Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DC Comics Rebirth

1356

Comments

  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    The only significant attempt at diversity DC has been doing over the past five years has been in genre. But for all the genres they tried, the tone of each book was practically indiscernable from the next. In other words, they were diverse on the outside, but the same-old, same-old on the inside.

    And diversity amongst their creators is even less significant. I think they have three female writers now, but two of them are actually co-writers with male partners. They have David Walker writing for them now, a recent addition, but I don't know of any other black writers working for them. I don't keep up very closely with DC these days, so I may be overlooking someone, but I don't think I am.

    Harley Quinn being bisexual isn't diversity—it's titillation for fanboys. She's not a role-model, she's an antihero at best, who has been determined to be mentally insane (or has DC written that out of her origin?). Catwoman isn't much better, though at least she isn't crazy.

    DC's attempts at diversity have, for the most part, been tone deaf. Their flagship character for gender diversity is a lesbian who has only been written by males (though I will grant that at least one of those males is bisexual, and can relate in some part at least). And when J.H. Williams tried to write a meaningful story with her, a human story rather than an action story in having Batwoman marry another woman, he got shut down.

    Then you have Midnighter, an interesting character who is gay, and who actually had his own title, but who is basically an alternate-universe Batman, and will never be able to surpass the original.

    The only character I can think of who is both sexually diverse and racially diverse is Renee Montoya and she has only recently been brought into the New 52. For the most part in the New 52, a character can only be either non-straight or non-white, but not both.

    Is there any wonder there are people calling for more/better diverse characters?

    I'm not saying DC has to turn Superman gay, Batman black, and Wonder Woman lesbian, but they at least need to make diverse characters who are strong enough (both in concept and in execution) to become part of DC’s core of characters. And that is an uphill battle, because older fans (I’m talking ten years or more) only seem to want the characters they grew up with, presented in the exact way they originally read them, and older fans still constitute the majority of DC’s audience.

    It's a double-edged sword, because while the older audience still pays the bills, that audience is ever-shrinking. DC needs new readers, but the new readers are a more fractured group who all have different things they are looking for, and DC isn't going to be able to please everyone.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    @nweathington how would you compare DC's efforts with that of Marvels?

    I do not read a lot of Marvel but the two books that I follow that could fall into the "diversity" category - Thor and Ms. Marvel are both great books. Black Widow #1 was fantastic as well. Not sure if just having a female lead character is considered diverse though.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110

    @nweathington how would you compare DC's efforts with that of Marvels?

    I do not read a lot of Marvel but the two books that I follow that could fall into the "diversity" category - Thor and Ms. Marvel are both great books. Black Widow #1 was fantastic as well. Not sure if just having a female lead character is considered diverse though.

    To put it simply, Marvel is kicking DC’s ass.

    They have room for improvement, but they have done it the right way for the most part. Getting Ta-Nehisi Coates to write Black Panther being a prime example. And, yes, female lead characters are part of diversity—especially when they are being written by women, as Hellcat, Ms. Marvel, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and Mockingbird are.

    But, like DC, Marvel has its share of older readers who are turned off by much of the new line. But I think Marvel has found a much better balance between providing for older fans while searching for new fans.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    Do you think Marvel's domination of market and dollar share allows them to publish more diverse titles? As apposed to DC who keeps falling behind Marvel each month and who might feel the need to "play it safe" with what they publish?
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820
    edited March 2016
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Do you think Marvel's domination of market and dollar share allows them to publish more diverse titles? As apposed to DC who keeps falling behind Marvel each month and who might feel the need to "play it safe" with what they publish?

    Given how well, for example, Ms. Marvel has been selling, especially in collected edition, I hope for DC's sake they realize that "playing it safe" (and I know you were putting that phrase in quotes, too, so it is not your words for it) may not be as "safe" as it used to be?

    In 2015, only 2 DC books beat the first volume of Ms. Marvel on the collected edition ("Graphic Novel") charts-- a new edition of the nearly 30 year old Batman The Killing Joke, and the first volume of Batman Court of Owls. Ms. Marvel volume 1 was #13 in the top 500 of 2015 (And, for what it is worth, volume 2 of Ms. Marvel was #31 on the Top 500, beating out a lot of other DC and Marvel titles). Ms. Marvel has also charted very highly and consistently in what charts Comixology makes available.

    I feel like, when Ms. Marvel was being announced, people at the time would not have called it a "safe bet". But maybe the safest bet is to make sure that you are keeping an existing readership happy, and finding new readers at the same time. And when you have a line as big as the Big 2 have, that doesn't have to be an either/or.

    So I have to agree with @nweathington that in the last few years, Marvel has been quantitatively better at that, at least to judge by sales.

    But, in a few weeks and months we'll know more about what DC is doing, so, more to come.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    edited March 2016
    Yes, Ms. Marvel has been a pleasant surprise. I just wonder if Marvel would have taken the chance on it if they were in DC's current spot? I wonder if DC might feel as though they need to hang on to what shrinking slice of the market they have by publishing something closer to what their readership wants..a readership that "only seem to want the characters they grew up with, presented in the exact way they originally read them."

    Meanwhile Marvel can afford to put out titles like Ms. Marvel, Hellcat, Squirrel Girl, Moon Girl and Devil Dinasaur, etc..some will be hits while most will sell lower down the sales charts. Not to worry though as they still dominate overall sales.

    I really am not defending DC or trying to make excuses for them. I'm just honestly wondering if Marvel does have an advantage and if they feel they can take more of a possible risk by publishing books that may or may not take off with their readers.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820
    edited March 2016
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Yes, Ms. Marvel has been a pleasant surprise. I just wonder if Marvel would have taken the chance on it if they were in DC's current spot? I wonder if DC might feel as though they need to hang on to what shrinking slice of the market they have by publishing something closer to what their readership wants..a readership that "only seem to want the characters they grew up with, presented in the exact way they originally read them."

    Meanwhile Marvel can afford to put out titles like Ms. Marvel, Hellcat, Squirrel Girl, Moon Girl and Devil Dinasaur, etc..some will be hits while most will sell lower down the sales charts. Not to worry though as they still dominate overall sales.

    I really am not defending DC or trying to make excuses for them. I'm just honestly wondering if Marvel does have an advantage and if they feel they can take more of a possible risk by publishing books that may or may not take off with their readers.

    I honestly don't know either. I mean, in both cases, comics publishing is just a small slice of the overall pie at these giant character-based entertainment companies. Selling less comic books quarter to quarter would not break the bank at either of these entities. So, under those conditions, why not take a risk? Especially when you've got WB's pockets? That risk might just find them their next merchandising darling like Harley Quinn.

    But if their plan is to double-down on what their current, guys-my-age demographic indicates it wants, well, that is a plan that gets shorter and shorter term with each year, you know what I mean?
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    Here is the DC sales # for Feb for books that could in some way be thought of as diverse in content (lead female, minority character)

    Until you get to the Harley Quinn books, none of these numbers are that great. Outside of Harley, DC offerings of books with female leads seem not to be generating much enthusiasm. Minority lead characters are an endangered species. Stay strong Cyborg.

    Of course trades and digital sales numbers are not included.

    Catwoman #49 - 13,659
    Black Canary #8 - 14,461
    Legend of Wonder Woman #2 -16,816
    Cyborg #8 - 18,092
    Starfire #9 - 22,918
    Poison Ivy #2 - 23,452
    Batgirl #48 - 25,652
    Superman/Woman #26 - 32,108
    Batman Arkaham Knight Batgirl Harley Quinn #1 - 33,061
    Wonder Woman #49 - 35,398
    Harley's Little Black Book #2 - 45,030
    Harley Quinn #25 - 51,495
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820
    edited March 2016

    Here is the DC sales # for Feb for books that could in some way be thought of as diverse in content (lead female, minority character)

    Until you get to the Harley Quinn books, none of these numbers are that great. Outside of Harley, DC offerings of books with female leads seem not to be generating much enthusiasm. Minority lead characters are an endangered species. Stay strong Cyborg.

    Of course trades and digital sales numbers are not included.

    Catwoman #49 - 13,659
    Black Canary #8 - 14,461
    Legend of Wonder Woman #2 -16,816
    Cyborg #8 - 18,092
    Starfire #9 - 22,918
    Poison Ivy #2 - 23,452
    Batgirl #48 - 25,652
    Superman/Woman #26 - 32,108
    Batman Arkaham Knight Batgirl Harley Quinn #1 - 33,061
    Wonder Woman #49 - 35,398
    Harley's Little Black Book #2 - 45,030
    Harley Quinn #25 - 51,495

    And to be clear, I am not suggesting that having wider representation in who leads a book = instant sales boost. The book also has to be good. And DC seems to be struggling to connect with readers and move units overall, even with a lot of their tried and true characters, so there are larger problems at stake.

    But I do believe that not always going with the "safe bets" can be a way to grow your audience over time, and find younger audiences. But they are likely not going to be the periodical paper comic readers. So those numbers don't tell their story. Largely they will be the book and digital buyers, I suspect. But that is the future of comics content anyway, so if I were DC or Marvel, that would be the direction I would want my readership to be heading anyway.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    There's more to diversity than female led books. And there's also a difference between introducing a gay character and changing a pre-existing character's sexuality. It's usually considered a bit disrespectful to the readers to do the latter. Many people who read comics happen to like their traditional characters. Sadly, new gay characters, and truthfully most reworking of existing characters into gay characters, don't normally burn up the sales charts. I think, based on those DC sales figures @CaptShazam shared, that DC is making mostly pragmatic, business decisions and I can't exactly fault them for that. So where is the line drawn? Do they acquiesce to the loud minority who demand more diversity, or do they continue to "play it safe" and take baby steps into more diversity while continuing to cater to their core audience?
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Do you think Marvel's domination of market and dollar share allows them to publish more diverse titles? As apposed to DC who keeps falling behind Marvel each month and who might feel the need to "play it safe" with what they publish?

    I think there may be something to that, but I really don't think diversity (other than genre diversity) was on editorial’s mind at all when planning New 52, and that it wasn’t until a couple of years into it that they felt public pressure to address it. The big problem for them was that New 52 was all about tight continuity control and a very specific tone that carried through practically every book, regardless of genre or the characters involved. I think DC believed that the relaunch would generate the initial sales boost, and that tight continuity and tone would keep people around. They were right on part one, not so much on part two.

    Their big push to bring in diversity was centered around Batgirl, and they had to stretch the continuity to make that happen, and they also established a different tone with that book. And I think it worked. They got in a lot of new readers on that book, but readers who, for the most part, didn't touch their other books (except Gotham Academy).
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    edited March 2016
    David_D said:

    Given how well, for example, Ms. Marvel has been selling, especially in collected edition, I hope for DC's sake they realize that "playing it safe" (and I know you were putting that phrase in quotes, too, so it is not your words for it) may not be as "safe" as it used to be?

    Case in point, the editor for Black Panther said on Twitter that the initial orders for Black Panther have already exceeded 300,000 copies. That’s 300 with a K, people.

    I think this was possible because 1) Black Panther is a long established character; 2) Marvel has made the effort over the past several years to show Black Panther as a central player in the Marvel Universe (see Illuminati); and 3) Marvel went out and got an exciting, critically acclaimed, award-winning young black author to write this book.

    I emphasize “over the past several years” to make the point that for the Big Two, making successful diverse characters—generally speaking—isn't an overnight process. The fact that Marvel was able to be as successful as it was with Ms. Marvel is the exception that proves the rule, I think. Comics, like many things these days, ultimately succeed through word of mouth, and sometimes that takes time, especially to reach people who aren't necessarily already reading comics regularly.
    David_D said:

    So I have to agree with @nweathington that in the last few years, Marvel has been quantitatively better at that, at least to judge by sales.

    And I would add that you shouldn't be looking at this solely in terms of current sales. With the current success of the movies and TV shows based on their characters, Marvel and DC are at a point where they are establishing what their public perception will be for years to come. If you are already being perceived as being out of touch with the new generation of readers, where will you be ten years from now when that generation become the big spenders? Marvel and DC have to start shaping the image they want to project ten years from now, today, because what the kids see today is what they will remember when they get older.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    Yes, Ms. Marvel has been a pleasant surprise. I just wonder if Marvel would have taken the chance on it if they were in DC's current spot? I wonder if DC might feel as though they need to hang on to what shrinking slice of the market they have by publishing something closer to what their readership wants..a readership that "only seem to want the characters they grew up with, presented in the exact way they originally read them."

    Meanwhile Marvel can afford to put out titles like Ms. Marvel, Hellcat, Squirrel Girl, Moon Girl and Devil Dinasaur, etc..some will be hits while most will sell lower down the sales charts. Not to worry though as they still dominate overall sales.

    I really am not defending DC or trying to make excuses for them. I'm just honestly wondering if Marvel does have an advantage and if they feel they can take more of a possible risk by publishing books that may or may not take off with their readers.

    I see it as a difference in being owned by Disney rather than by Warner Bros. Disney knows better than anyone what it takes to reach an audience, particularly a young audience, and I think they are philosophically inclined to let Marvel proceed in the manner they are—within limits, of course. In other words, if the situations were reversed, I think Disney would allow Marvel a longer leash than Warner currently has on DC. I could certainly be wrong about that, but that's the vibe I get.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820
    edited March 2016

    David_D said:

    Given how well, for example, Ms. Marvel has been selling, especially in collected edition, I hope for DC's sake they realize that "playing it safe" (and I know you were putting that phrase in quotes, too, so it is not your words for it) may not be as "safe" as it used to be?

    Case in point, the editor for Black Panther said on Twitter that the initial orders for Black Panther have already exceeded 300,000 copies. That’s 300 with a K, people.

    I think this was possible because 1) Black Panther is a long established character; 2) Marvel has made the effort over the past several years to show Black Panther as a central player in the Marvel Universe (see Illuminati); and 3) Marvel went out and got an exciting, critically acclaimed, award-winning young black author to write this book.

    I emphasize “over the past several years” to make the point that for the Big Two, making successful diverse characters—generally speaking—isn't an overnight process. The fact that Marvel was able to be as successful as it was with Ms. Marvel is the exception that proves the rule, I think. Comics, like many things these days, ultimately succeed through word of mouth, and sometimes that takes time, especially to reach people who aren't necessarily already reading comics regularly.
    David_D said:

    So I have to agree with @nweathington that in the last few years, Marvel has been quantitatively better at that, at least to judge by sales.

    And I would add that you shouldn't be looking at this solely in terms of current sales. With the current success of the movies and TV shows based on their characters, Marvel and DC are at a point where they are establishing what their public perception will be for years to come. If you are already being perceived as being out of touch with the new generation of readers, where will you be ten years from now when that generation become the big spenders? Marvel and DC have to start shaping the image they want to project ten years from now, today, because what the kids see today is what the will remember when they get older.

    David_D said:

    Given how well, for example, Ms. Marvel has been selling, especially in collected edition, I hope for DC's sake they realize that "playing it safe" (and I know you were putting that phrase in quotes, too, so it is not your words for it) may not be as "safe" as it used to be?

    Case in point, the editor for Black Panther said on Twitter that the initial orders for Black Panther have already exceeded 300,000 copies. That’s 300 with a K, people.

    I think this was possible because 1) Black Panther is a long established character; 2) Marvel has made the effort over the past several years to show Black Panther as a central player in the Marvel Universe (see Illuminati); and 3) Marvel went out and got an exciting, critically acclaimed, award-winning young black author to write this book.

    I emphasize “over the past several years” to make the point that for the Big Two, making successful diverse characters—generally speaking—isn't an overnight process. The fact that Marvel was able to be as successful as it was with Ms. Marvel is the exception that proves the rule, I think. Comics, like many things these days, ultimately succeed through word of mouth, and sometimes that takes time, especially to reach people who aren't necessarily already reading comics regularly.
    David_D said:

    So I have to agree with @nweathington that in the last few years, Marvel has been quantitatively better at that, at least to judge by sales.

    And I would add that you shouldn't be looking at this solely in terms of current sales. With the current success of the movies and TV shows based on their characters, Marvel and DC are at a point where they are establishing what their public perception will be for years to come. If you are already being perceived as being out of touch with the new generation of readers, where will you be ten years from now when that generation become the big spenders? Marvel and DC have to start shaping the image they want to project ten years from now, today, because what the kids see today is what the will remember when they get older.
    Agreed. And I think that connects with what I was saying before that- in the overall picture of these companies as character-centered entertainment companies- they've got the money to try things and take risks when it comes to things like their publishing division, as they are playing a much longer, and bigger, game than the Diamond direct market for monthly floppies. For a long time now the big 2 have not been in the business of selling paper. They are building and monetizing brands. And, every once in awhile, even launching new ones.

    Edit- And, to be clear, I am not saying that all readers will or should be pleased by this. Individual readers are going to want what they want, and I am not telling anyone they should like different things than what they do.

    Rather, to the business conversation of where the risks are, and what the safe bets might be, I am hard pressed to think of any for profit business that does not seek growth. And that is what we are talking about. From the business perspective, it isn't about pleasing a vocal minority that are already into comics. It is about broadening the size and demographics of who is even buying your comics in the first place. Trying to make a reader like me keep growing how many comics I buy is a bad plan for growth. Growing the population of who buys your comics (and, more importantly, might participate in even more profitable licensing of those brands) is a good plan for growth.

    And I think there is a real chance that growth can be additive, rather than some kind of binary either/or. We have certainly seen that the Big 2 are comfortable with having large lines. There is no reason why they can't please a loyal 30+ year reader and a new teenage reader at the same time. Sometimes with the same book, and sometimes by selling 2 different books to 2 different readers.

    TLDR: This is not a politics in the part of the Big 2. It is business.

  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited March 2016

    To get to

    David_D said:

    Given how well, for example, Ms. Marvel has been selling, especially in collected edition, I hope for DC's sake they realize that "playing it safe" (and I know you were putting that phrase in quotes, too, so it is not your words for it) may not be as "safe" as it used to be?

    Case in point, the editor for Black Panther said on Twitter that the initial orders for Black Panther have already exceeded 300,000 copies. That’s 300 with a K, people.

    I think this was possible because 1) Black Panther is a long established character; 2) Marvel has made the effort over the past several years to show Black Panther as a central player in the Marvel Universe (see Illuminati); and 3) Marvel went out and got an exciting, critically acclaimed, award-winning young black author to write this book.

    I emphasize “over the past several years” to make the point that for the Big Two, making successful diverse characters—generally speaking—isn't an overnight process. The fact that Marvel was able to be as successful as it was with Ms. Marvel is the exception that proves the rule, I think. Comics, like many things these days, ultimately succeed through word of mouth, and sometimes that takes time, especially to reach people who aren't necessarily already reading comics regularly.
    David_D said:

    So I have to agree with @nweathington that in the last few years, Marvel has been quantitatively better at that, at least to judge by sales.

    And I would add that you shouldn't be looking at this solely in terms of current sales. With the current success of the movies and TV shows based on their characters, Marvel and DC are at a point where they are establishing what their public perception will be for years to come. If you are already being perceived as being out of touch with the new generation of readers, where will you be ten years from now when that generation become the big spenders? Marvel and DC have to start shaping the image they want to project ten years from now, today, because what the kids see today is what they will remember when they get older.
    @nweathington
    I think your idea is how it should be and maybe it is how Disney thinks or at least they are closer to it than WB. This however seems to go against the grain of the usual thinking of a large publicly traded company and in particular large comic book publishers.

    Publishers go all in for the big single month (often to their long term detriment) with gimmick months and #1 issues to pop big sales numbers and give the corporate suits a good quarter at the shareholders meeting.

    To get to the idea of them thinking about shaping their future image and such, it would require first a reshaping of their entire business mindset all the way up the corporate ladder. Even if they started to think more long term, one or two bad quarters would cause panic and change everything.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110

    @nweathington
    I think your idea is how it should be and maybe it is how Disney thinks or at least they are closer to it than WB. This however seems to go against the grain of the usual thinking of a large publicly traded company and in particular large comic book publishers.

    Publishers go all in for the big single month (often to their long term detriment) with gimmick months and #1 issues to pop big sales numbers and give the corporate suits a good quarter at the shareholders meeting.

    To get to the idea of them thinking about shaping their future image and such, it would require first a reshaping of their entire business mindset all the way up the corporate ladder. Even if they started to think more long term, one or two bad quarters would cause panic and change everything.

    Ten years ago I would have agreed with you. Maybe even five years ago. But the industry is in the biggest period of flux in its history—bigger than the anti-comics movement of the ’50s, bigger than the advent of the direct market system—and it has forced publishers to rethink their usual ways of doing things. Secret Wars was a big success, but even in the midst of Secret Wars Marvel did miniseries like Battleworld: Runaways to help set the path for the future. As David said, they can do both. It's not an either/or situation.

    In regards to the corporate ladder, when stockholders buy in on Marvel, they're not buying in on a publisher per se, they’re buying in on Marvel’s intellectual property. And, yes, the publishing house still needs to show a profit, but as long as licensing is riding high, the publishing end can withstand a couple of bad quarters. I'm sure there is a limit, and I don't know where that limit is, but comics are a relatively cheap way to keep an IP in the public eye.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited March 2016
    I would say with Marvel you are correct. DC is not operating the same way as Marvel though. DC seems to still be using the same model as it was 5 to 10 years ago. DC-You kind of proves it. It came out flat. DC marketshare saw a drop for a few months. Rebirth gets announced when DC-You books are on issues #7 or 8.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    edited March 2016

    I would say with Marvel you are correct. DC is not operating the same way as Marvel though. DC seems to still be using the same model as it was 5 to 10 years ago. DC-You kind of proves it. It came out flat. DC marketshare saw a drop for a few months. Rebirth gets announced when DC-You books are on issues #7 or 8.

    Fair point. DC definitely seems to be very reactionary. But it may simply be because, unlike at Marvel, the publishing house has hit the parent company’s limit. I do think DC has been trying to change its model, they just haven't been nearly as successful at it for all the reasons I've talked about in earlier posts.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    The announcement will indeed be at WonderCon on Saturday. They'll be live broadcasting it on the DC YouTube channel.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    I was reading the list of titles again and I have to wonder..why Deathstroke? I like the character well enough but why not try a different villain? It's not like the numbers were so good that trying out a Joker book, for example, wouldn't be worth it. They must really believe in the character.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    I was reading the list of titles again and I have to wonder..why Deathstroke? I like the character well enough but why not try a different villain? It's not like the numbers were so good that trying out a Joker book, for example, wouldn't be worth it. They must really believe in the character.

    It's most likely because "Slade Wilson" is probably making an appearance in the movie Suicide Squad August 5th, and DC is betting he's a hit.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967



    And when you get down to it, DC and Marvel don't decide which creators become stars—the fans do. Publishers aren't in the business of making stars anyway, but of making entertainment people want to buy. If they can do that, the fans will take care of the rest.

    They can certainly publicize them. But you're right, they can't promote what they don't have.
    Looks like they are trying to bring in some new blood.
    In an effort to find new and aspiring comic book talent, DC Entertainment has launched Talent Development Workshops for both writers and artists, led by bestselling and acclaimed comic talent including Jim Lee, Geoff Johns, Scott Snyder, Klaus Janson and Andy Kubert.
    http://www.newsarama.com/28550-dc-launches-new-talent-development-workshops-for-aspiring-writers-artists.html
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820
    Creative teams on almost all the books announced.

    I'm glad Snyder is still on a Batman book, and will have some great artists to work with on it.

    Rucka and Scott back on Wonder Woman definitely stands out in the lineup. (Personally I would rather be reading them on their own Black Magick book, but I would imagine this is good news for a lot of WW fans).

    I have been enjoying Doyle, Tynion IV, and Rossomo on John Constantine Hellblazer, and wouldn't have minded them being given room to continue. But I am also excited that Simon Oliver is finally getting on a Hellblazer book (even if it is a DCU one rather than a proper Vertigo one). He had done a Hellblazer tie-in mini back in the day, and had been announced as the incoming writer to follow, I think it was, Mike Carey, but then some shake-up let to Peter Milligan getting the gig instead, and being the one to take the original Hellblazer title to its finish. So I'm excited to see what Oliver will do, and excited that it is Moritat as well.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited March 2016
    When is DC announcing the actual June solicitations?
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    Is releasing the info about the relaunch of your entire product line on a Saturday at a convention on what many (but not all) consider a holiday weekend the best way for a company to do business?
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,820

    Is releasing the info about the relaunch of your entire product line on a Saturday at a convention on what many (but not all) consider a holiday weekend the best way for a company to do business?

    For what it is worth, it was trending on FB, so there is some chatter. And it is a weekend where the DC Trinity is ruling the box office (and the entertainment news cycle). So, there's that.
  • PantsPants Posts: 556
    David_D said:

    Is releasing the info about the relaunch of your entire product line on a Saturday at a convention on what many (but not all) consider a holiday weekend the best way for a company to do business?

    For what it is worth, it was trending on FB, so there is some chatter. And it is a weekend where the DC Trinity is ruling the box office (and the entertainment news cycle). So, there's that.
    Plus with WonderCon being in LA and the DC offices not too far away it seems to me the easiest way to get Didio, Lee, and Johns to all appear together for the announcement.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,110
    I didn't think it was possible, but it unless something else gets announced I can get excited about, I'll be buying even fewer DC titles. The writers I like got paired with artists I don't, and no artists outside of maybe All-Star Batman will have me buying a title based mainly on the art. Good thing I already have too many books I do want to read.
  • TorchsongTorchsong Posts: 2,743
    I tend to pick up anything Greg Rucka writes...which has become more difficult now that the restraining order is in effect. So I'll definitely be checking out Wonder Woman. A new Supergirl title will always get a buy-in from me.

    As always with DC I'm more interested in what they're planning story-wise. I like the idea of a Damien-run Titans series, particularly if nobody else really wants him leading the team. :) And the company isn't completely nuts - they kept the Harley team together so I'll keep buying that one.
Sign In or Register to comment.