>>98685416In the 90s DC was run as a tax break for the WB group. It never made a profit.
Far be it from me to suggest they were cooking the books, but if they weren't, well, the comic market was imploding at the time, so same difference.
Buying Marvel Comics would certainly have put DC at a loss! But too massive to be worth doing - you'd never be able to claim enough tax relief. So unless Marvel Comics at the time had been willing to sell off characters individually - which would have been a seller's market - DC couldn't realistically have acquired the trademark.
Conversely if Marvel had bought DC when WB was considering selling it in the early 80s, we wouldn't be having this discussion; but then there likely wouldn't have been a Batman movie in 1989 or sequels to follow, and that would leave open the possibility of people not being willing to invest in such movies, or tv shows, or even cartoons.
>>98685122He's called Shazam, Geoff. I know you're not personally responsible, but DC really fucked themselves on this and the mature thing to do is own the mistake. A rebrand doesn't make any difference - it's not like even if DC owned the name there would be anything but confusion among the moviegoing public about where in the MCU this movie would sit. There was a Marvel Comics for years before they put out a Captain Marvel, DC could have resurrected him via shenanigans at any time.
DC people just haven't been smart people, historically.
