Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "It's just 4 walls and a floor."

04nbod (04nbod) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-09 18:31:00

DC restructured
DC Entertainment is born. Diane Nelson in charge. Paul Levitz continues as consultant and writer (because diane nelson doesn't know a thing about DC probably) http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090909-DC-Restructuring.html

EDIT:Paul Levitz will write Adventure Comics with the Legion of Super-heroes http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090909-levitz-statement.html

legality (first thing off my hard drive IDK)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

(Post a new comment)

	lesquide 2009-09-09 06:05 pm UTC (link)
	From the article 'and "Lobo," a movie with director Guy Richie attached' ...Man what (Reply to this) (Thread)

	goblinthebamf 2009-09-09 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	I thought “Jonah Hex,” Warner Bros. Pictures’ supernatural Western starring Josh Brolin, Megan Fox and John Malkovich, recently wrapped production in Louisiana. was a pretty interesting little blurb. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

danielolsen, 2009-09-09 07:41 pm UTC

	halloweenjack 2009-09-09 06:10 pm UTC (link)
	I have a dream... a dream that one day, really soon, this Diane Nelson will burst into Levitz' office, throw a copy of Identity Crisis on his desk, and demand to know WTF is up with this shit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thebigapricot 2009-09-09 09:57 pm UTC (link)
	I have a nightmare that she runs in the office to say "I've gotten Jo to write one like this for us! It all starts with Hermione planning a surprise birthday party for Ron." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

aaron_bourque, 2009-09-10 01:58 am UTC

thokstar
2009-09-09 06:12 pm UTC (link)

Diane Nelson spent the last few years running Warner Premiere, aka the company responsible for all the direct to video DC animated movies, so I'd be shocked if she knows nothing about DC. I mean, she may not know every character in the DC Universe, but who does?

She also was apparently in charge of handling negotiations with Rowling and the Harry Potter movies, which implies she knows what she's doing in terms of getting stuff adapted to film.

There isn't anything about this shakeup that screams that it's a stupid mistake and a lot of stuff which suggests it could be a good move. I suggest we wait 5 years before analyzing it to death.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	04nbod 2009-09-09 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	You can thank Timm for the DVD movies. He's the one that knows his way around comic books. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

thokstar, 2009-09-09 08:01 pm UTC

jaybee3, 2009-09-09 08:32 pm UTC

04nbod, 2009-09-09 11:17 pm UTC

parsimonia, 2009-09-09 11:41 pm UTC

04nbod, 2009-09-10 02:23 pm UTC

parsimonia, 2009-09-11 03:09 am UTC

parsimonia, 2009-09-09 11:31 pm UTC

	bruinsfan 2009-09-09 07:59 pm UTC (link)
	I don't necessarily think it's going to be a bad thing. From the sound of it, Levitz may be back doing what he'd rather be doing instead of having to deal with executive decisions involving money and marketing all the time. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ashtoreth 2009-09-10 12:10 am UTC (link)
	There isn't anything about this shakeup that screams that it's a stupid mistake and a lot of stuff which suggests it could be a good move. I suggest we wait 5 years before analyzing it to death. WHAT KIND OF COMIC FAN ARE YOU (Reply to this) (Parent)

	geoffsebesta 2009-09-09 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Things are changing a lot right now. It's interesting. (Reply to this)

ian_karkull
2009-09-09 06:27 pm UTC (link)

I'm not an expert in business or legalese, but it sounds like this move is less concerned with the actual publishing output of DC Comics itself and more concerned with making more money out of the large amount of cultural icons Warner has at it's disposal via DC.
Which, considering how well things like Superman Returns went over, is a smart move.
It's probably way too early to tell, but as of now, I predict no major shake-ups other than more agressive marketing and possibly a line of movie tie-in comics.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	parsimonia 2009-09-09 11:33 pm UTC (link)
	This. I think previously there was too big of a disconnect between the big screen stuff and the comics and animated stuff. This move seems like it's intended to keep things more organized and in touch with each other a bit, in terms of marketing and timing and whatnot. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jcbaggee, 2009-09-10 03:47 am UTC

	mullon 2009-09-09 06:31 pm UTC (link)
	Now this makes me more worried than Disney buying Marvel, because this feels like a panicky knee-jerk reaction. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thokstar 2009-09-09 06:54 pm UTC (link)
	Rich Johnston reported on this being likely before the Disney/Marvel happened. (Reply to this) (Parent)

nymphgalatea
2009-09-09 06:55 pm UTC (link)

I seriously doubt it. Stuff like this takes months to get put together. I don't doubt that the Disney announcement maybe made them push this forward by a couple weeks, but this isn't something that will have been thought up overnight. I'd be surprised if the Time-Warner executives haven't been thinking about it for a year or so now.

Plus, look at the details of it: Geoff Johns stated he was moving to Flash well over a month ago so it is very likely that they knew then that Levitz would be taking over Adventure Comics from him back at that point.

It seems a very sensible move to me, and will probably result in more DC movies & games being made.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jcbaggee, 2009-09-10 03:48 am UTC

	crinosg 2009-09-09 06:37 pm UTC (link)
	Does this mean Dan Didio is out? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kingrockwell 2009-09-09 06:50 pm UTC (link)
	Not yet, at least. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

foxhack, 2009-09-09 07:02 pm UTC

	04nbod 2009-09-09 07:19 pm UTC (link)
	No, it seems like he has MORE power. He's the first one in line that knows about comics (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kingrockwell, 2009-09-09 08:27 pm UTC

schmevil, 2009-09-09 09:47 pm UTC

chipsnopotatoes, 2009-09-09 11:44 pm UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 02:38 am UTC

chipsnopotatoes, 2009-09-11 04:18 am UTC

his_spiffyness
2009-09-09 07:26 pm UTC (link)

I'm guessing this is part of the shift that's happening all over the publishing industry. Many of these companies are having to focus more on brand management as their primary revenue source than their publications. Penthouse Magazine underwent a similar transformation recently (link is a perfectly safe Newseek article.)

Which explains both DC's new management, and Disney's recent purchase of Marvel. Disney is an undeniable master of brand management, and having those resources at their disposal will definitely make Marvel more competitive in the future.

(Reply to this)

jaybee3
2009-09-09 07:28 pm UTC (link)

At the very least this sounds like a more hands on move than Disney buying Marvel (I really doubt Disney will touch the Marvel publishing arm).This deal smacks of the WB movie division basically taking overseership of DC Comics. Warners is only interested in the merchandising/TV/movie rights (as they always have been) but it appears that instead of Levitz running the publishing-side without any interference, Nelson will be working hand in glove with the WB. I don't think smaller books/characters have anything to worry about it but in terms of DC's most iconic and marketable characters (Supes, Bats, WW) it means no big term character changes. The most obvious one being that even if Morrison/Didio hadn't already planned on Bruce Wayne returning this summer, I'm sure WB would have mandated he be back in the cowl by the time Nolan's next film comes out. Stuff like that. But if it gets more DC characters into TV/film/animation I'm all for it.

By the way, is that a variant cover for the most recent Supergirl volume? I really like the art. Actually looks 50s-ish but obviously not (with the midriff and all). Anyone know the artist?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	04nbod 2009-09-09 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	Its the 3rd printing variant of Supergirl #1. Its an homage to her first appearance in Action 252. I think churchill did it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jaybee3, 2009-09-09 08:21 pm UTC

	In other words: box_in_the_box 2009-09-09 07:35 pm UTC (link)
	Warner Bros. looked at Disney's acquisition of Marvel and said to themselves, "Hey, WE should get us a comics company too!" Five minutes later, after they were informed that they already own DC ... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: In other words: bruinsfan 2009-09-09 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	I think the Batman movies have always kept Warner execs aware of owning DC Comics. This just may indicate a "Hey, you mean we own other characters we can use in multimedia entertainment?" epiphany. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: In other words: -

box_in_the_box, 2009-09-09 08:12 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

thokstar, 2009-09-09 08:14 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

ashtoreth, 2009-09-10 12:32 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

box_in_the_box, 2009-09-10 12:33 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

jarodrussell, 2009-09-09 08:10 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

skywaterblue, 2009-09-09 08:21 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

jaybee3, 2009-09-09 08:29 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

skywaterblue, 2009-09-09 08:43 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

schmevil, 2009-09-09 09:50 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

parsimonia, 2009-09-09 11:45 pm UTC

Re: In other words: -

jaybee3, 2009-09-10 12:19 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

parsimonia, 2009-09-10 12:29 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

cmdr_zoom, 2009-09-10 01:07 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

parsimonia, 2009-09-10 01:54 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

bariman1987, 2009-09-10 10:26 am UTC

Re: In other words: -

parsimonia, 2009-09-10 11:33 am UTC

arbre_rieur
2009-09-09 09:24 pm UTC (link)

This definitely sounds like it'll have a bigger impact on the actual comics than the Disney-Marvel deal. It sounds like there will be a much bigger emphasis on making and keeping the characters commercially viable, on their existence as fodder for other media.

On the one hand, I could easily see this leading to some changes that I would not at all be unhappy about: Fewer and smaller mega-events, less focus on the "grand tapestry" of the DCU and more on the individual titles as their own entities, more all-ages stories, etc.

Even if all that comes to pass though, I'm *still* going to be very wary of this because it seems likely that the new management is going to be much more insistent on playing it safe, less willing to do any sort of bold experimentation. If nothing else, I can't imagine this deal *not* leading to less creative freedom.

Though I'll hasten to add that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this sort of thing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

404glitch, 2009-09-09 09:37 pm UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-09 09:51 pm UTC

freddie_mac
2009-09-09 10:27 pm UTC (link)

Hmm, I'm cautiously optimistic. For the past few years, its seemed like DC is lagging behind in *gasp* optimizing their content *gasp*. They've got 75 years worth of content, and how much of it is readily accessible to customers? That's one reason why I'm such a fan of the Showcase volumes: forget the lack of color for a moment and focus on the price ($20) and amount of content (500 pgs) that we can buy. Why did it take them so long to figure this out??? Really, DC's got so many characters that are just begging for more exposure beyond our favorite comic medium, so *crosses fingers* I hope that this new organizational structure will help them live up to their potential.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

blakeyrat, 2009-09-10 12:04 am UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 02:35 am UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 02:37 am UTC

blakeyrat, 2009-09-10 02:56 am UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 03:21 am UTC

blakeyrat, 2009-09-10 03:30 am UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 05:17 am UTC

blakeyrat, 2009-09-10 02:00 pm UTC

arbre_rieur, 2009-09-10 07:23 pm UTC

jaybee3, 2009-09-10 12:14 am UTC

	parsimonia 2009-09-09 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	Why do you assume Diane Nelson doesn't know anything about comics or DC? (Reply to this) (Thread)

04nbod, 2009-09-10 02:26 pm UTC