In this case, I just think that he is trying to avoid the formula of an "A" team and a "B" team--but that formula serves a purpose in LSH because the number of characters is huge.
DC Comics Ongoing Discussion
- Thread starter theenglish
- Start date
In this case, I just think that he is trying to avoid the formula of an "A" team and a "B" team--but that formula serves a purpose in LSH because the number of characters is huge.
It comes across as "oooh, here's an idea...oh wait here's another one!!!"
I agree with that--there is a lot of interesting stuff that is just never explored and, so far, the series lacks depth.
Have you actually looked at the pages? Superman asks them point-blank if they mean Shazam, and they insist on the name Shazadam. Not "It was Adam something".
The biggest thing we've seen in regards to the movie was the presentation at DC Fandome. There's not trailer or anything, as again, they're not even shooting yet. Movie titles have been changed later in the game than this.
And the name actually makes sense in terms of movie marketing (but only in movie marketing, really). General audiences now know about Shazam, but Black Adam is new to them, so rebranding the movie as Shazadam would establish a connection right away.
Yes, and there are persons in the book insisting on the name "Shazadam", so he's partially right at least. There's no debate to be had on this. The debate now is if he was only partially right, or if he was right full-stop.
Yes, he is prone to sensationalism, which, let's face it, are most online journalists. But in this instance, considering the pages and the context of "Shazadam" in that scene, I don't see any other scenario that makes sense (aside from very, very bad writing DC would know better than to allow in the one-shot set up to be the #1 seller of the month).
Look, it's very obvious that you don't like Johnston, which I can't fault you for, he's certainly a character. But the way you're grasping at straws just to deny him credit comes off as very petty.
We still don't know the full context of what was going on in the pages around those pages. For all we know, the first panel on the page after the second one he shared could be someone else explaining that his name is Black Adam.
And for me, it's not so much wanting wanting Johnson to be wrong, it's wanting all of the people who are saying they aren't changing his name to be right.
And for me, it's not so much wanting wanting Johnson to be wrong, it's wanting all of the people who are saying they aren't changing his name to be right.
That bill on the front of Static's hood is weird. I understand they're wanting to keep the basic look of baseball cap he wore in the early comics, but that just looks weird. They should have just given him another baseball cap.On the Milestone front, here are the new designs for Satic and the villain Hotstreak:
It'd horribly clunky.
Nah, I just don't like his style of journalism. We'd probably get along fine as people.
I'm not denying him credit for his "scoop". I'm just saying I don't like how he frames it. Not sure what "straws" I'm grasping at.
While I can understand that motivation, the only one who has produced any evidence is Johnston. All the nay-sayers have is a non-denial they pretend is a real denial. And Johnston's source claims this is the only referrence to Adam in the whole issue, the issue establishing the new status quo for the DCU and promoting the upcoming books. Why would they put a fake name in the only few panels in said book? Also, if I haven't missed anything, IGN, CBR and the others who ran the Bendis quote as denial still haven't reported on the leaked pages, and that silence is telling.
Now, I'm not saying the name will stick. Not even Johnston is claiming that. And judging by how universally the name "Shazadam" has been mocked online, to the point where DC's PR guy felt it necessary to mock the story himself in order to pretend it was false.
Yes, but then people in power have not always shown the best judgment, have they? And there's been a power shift recently at Warner Media. It's easy enough to imagine a scenario where the people involved in the movie got a note from an AT&T suit to use the title "Shazadam", the movie people knew it was shit, but couldn't just say so to their boss, called the comics people, told them to try the name out just so they could then show the backlash to the AT&T suit and convince them to go back to Black Adam. True, only a hypothesis, but it does make sense.
Hm, ...
Just to clarify, IGN didn't just print Bendis's denial, they also said they checked with their own sources at DC who told them it wasn't true. IGN's a fairly big site in the online entertainment news community, so I don't find it hard to believe they have contacts in the know at DC.
And Rich Johnston is now saying that there is a group of interested people with money outside of Warners who are looking to buy DC Comics. According to him, they would take control of just the comics, and leave all of the adaptations to Warner.
Not sure what to make of this one, I know things haven't been great with DC, but I'm not sure if Warner is really going to want to have to go through a third party when it comes to all of their DC stuff.
And Rich Johnston is now saying that there is a group of interested people with money outside of Warners who are looking to buy DC Comics. According to him, they would take control of just the comics, and leave all of the adaptations to Warner.
Not sure what to make of this one, I know things haven't been great with DC, but I'm not sure if Warner is really going to want to have to go through a third party when it comes to all of their DC stuff.
They most likely have. It was notable, though, that they didn't have anybody specific on record with a quote. There was no spokesperson quoted "This is a misunderstanding" or "We won't be using Shazadam as a replacement name for Black Adam". Granted, Johnston's source for the pages is also unnamed, and a retailer at that, but then, this person would have a lot more to lose for leaking those pages than a DC official correctly debunking a false report.
There are several possibilites why IGN would do a false debunking. One, an honest mistake, they asked their source "Hey, is DC changing Black Adam's name?" and the source giving an answer amounting to "Not that I know of, and I can't really see us doing that". Another one, which I've hypothesised before, is DC specifically asking IGN to take that Bendis quote and use it as a denial, as well as some claims of sources at DC giving unquotable denial to support it, as a favor to DC. IGN would be motivated to do this favor in order to keep access to their sources at DC, for interviews, exclusive previews, being first to get new announcements, etc.. This all is not unheard of in journalism in general, let alone entertainment journalism.
See, this is something that's most likely blown out of proportion. There is apparently a publishing deal with Random House for some reprint material for the graphic novel market. That aside, there are surely probably several outside entities interested in buying the licences to either publish comics from the DC archives (something that's been done in Europe for the newsstand market already) or do new comics with the DC characters. So, are there rich DC fans offering to buy the comics publishing part of DC with Warner keeping all the other rights? Sure, why not? Are they offering enough for AT&T/Warner to seriously consider this offer? Eh, probably not.
Over the past year, the comics part of DC has actually gained some ground in profitability. Costs are down, and sales are up. There's somebody in the comment section of the linked BC article claiming to be a retailer giving anecdotal evidence that DC has been outselling Marvel in 2020 in his store. If that was the case not just in his store, but in general, this would be a first in a very long time that DC pushed Marvel from the #1 spot of comics publishers.
So, DC Comics is still making a profit, and the margin is actually rising. It would be weird timing for AT&T to sell the publishing part of the company under these circumstances.
Of the two possibilities, I would like the think the first is more likely, but I know that things like the second happen a lot more than non-journalists realize.
Yeah, that is probably a pretty good possibility.
Wasn't another company going to be doing some small Archie style digest comics with Marvel's characters at some point?
I didn't realize their stuff had been picking up that much.
Yes, Archie Comics themselves, and they actually published quite a few of them. I have them all, as I really like the smaller pocket digest format (perfect for reading on the toilet). Each volume was dedicated to a certain hero or team, and they'd be a mixture of older comics from the 60s-80s and newer all-ages material. I was actually sad when they discontinued the series, and I'd really love it if Archie picked up a licence to do a DC equivalent series.
Johnston published a follow-up clarifying that this is more serious than the usual shot-in-the-dark offers, considering the names involved. He won't reveal these names (probably for legal reasons), but considering the amount of money involved in this, it would have to be a group of really big names. Rich got public confirmation on this whole story by industry greats Rob Liefeld, and Jimmy Palmiotti, as well as Bad Idea publisher Dinesh Shamdasani.
However, he also points out that the publishing rights value is estimated at $ 300 million, and the offer would have to be considerably above that to make Warner Media actually consider this (Rich talks of around half a billion dollars). So, while there appears to be some chance for this to actually happen, I think it's still more likely that nothing will come of this. In any event, I'm not sure a lot would change for us readers even if this went through.
Yeah, that does make this look pretty likely. There must be some Mariana Trench deep pockets involved involved if we are talking that kind of money, and it's an actual possibility. Could it be people already involved in the comics or book industry, or would it more likely be independent Wall Street types with a few extra millions they have nothing better to do with?
DC Announces Superman '78 Digital First Series
The fact Robert Venditti is writing Superman '78 makes me very happy. He did a fantastic job delivering a very classic version of Superman in the "Man of Tomorrow" series (the first few installments of which were published in the 100-page Superman giants before going all-digital). They were great little standalone stories focusing on Clark and his core supporting cast, with lots of humor and charm. I don't do digital, but I'll be first in line to grab the Superman '78 trade in November.
(And oh yeah, there's apparently some Batman thing, too, if anybody cares.
)
The fact Robert Venditti is writing Superman '78 makes me very happy. He did a fantastic job delivering a very classic version of Superman in the "Man of Tomorrow" series (the first few installments of which were published in the 100-page Superman giants before going all-digital). They were great little standalone stories focusing on Clark and his core supporting cast, with lots of humor and charm. I don't do digital, but I'll be first in line to grab the Superman '78 trade in November.
(And oh yeah, there's apparently some Batman thing, too, if anybody cares.
)
I don't think it's anybody involved with the comics or book industry, as nobody there would have that much money to spend on something that won't pay for itself for a couple of years, especially with all the rights outside of comics still lying with Warner. While he didn't mention the number of people involved in the offer, Johnston does say that each would have to put up $ 25 million. Considering he estimated the final price tag around 500 million, this would mean twenty people are involved in this. This is not a business investment, this is something they invest in for their pleasure, and to put $ 25 million into a project they don't expect to make a profit on, nobody in the industry would have that kind of money, not even a Todd McFarlane or Robert Kirkman.
No, this seems very much to be DC fans with high income outside of the industry. Wall Street tycoons, Silicon Valley billionaires, big entertainment stars (Jerry Seinfeld, maybe?).
DC Announces Superman '78 Digital First Series
The fact Robert Venditti is writing Superman '78 makes me very happy. He did a fantastic job delivering a very classic version of Superman in the "Man of Tomorrow" series (the first few installments of which were published in the 100-page Superman giants before going all-digital). They were great little standalone stories focusing on Clark and his core supporting cast, with lots of humor and charm. I don't do digital, but I'll be first in line to grab the Superman '78 trade in November.
(And oh yeah, there's apparently some Batman thing, too, if anybody cares.
Batman '89, too, written by Sam Hamm. Both to also be released in print, and I'm so there for both of these. I also wonder how long it will take for them to do a crossover (I know, typical fan reaction, greedy as fuck).
Superman '78 cover and some preliminary artwork:
That next-to-last panel, in particular, is Reeve and Kidder all over.
That next-to-last panel, in particular, is Reeve and Kidder all over.
Wait, that scene's in the SII Donner Cut. If that is part of the story, it would suggest the comic is disregarding the sequels and taking at least some inspiration from the Donner Cut.
Unless it's a flashback.
