40 ms·

I feel the opposite. In 20 years people who are avid comic historians may remember him, like how a few people today may remember Fred Astaire (greatest dancer o

I feel the opposite. In 20 years people who are avid comic historians may remember him, like how a few people today may remember Fred Astaire (greatest dancer of black and white films). But in the grand scheme of things C&H is fading into nothingness. Few Gen Z or kids today have heard of it, and that percentage will grow each decade. Large brands like Potter, Garfield, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars will live on potentially forever as long as the brands and businesses are well managed. I respect his decision but it makes me sad. I loved C&H as a kids but as I type this in a store it is nowhere to be found. Immortality at the cost of creative compromise.

Beltalowda 4y ago
But what's the point of just keeping the brand alive if it loses what made it so special in the first place? If I look at modern Star Trek for example then its lost most things that made earlier Star Trek so special. I'm not even saying it's bad per se, just that there is no real value in having it be "Star Trek" other than commercial reasons.
kubanczyk 4y ago
I disagree about the angle. As an example, consider three goals for the next thousand years: 1. The same organization runs an ever-changing stream of brands and stories. 2. The same brand/logo is maintained backed by an ever-changing stream of stories. 3. The same story is told and re-told. It may spawn its own organizations and logos but it's the story is keeping it all together. Historically it is clear that number 3 prevails.