Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-3020860-20181010055200/@comment-3020860-20181023135826

MektonZ wrote:

("2001? Why 2001?" To be honest, because Superman bias. In 2001 DC made the first real attempt to ditch the "Man of Steel" origin and abandon Superman's John Byrne interpretation for good after fifteen years. I guess it isn't a special year otherwise, although if I remember correctly, JMS's Spider-Man run and Grant Morrison's X-Men run also started out in 2001. "Okay, and why 'Mercury'?" Because a Superman fansite used that term and I liked it)

And Marvel launched the Ultimate universe in 2000. On the wider DC side, Geoff Johns' comics-writing career started the same year, so... 🙄

Maybe the name is Superman bias, but there is certainly a lot of "momentous stuff with far-reaching consequences" in 2000/2001, whatever the period it kicked off ends up being called.

Something0Something wrote: Hatebunny wrote: As for sales of digital vs. print - I'm not sure that's especially relevant, in terms of determining the era... not that I wouldn't still be interested to know.

Well, deciding to call it "digital age of comics" when most sold comics are physical just doesn't seem appropriate. Regardless of whether or not we're in a "digital age" culturally.

My thinking wasn't just about delivery, but also about process. Even if they end up in print, pretty much all comics today are produced digitally. And though I'm not an artist so I could be wrong, I have to assume there are many comics artists who work exclusively in pixels at this point. From a process perspective, that's pretty significant. But you may be right, it may be a gun jumped in terms of consumption.

("Digital" has already fallen out of favor regarding the wider cultural period, BTW. With the rise of Google, the web, social media, and etc., in the estimation of many who think about such things, the world is apparently now in the "Information Age".) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age