|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 27, 2017 16:15:47 GMT
Comics might've survived without Superman, but there would be no comic book superheroes. Comics today would be Archie and Richie Rich and other non-superhero comics only if not for Superman. No, superheroes would've existed without him. He was very archetypal, which means easy to come up with and easily replaced. No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
|
|
|
|
Post by mcufan on Jul 27, 2017 17:15:23 GMT
No, superheroes would've existed without him. He was very archetypal, which means easy to come up with and easily replaced. No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
Would DCEU exist without the MCU? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 27, 2017 17:20:01 GMT
No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
Would DCEU exist without the MCU? Yes, the DCEU would've happened without MCU. Before MCU, WB had announced a Justice League Mortal movie to be directed by George Miller before it was cancelled. And 2007's I Am Legend had a billboard for a Batman vs Superman movie. So WB was already considering a shared cinematic universe before MCU and it was only a matter of time before the DCEU was created. Moreover, DC did already create the 1st shared cinematic universe for superhero movies in 1984. So DC already had a shared cinematic universe a quarter of a century before MCU and it was only a matter of time before DC created another shared cinematic universe with the DCEU. |
|
|
|
Post by mcufan on Jul 27, 2017 17:21:37 GMT
Would DCEU exist without the MCU? Yes, the DCEU would've happened without MCU. Before MCU, WB had announced a Justice League Mortal movie to be directed by George Miller before it was cancelled. And 2007's I Am Legend had a billboard for a Batman vs Superman movie. So WB was already considering a shared cinematic universe before MCU and it was only a matter of time before the DCEU was created. Moreover, DC did already create the 1st shared cinematic universe for superhero movies in 1984. So DC already had a shared cinematic universe a quarter of a century before MCU and it was only a matter of time before DC created another shared cinematic universe with the DCEU. Never fails... |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 27, 2017 17:27:13 GMT
Would DCEU exist without the MCU? Yes, the DCEU would've happened without MCU. Before MCU, WB had announced a Justice League Mortal movie to be directed by George Miller before it was cancelled. And 2007's I Am Legend had a billboard for a Batman vs Superman movie. So WB was already considering a shared cinematic universe before MCU and it was only a matter of time before the DCEU was created. Moreover, DC did already create the 1st shared cinematic universe for superhero movies in 1984. So DC already had a shared cinematic universe a quarter of a century before MCU and it was only a matter of time before DC created another shared cinematic universe with the DCEU. Does it really matter who created the first shared universe?!?! No. So what that DC did it first. Marvel has taken it and really defined what a cinematic universe is because of their commitment and their consistency. It's not perfect as I don't believe every Marvel film is great, but they worked hard for how far they've come to combine all the characters, and you're just a jealous little bitch because of it. And in case you haven't noticed, almost every superhero film director, regardless of brand have come out and admitted that Superman The Movie has really set the template for superhero films and has influenced all superhero film directors, and that's not a bad thing either |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 27, 2017 18:07:12 GMT
No, superheroes would've existed without him. He was very archetypal, which means easy to come up with and easily replaced. (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
I won't argue that Superman may have kicked off comic book heroes as we know them, but it's interesting that you only pick non-Marvel characters, and 3 of the 4 you do are DC, and one later became DC. Captain America, Human Torch and Sub Mariner were also million+ sellers on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 27, 2017 18:11:52 GMT
Would DCEU exist without the MCU? Moreover, DC did already create the 1st shared cinematic universe for superhero movies in 1984. So DC already had a shared cinematic universe a quarter of a century before MCU and it was only a matter of time before DC created another shared cinematic universe with the DCEU. No they did not. The Salkind's did. They owned the rights. DC had no involvement in the making of any of the early Superman/Supergirl films. And even then it wasn't an attempt to create a larger universe but an attempt to freshen up a flagging franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 27, 2017 18:22:13 GMT
(the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
I won't argue that Superman may have kicked off comic book heroes as we know them, but it's interesting that you only pick non-Marvel characters, and 3 of the 4 you do are DC, and one later became DC. Captain America, Human Torch and Sub Mariner were also million+ sellers on a regular basis. Captain America's comic was cancelled and when they brought Captain America back a decade later, they re-booted him from his WWII setting to a modern setting by having him frozen in ice. Human Torch was the android and his comic was cancelled and the character was re-booted as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four. Sub-Mariner's comic was also cancelled. So none of them were able to last like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman did. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 27, 2017 18:44:30 GMT
I won't argue that Superman may have kicked off comic book heroes as we know them, but it's interesting that you only pick non-Marvel characters, and 3 of the 4 you do are DC, and one later became DC. Captain America, Human Torch and Sub Mariner were also million+ sellers on a regular basis. Captain America's comic was cancelled and when they brought Captain America back a decade later, they re-booted him from his WWII setting to a modern setting by having him frozen in ice. Human Torch was the android and his comic was cancelled and the character was re-booted as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four. Sub-Mariner's comic was also cancelled. So none of them were able to last like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman did. And that has to do with what? You claim the only other characters popular in the late 30s and 40s were DC titles (& one later appropriated by DC) only. That was not the case. Human Torch was published up to 1939. The other two throughout the 40s into the 50s. I don't give a shit what happened to them in later years. They were popular characters in the 40s. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 27, 2017 19:06:03 GMT
No, superheroes would've existed without him. He was very archetypal, which means easy to come up with and easily replaced. No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 27, 2017 23:38:00 GMT
No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. I know you're just trolling, but you sound like a total moron. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 0:59:46 GMT
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. I know you're just trolling, but you sound like a total moron. It's not my fault DC-Fan thinks that if you removed Superman comics would be irrevocably changed. They wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 1:09:32 GMT
I know you're just trolling, but you sound like a total moron. It's not my fault DC-Fan thinks that if you removed Superman comics would be irrevocably changed. They wouldn't. Baseless speculation that seems to imply a limited (or at least disingenuous) understanding of comic book history; can you prove this in any way? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 28, 2017 4:23:54 GMT
No, comic-book superheroes wouldn't have existed without Superman. It was easy to come up with comic-book superheroes (when Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes), but it wasn't easy to come up with a comic-book superhero that could sell comics (the only other superheroes that were as popular as Superman in the late 1930s - early 1940s were Batman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Marvel).
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. Nope, without Superman there would be no comic-book superheroes. When Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes. But most of those other superheroes were never published because comic-book publishers didn't think they would be successful. Superman was the 1st superhero that a comic-book publisher was willing to publish and Action Comics became the most popular comic-book because of Superman.
Without the success of Superman, comic-book publishers wouldn't have published other superheroes in their comic books. So WITHOUT SUPERMAN, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SUPERHEROES WERE CREATED, COMIC-BOOK PUBLISHERS WEREN'T GOING TO PUBLISH THEM. SUPERMAN'S POPULARITY IS WHAT ALLOWED OTHER SUPERHEROES TO GET PUBLISHED. SO WITHOUT SUPERMAN, THERE WOULD BE NO COMIC-BOOK SUPERHEROES.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcufan on Jul 28, 2017 8:21:43 GMT
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. Nope, without Superman there would be no comic-book superheroes. When Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes. But most of those other superheroes were never published because comic-book publishers didn't think they would be successful. Superman was the 1st superhero that a comic-book publisher was willing to publish and Action Comics became the most popular comic-book because of Superman.
Without the success of Superman, comic-book publishers wouldn't have published other superheroes in their comic books. So WITHOUT SUPERMAN, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SUPERHEROES WERE CREATED, COMIC-BOOK PUBLISHERS WEREN'T GOING TO PUBLISH THEM. SUPERMAN'S POPULARITY IS WHAT ALLOWED OTHER SUPERHEROES TO GET PUBLISHED. SO WITHOUT SUPERMAN, THERE WOULD BE NO COMIC-BOOK SUPERHEROES.
What about DCEU? Would it exist without the MCU? Not sporadic stand alone or a team up. The actual term: DCEU. Would it be known as the DCEU? Because the name is a blalant rip-off of MCU. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 12:43:26 GMT
Nope, Superman is expendable. Superheroes would exist with or without him, he was archetypal and that means easily replaceable. Action Comics just got lucky, nothing more. Nope, without Superman there would be no comic-book superheroes. When Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes. But most of those other superheroes were never published because comic-book publishers didn't think they would be successful. Superman was the 1st superhero that a comic-book publisher was willing to publish and Action Comics became the most popular comic-book because of Superman.
Without the success of Superman, comic-book publishers wouldn't have published other superheroes in their comic books. So WITHOUT SUPERMAN, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SUPERHEROES WERE CREATED, COMIC-BOOK PUBLISHERS WEREN'T GOING TO PUBLISH THEM. SUPERMAN'S POPULARITY IS WHAT ALLOWED OTHER SUPERHEROES TO GET PUBLISHED. SO WITHOUT SUPERMAN, THERE WOULD BE NO COMIC-BOOK SUPERHEROES.
Superheroes would exist without Superman, he was expendable. Always was. Anyone created in Superman's place would've "inspired" other superhero characters. It was just dumb luck that Superman happened to be published first. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 13:34:40 GMT
Nope, without Superman there would be no comic-book superheroes. When Action Comics became the most popular comic-book after the premiere of Superman, many comic-book writers and artists started creating other superheroes. But most of those other superheroes were never published because comic-book publishers didn't think they would be successful. Superman was the 1st superhero that a comic-book publisher was willing to publish and Action Comics became the most popular comic-book because of Superman.
Without the success of Superman, comic-book publishers wouldn't have published other superheroes in their comic books. So WITHOUT SUPERMAN, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SUPERHEROES WERE CREATED, COMIC-BOOK PUBLISHERS WEREN'T GOING TO PUBLISH THEM. SUPERMAN'S POPULARITY IS WHAT ALLOWED OTHER SUPERHEROES TO GET PUBLISHED. SO WITHOUT SUPERMAN, THERE WOULD BE NO COMIC-BOOK SUPERHEROES.
Superheroes would exist without Superman, he was expendable. Always was. Anyone created in Superman's place would've "inspired" other superhero characters. It was just dumb luck that Superman happened to be published first. Prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 13:36:07 GMT
Superheroes would exist without Superman, he was expendable. Always was. Anyone created in Superman's place would've "inspired" other superhero characters. It was just dumb luck that Superman happened to be published first. Prove it. Don't need to. But watching DC-Fan go ballistic is real fun, now all we need are the colored texts. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 28, 2017 13:41:07 GMT
Don't need to. But watching DC-Fan go ballistic is real fun, now all we need are the colored texts. Nah, you can't prove anything you assert. Which makes your posts a waste of everyone's time. Makes you a troll, also. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 28, 2017 17:12:29 GMT
Don't need to. But watching DC-Fan go ballistic is real fun, now all we need are the colored texts. Nah, you can't prove anything you assert. Which makes your posts a waste of everyone's time. Makes you a troll, also. No, I just say stuff that DC fans can't stand. |
|
