WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??

[brooms]

Tom Brevoort has a Formspring and he's actually pretty good at answering questions.

In his most recent batch of replies, he tackled things like the recent CATWOMAN/STARFIRE controversy and why Gambit isn't invited to more poker games.














(If you don't remember her, go here.)

Comments

[filthysize]

Well, I think it's because like I said, it's the cartoon's depiction that strayed from the Starfire character and not the other way around, so the idea of taking advantage of an alternate version probably didn't even enter the equation. I mean, we're talking about a character who Wolfman specifically created with the intention of making her the sex symbol of the book, which Perez then designed partly based on a stripper he knew. So it just rubs me the wrong way to suggest that DC should have retooled one of the character's fundamental traits (her sexually provocative look) that's been there for years and years, just for the sake of an immediate economic gain.

Moreover, if we're really going to talk about roping in another media's audience, wouldn't it make more sense to expect the people intrigued by the recent UNDER THE RED HOOD movie to be intrigued by a book called RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS? I gleaned from talking to people that since coming on Netflix streaming a few months ago, the film has been steadily gaining popularity among twenty-something guys who don't know a lot about comics and would make very easy prospective DCnU readers. Clearly, the book is well-aligned with the demo for that movie. I dunno, I feel like that makes a lot more sense to expect than "now grown-up Starfire fans who used to admire her on that show from 5 years ago when they were little girls."