

So let me see if I have your clear and concise way of looking at characters as opposed to the "crazy" method I have.

What defines a character is the creator's wish when they create the character. This is sacrosanct and if anyone messes with this character they can eat shit and die!

Well unless the creator himself changes the character. Then we either ignore the change “Daily Planet, yellow boots, source of powers, progeny, etc.) or accept the changes (no killing, Boy Scout persona, flight, etc.).


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.

This gets really confusing since the creator changed the character most every month, so in this case we appeal to authorities in the field to tell us what we read. (ENB, Waid, etc.) but only those experts that aren’t on our no-fly list (Byrne, Snyder, etc.). In these cases the creator’s wishes aren’t sacrosanct , these authorities are.


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.

But but but but…hold on sometimes none of this applies because you don’t happen to care about the character. If you don’t care about the character, anything goes. And your consistent methodology doesn’t bother to define these characters.


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

Unless hold the phone! All bets are off if the creator, whose wishes are sacrosanct unless they aren’t, gets paid. Show Kurosawa the money, and the whole point is rendered moot.


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.

Yes, yes, I can definitely see where that is much more consistent than, I dunno, reading the books and defining the character based on what you read


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.

See more of the circular argument. You think Superman doesn't kill because you don't want him to kill. And you don't want him to kill because Superman doesn't kill.

You're just chasing your tail with this kind of debate framework.


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.

You leave an important modifier out of these assertions. Let me rephrase them..

"That is looking at the comics that I hand-pick and choose that stay within my self-defined comfort zone and the creators that I also hand-pick and choose. Those stories and creators that don't fall within my rose colored, self defined world view can eat shit."


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.

Chasing your tail again Kurosawa. "Superman is this way because that's what the creators wanted." Well it's what the creators who happened to make the character the way you wanted him want him.


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.

LOL. It would be akin to me suggesting laissez-faire economies are the correct economy because economists say so. Well yes, Austrian school economist do, but Keynesians would have a heart attack at the same ideas.


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.

Really, which ethics would that be. The ethics of the character who kills people, or the one who doesn't kill people? You're (sic) "Supermen" were both.


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.
Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple.

john lewis hawk
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 29714
Likes: 15 posts
Liked in: 237 posts
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Southern California
Title: not here


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

Postby john lewis hawk » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:30 am

THIS IS WHY WHITE PEOPLE SUCK

Scintillant-H likes this post.

The Shadow
User avatar
Motherfucker from Hell
 
Posts: 2524
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 2:34 am

.
Kurosawa wrote: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.

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.

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...

Kurosawa wrote: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.

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.

Scintillant-H likes this post.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck] and 33 guests

Advertisement