I wonder how that's going for them?
I'm sure they'll let us know that it's going really, really well.
We're busy boycotting Japanese electronics because of, you know, the war.
DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
I wonder how that's going for them?
I'm sure they'll let us know that it's going really, really well.
We're busy boycotting Japanese electronics because of, you know, the war.
^ Both companies still have a good working relationship despite the healthy competition and for the most part when asked most of the Marvel creators have stated pretty decent things about the New 52. DiDio was asked in an interview by Newsarama that was posted today what he thought about Marvel's comments regarding the new 52 and of course Dan chose not to comment and stated he likes to focus on DC stuff 
That has been the company line. Tom Brevoort tends to use that line when people ask him about Marvel stuff lol.
Yes, characters like Deadman, Animal Man, and Cyborg are characters that DC has had a recent drive to push into the main stream. Jamie Reyes being another character. Mera as well (another character Geoff Johns has enjoyed writing and loves) so it isn't surprising that these characters are getting pushed more and more.
That has been the company line. Tom Brevoort tends to use that line when people ask him about Marvel stuff lol. Yes, characters like Deadman, Animal Man, and Cyborg are characters that DC has had a recent drive to push into the main stream. Jamie Reyes being another character. Mera as well (another character Geoff Johns has enjoyed writing and loves) so it isn't surprising that these characters are getting pushed more and more.
I wonder how that's going for them?
I'm sure they'll let us know that it's going really, really well.
As I recall from the article, this was on Bleeding Cool, it was several months ago. Might've even been during that whole Black Night thing. I can't remember. But, well before the 52 thing.
^ Yeah Bleeding Cool broke that story and it was during their whole relaunch coverage and it's fallout.
This is the second time, they have put out a call for ripped DC covers.
The first time was for Blackest Night covers inexchange for a limited edition Deadpool Cover of Siege.
The first time was for Blackest Night covers inexchange for a limited edition Deadpool Cover of Siege.
Dennis said:
I'm just saying, that if you're willing to boycott a company over their treatment of a couple of guys' heirs, which is really apparently only arguably bad (hence the mountain of litigation which I'm rather certain maybe 1% of the people who have formed a solid opinion about the Siegel/Shuster issue both have the training to understand and have actually understood--I barely have the former, and I certainly have not done the latter, but let's say for the sake of argument it's bad), why aren't you boycotting them already over destroying Fawcett through what is an obviously awful legal decision, and what seems today like nothing more than bad faith litigation?
Also, if the rights to Superman did fall out of DC's hands, would the Siegels and Shusters have a case for copyright infringement against DC if they published a Captain Marvel book? Would DC be precluded from even raising any defense?
Professor Zoom said:
Yeah, as part of a reboot, I'd choose Billy Batson too. But that's the thing, I can't think of a single story that needs to be told about Billy Batson, either, except maybe an allegory where Superman kills him then dines on his corpse.
Which is not at all to say that I don't think anyone can. I'd love to see someone who had a true love and deep knowledge of the character do an All-Star Captain Marvel (or Shazam! if need be).
^ That would be awesome. I could see something like this from Jim Kruger and Alex Ross (who is a big Captain Marvel fan).
I was under the impression that Fawcett was pretty close to throwing in the towel on their comic book line about the time of the second lawsuit anyway. Like a lot of comic book publishers in the early 50s, sales were dropping like a stone and Fawcett was looking to cut their losses. Probably to focus on their magazine and book publishing.
Well, that's true, too, iirc; that's why they didn't appeal it past Learned Hand and his culturally illiterate bench.
Yeah, it's a fair question and I imagine the answer is two things - first, there's current litigation going on in the Siegel/Shuster and Kirby cases and - as far as I know - not the Fawcett case so more people are somewhat familiar with the issues, and secondly people are more likely to get riled up on behalf of individuals than companies. Kirby in particular is an idol and hero to many fans.
Sorry if this question might seem stupid but if I purchased the new rebooted Action Comic #1 or DC Comic's Batman #1 would it be valuable in the future?
Probably less than Superman 75 or any other comic from that year.
Define "future".
Well, right now on Ebay you can can double your money on a first print of Action #1 Vol. 2; and you can quintuple your money on a first print of Detective #1 Vol. 2. Not bad for a week old, but it will be interesting to see how it holds up. The only ones that will have worth are the first prints; and I never expect them to break $100.00 (may not even sustain $25.00 or even $10.00 in the long term). Both of those books had large numbers of orders; they won't be that rare.
Now something like Animal Man #1 that was under-ordered; that may break the $100.00 mark before it's over. It's already selling for up to $22.50 on EBay.
It's impossible to say.
I would guess no that it would not be for several reasons.
First of all the reason why the real Action Comics #1 is so valuable, one of the most valuable collectibles around as a matter of fact, one recently sold at auction for $1m. Is because back when it came out comic books weren't collected. Kids bought them read them and then threw them away, they became scattered around the bedroom, torn up, etc. So the few that survived of the 200K that were made are rare and, thus, valuable.
Secondly, I'm not sure how many are being printed now but only 200K copies of the first printing of Action Comics #1 (Original) were made. Again, only a handful of those survived the last 70-80 years. I suspect that this Action Comics printing was a lot more than 2 million.
Thirdly, Action Comics #1 is only so valuable because it pretty much introduced the world to superheroes and especially Superman. For all intents and purposes it's valuable because it was the first comic book.
Also in the decades since Superman is a popular culture icon who defines the entire genre even though he has changed greatly since that book came out. This new one is a dying industry rebooting a character to try and drum up interest while also erasing away decades worth of continuity mess and complication. This reboot wasn't born of creative inspiration it was born of commercial necessity.
Now, as said, the current AC1 has already increased in value simply because their are collectors out there who want it and it's hard, if not impossible, to get through retail outlets. So people out there are willing to pay $20, $30 to buy a $4 comic book. But what will that be like a year from now? Ten years from now? 25 years from now?
Will this reboot be so "great" that it redefines the character and industry so much that people can look back on it and say, "Wow! That DC reboot was incredible!" We don't know and only time can tell.
This new comic will never be as valuable as Action Comics #1, in fact it'll never be in even the same city as the ballpark AC1 is in. Even 80 years from now it's doubtful this comic book will be as valuable then as AC1 is now. But AC1 is just one of those collectible gems that started an entire industry and defined an entire arm of popular culture.
This comic book "could" be worth "something" down the road but I wouldn't buy one just because you think you'll cash it in down the road when you really need some scratch. Unless you've got an overdue electric bill to pay for or something.
But, all said, something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. AC1 is only worth $1m because people are willing to pay that for it, hell if I had that kind of money I'd be willing to, too.
Right now, this AC1 -looking on eBay - is going from cover price to about $10.
^ I thought the Kirby case was resolved already.
Marvel won a summary judgment. Doesn't mean it's resolved.
I haven't been e-bay window shopping. Damn, if that is the case, maybe I should buy a few of the #1s just to sell off within the next week.
Ah.
^ I thought the Kirby case was resolved already.
Marvel won a summary judgment. Doesn't mean it's resolved.
Ah.
I really enjoyed Batman and Robin #1. Will be continuing to follow it. As expected Bruce has a very direct manner with Damian than Dick did and the little bastard is going to have to do his best to start earning his father's trust. Some of the dialogue and panels felt like it was almost Grant Morrison writing this book still. Patrick Gleeson's art is clean and crisp in some page but then hard an edgy in others. The inconsistency is why I dislike his work in general. Tomasi has introduced a new bad guy or perhaps someone old in a new guise in this issue as well. This is probably my second favorite book of the 52'Verse so far.
Short term - yes. Long term - no.
The value of a comic is determined simply by supply and demand. Less supply + demand = higher value.
But they've printed MILLIONS of nuAction Comics #1 and it's going to be available in digital format because younger generations do not care about the physical copy.
I have a copy of post crisis Superman #1 from the 80's. I was thrilled then to actually own a copy of "a" Superman #1....I also thought it would be valuable in "the future" (which would be now). You can find this book in any bin for about 1.00 -1.50.
Like many of the over hyped books during the speculator years of the 90's, the books have a short term value as people rush out to buy them due to hype and can't get them. Once the books are reprinted, demand will go down.
As for "first printing" "second printing" etc, etc...most people could care less about that, as that's just some words that really mean nothing to them. All they care about is that the story is the same....which it will be.
And again, we are moving into a time where younger generations do not care about the tactile experience...that is they no longer care about owning the physical media that contains illustrated stories or songs.....they only care about the data on them. That's a factor in the decline of cd sales and now comic books.
So there's even less demand for a paper copy now than there was in the 90's. High supply + little demand = worthless.
There are bins and bins full of Image books that were hyped, and initially sold out upon release. People worried they might not get a copy, they rushed out to buy, in some cases multiple copies. Once new prints came in......well let's just say 99% of those books are now in the .25cent bins and for years comic shops couldn't get rid of those books no matter how hard they tried.
IMO, sell now, no long term value.
Similar threads
- Poll
