Oh, by 1969 all the great inventive comics were small press anyway - you know, underground stuff.
DC and Marvel were mainly "maturing" as product lines.
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
DC and Marvel were mainly "maturing" as product lines.
The Supergirl logo has been unveiled by David Krumholz. Unfortunately it’s the second photo on his instagram post, so you’ll need to go to it in or wait for someone more adept than me to embed it in the thread.
Pointless remark; if you--citing your assumed age range--read any comics past the 1960s, you were the recipient of the maturation fans wanted in superhero comics, which did not regress to the inanities of the early Silver Age, as the creatives and their readers did not want that by any stretch of the imagination.
It’s rather remarkable how often you are able to express with certainty what readers and audiences “want” (and how those wants always coincidentally align with your own preferences).
It’s also remarkable how those certainties are so often expressed in response to readers and audience members who clearly don’t agree with your tastes, thereby proving in real time that your claims of universal consensus on these matters are baseless.
And yet, so rarely correspond to what audiences respond to at the box office.
The "maturation" of superhero comics consisted primarily in Marvel's writers pitching their product at 12-14 year-old readers instead of kids in the single digits.
Considering this stuff used to sell in the hundreds of thousands and now we're down to them selling maybe 20,000 to 30,000 books monthly. Maybe the creatives aren't reading the room correctly.
Because the Marvel movies are generally silly and they've made billions.
I loved the silliness of the old Justice League International. I still consider it my favorite comic series, ever.
Comics don’t sell those kind of numbers because they’re not printed on newsprint anymore, are not under a dollar and not sold on spinner racks or in ever grocery store anymore. A standard issue is 4 dollars now. I quit when they were about 2.50. Also there’s competition in the form of social media, video games and manga which is killing it.
JLI was entertaining in the beginning and then quickly became stale. JLI (and comedy books)was also an anomaly, not the norm. All I remember from that run is Batman knocking out Gardner and Bwahhaha which became stale fast, for me at least.
“Silly” comics are Richy Rich, Popehat Superman juggling planets and CC Beck Captain Marvel all of which have their place.The trajectory of comics changed with the Fantastic Four and the introduction of hero infighting, angst and tragic heroes like The Thing, and later The Hulk and The X-Men. Like it or not, that was when the move away from 8 year olds began. Take it up with Stan and Jack because they had a different idea when it came to storytelling and why Marvel has dominated comics since then. Meanwhile, of the Big Two, “silly” is relegated to Deadpool and the humor is already stale with him.
Last edited:
I found that things like Frank Miller’s Batman burned me out quickly. I just have a low tolerance for dystopian stuff.
So, like you said, a mileage may vary type of situation.
Comics are aways evolving. Marvel's "grounded" character driven stuff supplanted DC more plot and gimmick approach. In turn, DC was the driver behind the gritty and adult books of the 80s and 90s with titles like The Dark Knight Returns, The Watchmen and what would become the core of Vertigo. Then we got the Image Age of style over substance. Often taking the wrong lesson from the gritty era. Oddly it was "grimdark" architects like Moore and Morrison who brought some Silver Age silliness back to comics.
Largely, yeah, but didn't DC hire Frank Miller to do for Batman what he'd already done for Daredevil back at Marvel? The influences go both ways.
Yes, DD came first. It's sort of a bridge between what Marvel was doing and what DC would do. Miller pushed things further in DKR. Moore, Gaiman and Morrison I think are the ones who really pushed the boundaries though. Their impact is still being felt and emulated today. (For better or worse)
Do you even read what you post? Your board history is one where you have and continue to do that often whenever you or some like-minded member digs up Snyder, his films or fans of his films, because you're incapable of getting over now older comic book adaptations, even here--in a thread supposedly about the forthcoming Gunn film, yet here you are. You constantly beat that worn drum, trying to tell the world what the definitive Superman and Supergirl are (because Snyder lives rent free in your skull) and expect that to be taken as truth. Try to think about it.
Back to the point: the industry responded to the desires of readers, hence the reason 1960s superhero comic book readers' ages moved up to college age (hence the college tours featuring Lee and numerous other comic book creators, while 60s mainstream media increasingly paid attention to the changing superhero genre...whoops), and they most certainly let it be known that they preferred the more mature superhero, as opposed to the worst of the Golden and early Silver Age. The comic book superhero business only grew with that desire, with creators wanting it as much as readers. That is a matter of history whether you like it or not.
Indeed.
Well observed, and this trend also included (among many characters and plotting directions) the first "misfit" superhero team (The Doom Patrol), a Captain America restored, instantly suffering from survivor's guilt, and questioning his place as a living embodiment of the U.S. flag and its sold ideologies in a not-so-patriotic America (justifiably so) of the 1960s, and on and on. That was not kiddie content, nor was it written for them. Times and tastes were changing, both from the reader perspective and those who created the content. Its never turned back to the Silver Age for good reason.
Again, well put. Its not a shock that our historical references will be dodged or ignored in favor of the usual false narratives about the industry anyone alive from the 60s-forward was exposed to, especially where the superhero comic book is concerned.
Last edited:
The audience says otherwise. The most recent one pulled down 1.4 billion against a 200 million dollar budget.
Nolan's Batman movies couldn’t do that. Neither could Snyder.
I'm not big on dystopian stuff either. I dropped Batman after Crisis because of the turgid "War Journal entry...my ceaseless war on crime continues" shit over and over and over. I'm not sure what you think I mean when I say I enjoy "serious" comics, but "serious" to me is about the same level of "serious" as "Balance of Terror" or "Best of Both Worlds".
Which is about the level of "serious" books like X-Men, Fantastic Four, Legion of Super Heroes and New Teen Titans were back when I was reading them in the early to mid 80's. Nothing too "silly" (not a comedy book like Ambush Bug) but nothing "grim and gritty" like the Punisher either. I can't speak for modern comics because I don't read them. I would, however, kill for an omnibus or set of trade paperbacks that collected C.C. Beck's Captain Marvel because sometimes I'd just like to read a light hearted, fun story.
I had a low tolerance for the Marvel films because everyone was a quipster which took away something that was initially unique to Spider-Man and made it hard for me to feel like there was any real threat being faced by the heroes. YMMV of course.
Like too many people in this thread, I made a statement without clarifying that it was "in my opinion". For myself, I find the humor in the Deadpool movies to be of diminishing returns. The most recent did make a billion dollars.....for various reasons, most notable it had Hugh Jackman's Wolverine in it, it brought Deadpool into the MCU, had some nostalgia characters from the Fox films and a lot of "tee hee, Disney doesn't want us to do (fill in the blank joke)" etc. The first Deadpool movie clocked in around 782 million while the second came out at 786 million. Take the aforementioned elements out and it probably would've shown a modest increase like two did over one, but nothing more.
Last edited:
Agreed; some MCU films toned that down, and they were usually the superior entries, or at least more tolerable.
Probably.
Because it makes money.
Superheroes have always been quippy, going back to the '30s. It was one of Batman and Robin's trademarks in the Golden and Silver Ages, their nonstop banter and puns as they fought bad guys. Heck, the whole reason Spider-Man was such a wisecracker was because he was based on the ubiquitous wisecracking boy sidekicks whose templates were Robin and Bucky; the idea was to take that standard character type and make him the hero rather than the sidekick.
There’s one less headache for the new studio regime https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...ry-beats-lawsuit-superman-rights-1236200839/?
Similar threads
