How/why did Justice Society of America Annual #1 LOSE its “Sightings” label?
Maybe Earth-2 is all Skrulls? It wouldn’t fit SIGHTINGS anymore.
Refresh me on what these “sightings” labels are again?
Here is a press release from when they began doing “Sightings”
In general, if you want to know which books relate to Final Crisis, look for a “Sightings” banner on the cover of a particular issue. The banner indicates the issue in question has some relevance to the greater puzzle. DiDio says, “We’re trying to be really judicious about it, because it not only has to be important to that book, but to events that follow that book. So you’ll see it in a couple places coming up first. It comes up first in Justice League of America #21, and you’ll also see it on Justice Society of America Annual #1.”
Justice Society of America Annual #1 came out this past week, sans the Sightings label.
The “Sightings” label was considered redundant for a comic book starring Power Girl.
Didio likely figured out it was a stupid idea and dropped it quietly.
Methinks it would’ve covered up too much of the Alex Ross artwork.
You don’t pay Alex Ross to paint a cover and then cover it with TWO logos.
Oh, I remember those now. It was on JLA #20 or 21 (the Libra and Human Flame issue that came out around Final Crisis #1). That’s actually the only issue I can think of it being on, to be honest.
Hmm, I guess it would have to be a change in the script or format for the annual. Maybe it was supposed tob e a self contained story that saw the return of Power Girl to Final Crisis / our Earth at the end of the issue and Johns ended up taking it in another direction.
It makes me wonder if the lukewarm reaction to Final Crisis is causing DC to back off the tie-ins. Plus, it didn’t seem to have much to do with FC (other than it takes place in the multiverse).
Maybe they just forgot to put it on.
And people are always complaining about Marvel’s marketing gimmicks because?
It was also on an Action Comics cover, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, the first part of the Brainiac storyline.
Something about that course of action doesn’t say “Didio” to me.
And people are always complaining about Marvelâ€™s marketing gimmicks because?
Because they’re lame too? Shot in the dark.
I’d naturally assume that the department who does the covers (adifferent group than the folks who do the insides) either messed up (look at the latest BLUE BEETLE, still having Rogers’ name on the cover, for example), or didn’t communicate with the book’s editor correctly.
I know I work in book publishing rather than comic publishing, but as an illustrator, neither I nor my direct editor ever ses anything regarding the cover of the book until we receive our comp copy after the printing’s done. We’ve actually had issues where we thought something was going to be the cover art (having been told so by the publisher) and so included a small copy of that on the first page, only to see the final cover entirely different, so the first page (editorially-approved) no longer makes a lick of sense.
In short, I doubt it’s any sort of conspiracy or change in direction — someone just didn’t talk to someone else…
It makes me wonder if the lukewarm reaction to Final Crisis is causing DC to back off the tie-ins. Plus, it didnâ€™t seem to have much to do with FC (other than it takes place in the multiverse).
What lukewarm reaction?
It’s their best seller.
I second the idea that it was just forgotten to be added. If every comic had a mandatory tie-in, then it’d be easier to remember, since it was company-wide. But doing it selectively seems like the reason why. I work for a magazine, and we forget to include art elements sometimes. It happens.
Itâ€™s their best seller.
I agree. Just because people complain about it on the internet doesn’t mean it has a “lukewarm” reaction. People on the internet complain about everything (reminds of this Shortpacked strip: http://shortpacked.com/d/20080730.html )
Final Crisis outsells any other monthly DC book (jury is still out on All-Star Batman since it hasn’t come out in months). Just because it doesn’t sell Secret Invasion levels does not mean the reaction is “lukewarm.”
Unless DC was hoping it would outsell it.
Then they would say that Final Crisis (the main title, at least) isn’t selling up to their highest expectations.
Even if it is only selling, say, 75% of what they hoped, that’s far from a “lukewarm” response. Plus, you have to consider the additional success the series is bound to have once it is collected. I’m waiting for the trade, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. I like my Grant Morrison in hardcover!
Keep in mind that even “Countdown” sold fairly well, and that response was far more negative than the Final Crisis response (so far). So immediate internet response is not always representative of sales/success.
How’s it selling at the stores? “DC’s top seller” means lots of stores are buying it. But is it flying off the racks?
“Sightings” doesn’t even make sense. What’s being “sighted”? I thought it was leading into a ghost story.
I’m guessing they dropped the whole “Sightings” idea. I’m guessing we won’t see it at all anymore.
“But is it flying off the racks?”
Like anyone here could even answer that.
“Even if it is only selling, say, 75% of what they hoped, thatâ€™s far from a â€œlukewarmâ€ response.”
It’s not a question of how much it sells in relation to how much they hoped, I was referring to how much it sells in relation to Secret Invasion.
Maybe they changed the story to JSA Annual #1 and it’s not relevant anymore to SIGHTINGS because that issue had nothing to do with Final Crisis. Maybe it did at first but not anymore.
Email Address: (not published)
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.
Home | News | Columns | Reviews | Video | Blogs | Forums | Find A Comic Shop
© 1995-2013 Comic Book Resources. All Rights Reserved.
Report a Bug | Advertising | Contact