Good point anon

>>77713474
Since you put it that way, yes it sounds bad. But its DC shits supposed to be gay as fuck.

There are some people who only buy based on brand though so if you put "Justice League" in the title you'll get them to buy it at least for the #1

>>77713474
Wonder what a "Justice League Lite" would be like?
No, not Supes and company, a League who deals with White/Good magic and so forth

>>77713742
I don't think OP has a problem with the title of the comic. He has a problem with he fact that in universe their team is called Justice League Dark. And that's dumb.

>>77713474
>>77713860
Wait, that name is in-universe?

Christ, I assumed they had no real team name and that was just the comic's title.

That's...really lame.

>Avengers Spooky

HAHAHHAHA. Fund it!

They should have called the book Justice League Shadowpact and then simply refer to them as Shadowpact inside if they wanted to give them a team name.

>>77714004
Doesn't it already exist with howling commandos?

>>77713474
Yes. It is asinine. But that's branding for you. Marvel did the exact same thing when the Thunderbolts became Dark Avengers.

And in a sane world Ewing's Might Avengers could have been called what it was: Heroes for Hire.

>>77713474
>Avengers Spooky
Remember when Marvel renamed all their teams to "Avengers" and they sold like hotcakes. That's what DC was trying to do.

Theres nothing wrong with the title. You are just an autist.

>>77713474
>"Avengers Spooky"

Ah yes, the Spookvengers.

>>77713474
There's The Avengers of the Supernatural.
Of course, that was a tongue-in-cheek joke about every team being Avengers something.