I was under the impression that Mark Millar conceptualised WANTED on his own, just like the other slew of the Millarwold books, and Top Cow was just one of publishers that he had to publish them.

Also, to put Silvestri’s name together with TOMB RAIDER is a bit ridiculous. Lara Croft was created and huge property back in 96, and her creation had nothing to do with Silvestri or Top Cow whatsoever. In fact, she was created by Ian Livingstone of Eidos at the time.

So, that leaves only one property that made the jump: Witchblade, which turned from a T & A comic book into a horrible and thanfkully cancelled cable show.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

If I were to do a story based on that press release, I would do a story on Silvestri’s process of adaptation and talk to him specifics about some of the better efforts . . . focus on him as a creative person rather than the architect of a business plan . . . that is, if I were to do a story based on that press release . . .

A while back, some of the Top Cow folks were asking what they should do to get more attention for their product, and any suggestion saying they needed to change something was ignored or politely brushed off. They want the press, but they don’t seem willing to face the world as it is. Most of the changes suggested would get them away from the perception that all they do are wank books, but they (probably rightly) didn’t want to lose that core market chasing another audience that likely wouldn’t pay attention to them anyway.

If this is one of the worst you’ve ever seen, you’re lucky.

I’ve seen far worse, far more delusional claims in press releases.

That being said, I don’t know how mass that mailing was, as I did not get it.

Top Cow might do well to avail itself of Image PR (Top Cow is part of Image), rather than fending for itself, I think.

As for the content, if they were really that successful in revolutionizing the evolution of the concept circle, people would come asking them for interviews. Not the other way around.