lazorbeak

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>lazorbeak went into the particulars but I find the very idea that comics should be "just for kids" just wrongheaded in so many ways. Comics became more expensive due to declining sales, increased costs (what, you think paper costs the same today as it did 30 years ago?), higher production costs (yes, the best artists and writers command higher fees. OMG, that never happens anywhere else!), and new production techniques (LIQUID!). I don't agree with lazorbeak that they could drop the price that drastically and still be profitable, unless million sales become the floor value (not the baseline, the floor) due simply to varying popularity. Not every title is going to do great numbers and you can't have the handful of top notch writers and artists (who draw money) doing all the titles. You already have artists who regularly miss deadlines (hi Joe Madureira). Imagine if they were working on 3-4 titles at once!<p> </p><p> Oh and lazorbeak, what in the world has changed since that boom period? That was decades before the Digital Revolution, there was no real content on demand, and you couldn't get any entertainment as easily as you get it today. Also, comics back then were culturally relevant. They're not anymore, and I doubt they ever will be. For an audience that makes so-called "reality TV" the single most profitable production method in entertainment, comics take too long to produce (once a month? Are you nuts? Do you realize how short today's audience's attention span is?). It was a different time, even a different place (in a big picture/world view sense), and I don't personally think you can even compare the two eras.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> My point wasn't that you could turn the wheel back and charge $.30 an issue, it was that comics gross revenue today isn't really any higher than it was 40 years ago. Basically the entire industry shrunk by a factor of 10. Yes, not every comic made that solid 10X factor, particularly lower sellers like Tomb of Dracula or other classic stuff not marketed to kids and put on newstands, but when Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men, etc. are all selling 500K issues a month, you can afford to put out books that Cappy might decry as being "too good." Now, as opposed to back then, comics creators get a living wage off that revenue to the point that retirement is a thing that they could conceivably do when they get addled (although most still don't [cough Claremont and Byrne cough]), the idea that paying and/or recognizing creators "ruined comics" is like saying the workers ruined the Soviet Union. I mean it's hard to read about a guy like Steve Ditko, who co-created Spider-Man, forced to spend the 80's and 90's doing terrible work for hire jobs to pay the bills while Marvel markets Spider-Man pajamas, breakfast cereal, cartoons, and everything else. Yes, he created Spider-Man for hire, but without his dynamic art and contributions to the "mythology" of the character, is there a billion dollar movie franchise? I mean no corporate suits in 1962 were thinking "hey let's give a teenager bug powers." Bugs are gross, and teenagers are sidekicks or romance comic heroes. </p><p> </p><p> And yeah, the original changes to the medium predate the internet age, but the internet age is what guarantees comics in their current 22 page form is a dinosaur. It's an expensive and slow way to get maybe 15 minutes of entertainment.</p>

<p>Can we take all the TNA talk to that thread for TNA talk? Showtime is the only person who has made a post relating to WWE, its shows, or its contracted workers on this page.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Having said that, I read the Smackdown spoilers and they are pretty much exactly what anyone watching Summerslam might expect in terms of Orton's next challenger.</p>

To quote Shia LeBouf, "Nonononono." The idea that crediting an artist for their work "ruined comics" is both false and dangerous, because it's blaming the workers for what the executives are doing. Changes to the medium ruined comics. Changes to distribution ruined comics. Navel-gazing and protecting of corporate properties killed comics. But yeah, the problem isn't artists getting credit. I mean, today's artist now makes a living, but nobody gets into the industry to make big money: the guys that do stop drawing comics and do Hollywood storyboarding. But yeah, let's go back to the "good old days" where the creator of Superman loses his house while DC becomes a major corporation, or Wally Wood, one of the definitive artists on Daredevil, ends up drawing pornography until he commits suicide. Truly these were the good old days! I love Marvel's Bronze Age (hated DC's), but it had some very negative components; Marvel's poor treatment of creators led to Kirby and other talent leaving, the writing started focusing more on "realistic" elements once the comics code was relaxed that led to today's status quo, and other issues that led to the actual problems the industry's facing, not completely made-up problems about the art or story being "too good." Which, by the way, is nuts. If you want big dumb comics, there's plenty of them out there. If you want it to be a big nostalgia act, they have that too. I mean if comics had million copy distribution, they would make the same income by cutting the price to 1/10 what it is, aka $.30 an issue. Which, shockingly enough, is pretty close to what comics prices actually were when they were in their biggest boom period. In neither case were the artists or writers becoming millionaires.

I was befuddled? I was the one who knew what I was talking about. You were the one saying things with no knowledge of the industry that were not only false, but completely the opposite of reality. Seriously the monthly sales figures for July say Flashpoint, a comic that strongly features Cyborg, was the #4 selling comic in the country, and New Avengers, a comic about Luke Cage and his wife and their super hero buddies was #12. If only they'd push these guys! Remi does make a good point that as someone that actually wants to enjoy his comics and not just be annoyed by them, he supports writers and artists, not characters. This is actually a healthy trend and one that comics thought they were immune to for decades. Up into the 90's, they just figured you'd buy an X-Men comic, no matter what awful fill-in artist was doing the pencils or what hamstrung writers were allowed to do. After Claremont left, we got a decade where mediocre was about the best you could hope for. Maybe Cappy just doesn't understand how insultingly dismissive he's being when he talks about "dazzling art work" and "graphic novel pretensions" when he talks about somebody taking the effort to actually make work that's "good." I mean JH Williams III is an artist whose work I would buy if it were postage stamps because he's unbelievably talented. Ignoring the aesthetics of comic books is just as ignorant as saying guys like Stanley Kubrick shouldn't have bothered with his fancy camera work, he should've focused only on PLOT. I mean it's fine that 95% of movies are plot-driven and about 85% of comics are the same. Why can't we even get 15% that care about things actually looking good? Did you even read what I said about how the industry changed? And where exactly was I "sharp" with you? I explained how faulty your comparisons were and that the changes in the industry already happened, but I don't think I called you names or implied that you were too "befuddled" to make a point. If I treated you like someone who didn't know what they were talking about, that's only because you literally did not know what you were talking about. Random page of JH Williams 3 comic, pencils only: http://www.jhwilliams3.com/images/pages/1202098184.jpg Rob Liefeld cover (finished): http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BlsLZY4Qci8/TSOYos1GBxI/AAAAAAAABUk/NrSaSjQav_4/s1600/000sh14k.jpg

Yeah that's old news. The first arc has been kind of hit and miss, but sales are well above where they were.

He'll get his dream job and do it quietly for years with the exception of spouting embarrassing conservative talking points on twitter? I doubt it. Seriously if Punk is going full-fledged rebel babyface, it makes far more sense for him to be chasing the belt.

Edit: not even worth continuing. In conclusion, I like ADR and I hope they get behind him being a legitimate champion, and don't try to hide him in the midcard to feature Orton vs. Henry or something like that. Although just typing that made me realize how ridiculous that concept is.

Did you even watch THIS show? Punk wasn't even beaten in a competitive wrestling match to lose the title. He was destroyed by a 7 foot guy hitting a powerbomb on him after a 25 minute match, then beaten in seconds. I mean Miz's Money in the Bank cash in was honorable and worthy of admiration by comparison.

Even if he did, and that would make no sense, at this point in 2011 Punk has beaten Cena SIX TIMES in singles matches. So to say he "can't beat him" is completely the opposite of reality.

WWE spent 3 months building up CM Punk? I didn't realize his losing effort for the tag team titles 3 months ago at Over the Limit was the beginning of a major push. Honestly I don't think it's a bad idea if they don't want fully heel Cena. Punk still gets his heat, he gets to chase the title, and he'll be a top babyface here in a bit.

In a word? YES. If the heel is a bad-ass tough guy who always wins, he is basically a face who says mean things sometimes. The crowd will boo that heel when they talk, but cheer their entrance and all their big moves and basically want him to be a babyface. For proof, check out The Rock in 1998, Chris Jericho in 1999, Triple H in 2000, Randy Orton in 2009, etc., etc. If you book a heel strongly and give them no weaknesses, eventually the crowd turns them face. In theory the heel has identifiable traits that separate him from a babyface- either they are not as good at wrestling, or they are not as big and strong, or they are freakish in their appearance or strength, or they don't have the same "fighting spirit" a face has. But if your heel is more talented than your face, the only way you're ever going to get any heat on anyone is underdog/bully spots over and over and over. I hope they really work to put Del Rio over for the long haul, unlike most freshman title reigns. His facial expressions are tremendous and his work is very solid.

Seriously do you just not pay attention? Cena also had a claim to being the WWE champion, he was already named champ when Punk came back, so why would they bring him back just to have the belt?

Do you just not watch? Vince was ousted and Triple H took over and signed Punk back. That was the "magical forgiveness" you describe. Why would they fire him weeks after bringing him back? Triple H didn't bring him back because he was champion. Didn't they explain all this?

I can respect that, but I just thought it was funny that two of your two specific examples are either in the midst of a major event comic that is the most important thing DC is putting out this summer, and another guy who has consistently been a major part of the biggest franchise at Marvel (since Avengers passed up X-Men a few years back when Wolverine and Spidey joined). Seriously, what more could the industry do for this sub-issue short of blaring it from the heavens? But it gets zero press because the only time comics ever get mainstream press any more is when a character is killed. Even if it's a character as completely irrelevant as Ultimate Spider-Man. Another character you didn't mention has been majorly pushed in the past 15 years, too. Black Panther has an on-going now and has had about 4 series in the past 12 years or so, temporarily joined the Fantastic Four while Reed took a break, married Storm of the X-Men, and otherwise became a major part of the Marvel Universe for the first time since the Lee/Kirby era. Shockingly enough, it doesn't grab a lot of headlines, since most people only know Black Panther as the political party that was founded shortly after the comic character was created. Because his only media appearances are as an unlockable guy in Ultimate Alliance, a direct to dvd animated sequel, and a horrible BET stop-motion animation thing. I can understand not wanting to argue, so that's fine. But that thing you said first: Is completely the opposite of true.

Yeah the Monday Night Wars weren't won on the basis of "workrate." WWF had new, exciting characters doing things that audiences hadn't seen before. Not through an exhaustive EWR-style battle.

But it is happening where comic book fans see it. It's a dying industry though. Flashpoint is DC's flagship as they transition over into their relaunch. They literally could not push it more than they are right now. Luke Cage has gone from featured member to leader of the New Avengers, a book that is consistently in the top 10-20 every month and has been for about seven years. The only reason the casual fan doesn't know about it is they haven't been turned into a movie or cartoon. Like I said, it makes your points sound absurd when they obviously are and have been doing what you're talking about, it just doesn't get nearly the same attention as calling a minority character "Spider-Man." Oh right, you're the guy that "doesn't care" about artists. Watering down their dazzling art-work? What are you going on about? Graphic novel pretensions? Are you living in some alternate dimension where comic books are seen as valuable, intelligent material? The death of traditional comic publishing has absolutely zilch to do with any of the things you're saying, and everything to do with changes in the publishing and related industries in the past 15 years. It's like blaming the decline of encyclopedias on their insistence on fancy book-binding. Maybe you just have an awful, awful memory? Watchmen's characters were incredibly memorable. And even when comics were relevant, it's not like Stan Lee was this mysterious recluse that nobody ever heard from. Just not a strong comparison. Characters are still what sells comics though. It's just that comics are such a small industry that the characters that sell are those that are featured in videogames, cartoons, movies, and other media that didn't become irrelevant in the mid 1990's. I mean why on earth would a kid today spend $3 on a 20-some page comic, when that same $3 could buy them some game on their cell phone? Assuming the kid even knows where to find a comic, since they're not sold in grocery stores or pharmacies anymore, Borders is gone, etc. I mean when I started reading comics it was months before I ever went to a "comic book store." I just read what interested me when my parents were shopping. But in the ensuing two decades (ugh I'm so old), that's just not possible any more. There is no comic rack at the corner store. And the prices have tripled even as the industry shrank.

Except that when you're trying to prove any point, opinions alone don't convince anyone of anything. It may be easy and satisfying to say "Cena sucks!" but all it does is identify a person as that certain type of smark that is in the life-stage where booing the face is the bee's knees. Especially when people come back with a multitude of objective material as to why Cena is where he is and somebody else isn't, it makes a person look ridiculous to tow the line of "well, all that may be true, but *I* still think he sucks." It just shows a lack of understanding of hey, this is a business, and it doesn't cater to a minority of fans that have no clue how the business works. As has been pointing out numerous times, most people's problems with John Cena, wrestler, are really problems with WWE, booking team. The sooner a smart mark discovers this, the sooner they are able to evolve out of that life-stage of "yay heel boo face" and finally throw away their NWO t-shirt.

Yes, who could forget that iconic character that has entertained us all for 11 long years. Seriously this is happening in the ULTIMATE universe. A universe absolutely nobody has cared about outside of Ultimate Spidey fans for about 5 years. This talk about "elevating" a character has nothing to do with a single storyline in a nearly self-contained alternate version of the title. And I don't even read Flashpoint but Cyborg has been elevated in that, based on what little I've seen. Luke Cage went from "Sweet Christmas" yellow silk shirt guy to the leader of an Avengers team and a devoted father. So these things that "can't" happen have either already happened or are in the process of happening. But they don't get the same mainstream press, so casual comics fans may not even be aware of it.

I think the exciting think about WWF in 1998 was the new-ness of it. Austin wins the title in March, and almost every guy at the top of the card not named "The Undertaker" is brand new at that level. Kane was brand-new, Triple H was rising up the card, The Rock came into 1998 as a heat magnet and by September/October was getting cheers about even with Austin's, it was just an exciting time because every top level match-up was fresh. But yeah, I've seen 1998 WWF stuff recently enough to remember a lot of it is junk. TAKA wrestling 10 minutes on Raw in front of a crowd that may be sleeping, the horrid, horrid "brawl for all," everything the LOD did that year. I actually think Cornette's evil NWA stable wasn't such a bad idea, but at the time nobody cared. I think that's one of the big things WWE's forgotten since they have no competition: fresh faces are pretty much essential to the business. A guy that comes to your territory only has maybe a year or two before he should be moving on to the next territory, or seeing him stops being a big deal. When Cena and Batista both won at Wrestlemania the yearly numbers were up, but if they're still around 5 years later, that bump disappears as we've seen everything they can do and we've seen them fight everybody. I mean Cena/Undertaker is the only major feud we haven't seen out of Cena in the past six years, because they had their feud 8 years ago before Cena was a top level babyface.

Nothing with Sin Cara is a near certainty at this point. As for Summerslam's card, I really can't believe they had the one on one JoMo vs. R-Truth match on Raw. A months long feud with a solid story behind it ends like that because Morrison has a girlfriend who is showing up and not getting paid? What a ridiculously petty, anti-business decision. Just incredibly dumb. They've also had Riley/Ziggler and Kofi/Del Rio feuds going, so I'd expect at least one of those to translate into a match, even if we get some pointless multi-man thing for Miz to win. I'd rather see Mysterio vs. Miz, though, as honestly one of those two should get a title shot in the near future. On the Smackdown end, you've got Rhodes, DiBiase, Bryan and Zeke unaccounted for. I don't watch Smackdown but if the crowd isn't getting behind Zeke it would be a good time for a four way match with Rhodes getting the fall over DiBiase or Bryan to win the title.

Cena lost clean on PPV to Batista back when they were both babyfaces. He's also lost cleanly to Randy Orton and Triple H within the past 2-3 years. Going back further, HBK and JBL have also beaten him cleanly. While it's probably mostly due to his reduced schedule, Undertaker's list of guys he's lost cleanly to is probably significantly shorter than Cena's. Cena's also a pathetic 6-2 at Wrestlemania.

Clearly it's Cena's fault that WWE went with Undertaker/Triple H instead of Undertaker/Barrett.

Absolutely agree that Cena has consistently been involved in entertaining angles pretty much non-stop after that pretty forgettable story with Orton a couple of years back. The booking has been spotty and not always able to hold a heel's momentum after working with Cena, but the guys he's up against almost always come away looking good. Not even sure why I'm responding to Arrows, who obviously has a little bit of a bias, but I just wanted to make a quick reality check. Statistically John Cena is #4 on the list of all-time champions based on reign length, one of the only objective ways to measure a champions "greatness." He's one of the top draws ever, too. Yes. Barrett main evented multiple pay per views in 2010. He main evented Bragging Rights, Survivor Series, and TLC in one on one matches, and was prominently featured in the main events of both Summerslam and Night of Champions. That's main eventing nearly half the events in 2010 when he wasn't even on the roster in January. Before or after Cena was forced to join Nexus? Before or after Barrett went head-to-head with Cena on the mic and looked like a potential top level talent? Granted the end-result of that feud was Cena going over definitively and Barrett switching brands, but it was WWE's cold feet on a Barrett/Undertaker feud that sent him back down the card, not Cena.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Self" data-cite="Self" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd be tempted to do exactly what Heyman says. Although admittedly that's not because I think it's 'right for business'. Rather it's just a show I'd rather see. I want to see fresh young guys with something to prove. Nostalgia acts are fun in small doses. Bring an over-40 in for a month or two as a novelty act. Permanent places on top of the card holds no interest for me.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's exactly why it's right for business. Using TV as a showcase for guys that can do things you're not allowed to do on WWE TV or weren't given a fair shot, instead of a "hey it's Raw from 8 years ago!" It just seems like common sense from a marketing standpoint to present an actual alternative.</p>

Yeah there's a pretty substantial difference between 2005 Chris Masters and 2011 Chris Masters. One has no business in ROH, and the other would be a pretty nice addition and has built in heel status since he worked for that other company for six years. I'd still rather see a pec-off with Marco Corleone though. Or maybe Masters can join the rest of TNA's muscular powerhouses can form a stable and call themselves "The Four Hoss-Men."