mike b Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Spider Man Joins F4 The F4 have a new name a new look and a new member SPIDER MAN Also spider mans costume has been changed to white to match the new look of F4 http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/02/10/spider-man-fantastic-four-future-foundation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Yeah that's old news. The first arc has been kind of hit and miss, but sales are well above where they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Cyclops killed Magneto. The single most ignominious, enraging end I've ever witnessed. Seriously. Killed by CYCLOPS?!? The one Summers kid who got the short end of the genetic stick (Alex and Gabriel = far more powerful)? Hell, Nathan (Cable)/Nate's (X-Man) powers (both versions) come from their MOTHER. Always hated Cyclops. Maybe not as much as I hate Superman or Captain America but I still hate him. To have my favorite character in all of comics die to that....pissant, still makes me mad. Even though the Ultimate universe means about as much as the soiled toilet paper I just flushed. Makes me sad though when people claim the Ultimate Universe "doesn't matter". I just see it as place where different creative writers have a place where they can tell THEIR stories without worrying about all the continuity of the Marvel Universe. tjb, let me clue you in on something. The reason the Ultimate universe doesn't matter is specifically for the reason you state. The writers are allowed to do whatever the hell pops into their mind at any given time, with little to no editorial control. With 616, Joe Q maintained an almost iron grip on the stories that got told. Look at the list of characters they just killed off. Who's left that anyone's going to care about? The marquee names are all gone so all you have left are gimmicks (like a biracial Spider-Man). cappyboy, I can understand your perspective. As a person who probably hasn't followed comics closely, your views are valid. However, the truth differs from your view of them. As a collector for well over 30 years (my grandfather gave me his collection, that dates back to the 20s), I can tell how the industry has changed by how I've changed as a reader/collector. There was a time when Rob Liefeld was one of (if not THE) hottest artists in comics. Look at Liefeld's art now and you can see how genuinely AWFUL it really is. I was 21 before I realized that Whilce Portacio doesn't draw good backgrounds (or any background at all) in his work. Your point on how interest should be character driven and not artist or writer driven ignores the fact that it's the writers and artists that make a character what it is. For example, Gail Simone updated Wonder Woman and made her relevant again. That didn't happen just because the year changed, it was a writer who did that. Big events supercede and overshadow their writer(s) and artist(s). Quick, who wrote the Death of Superman arc? You don't know, do you? Why? Because it was the DEATH OF FRIGGIN' SUPERMAN, that's why! Who wrote the death of Bruce Wayne/Batman arc? You don't know that either, for the exact same reason! You can't expect people, in this day and age, to buy a title solely due to the character headlining it. Those days are long gone. That trend started way back in the 80s with people like Liefeld, McFarlane, Larsen, Lee (Jim & Jae), Portacio, Silvestri, and Claremont. People whose chops were unquestioned (at the time) and who really put their mark on a book when they took over. Who created Cable? Rob Liefeld. That's one way to make your mark. Now, there are a handful of artists (Adam Hughes, Frank Cho, Amanda Conner, Talent Caldwell, J.Scott Campbell, Brian Pulido, Juan Jose Ryp, David Finch, etc) and writers (Gail Simone, Claremont, J. Michael Straczynski, etc) that I will buy whatever their names are on, regardless of genre or anything else. Besides that, I tend to follow comics in the way Joe Q prefers (trade paperbacks). There are titles I follow religiously, if only to support their continuation (Power Girl is one, since I still feel guilty for not supporting She-Hulk) but most titles I buy are because of their writers or artists (or both). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 cappyboy, I can understand your perspective. As a person who probably hasn't followed comics closely, your views are valid. However, the truth differs from your view of them. As a collector for well over 30 years (my grandfather gave me his collection, that dates back to the 20s), I can tell how the industry has changed by how I've changed as a reader/collector. There was a time when Rob Liefeld was one of (if not THE) hottest artists in comics. Look at Liefeld's art now and you can see how genuinely AWFUL it really is. I was 21 before I realized that Whilce Portacio doesn't draw good backgrounds (or any background at all) in his work. Your point on how interest should be character driven and not artist or writer driven ignores the fact that it's the writers and artists that make a character what it is. For example, Gail Simone updated Wonder Woman and made her relevant again. That didn't happen just because the year changed, it was a writer who did that. Big events supercede and overshadow their writer(s) and artist(s). Quick, who wrote the Death of Superman arc? You don't know, do you? Why? Because it was the DEATH OF FRIGGIN' SUPERMAN, that's why! Who wrote the death of Bruce Wayne/Batman arc? You don't know that either, for the exact same reason! You can't expect people, in this day and age, to buy a title solely due to the character headlining it. Those days are long gone. That trend started way back in the 80s with people like Liefeld, McFarlane, Larsen, Lee (Jim & Jae), Portacio, Silvestri, and Claremont. People whose chops were unquestioned (at the time) and who really put their mark on a book when they took over. Who created Cable? Rob Liefeld. That's one way to make your mark. Now, there are a handful of artists (Adam Hughes, Frank Cho, Amanda Conner, Talent Caldwell, J.Scott Campbell, Brian Pulido, Juan Jose Ryp, David Finch, etc) and writers (Gail Simone, Claremont, J. Michael Straczynski, etc) that I will buy whatever their names are on, regardless of genre or anything else. Besides that, I tend to follow comics in the way Joe Q prefers (trade paperbacks). There are titles I follow religiously, if only to support their continuation (Power Girl is one, since I still feel guilty for not supporting She-Hulk) but most titles I buy are because of their writers or artists (or both). Remi, once again, you show why you are considered the oracle around here. I hope Lazorbeak reads this post and takes note of the tone. I get the feeling this is the type of thing he was trying to convey but was too befuddled to state as calmly. But there is one point I still need to question. The one you were making about Rob Liefeld's art. To my knowledge, I've never seen any of it. First time I ever remember even seeing his name. But I would imagine that even if I did see his work, I probably wouldn't see what you were saying about why it was so awful. I am so very miserable in the visual arts that I would imagine even he would look like a master compared to me. That more so than considering the art in comics irrelevant is why I was saying know who the artist is useless to me. No matter who he is or how awful he's generally considered to be, he's capable of conveying the scene well enough to serve my purpose. Basically, I'm a very simple reader with simple demands. And from what you're saying, it's no wonder I find the modern product so inaccessible. The process of squeezing out the element I represent apparently goes back to when I was in high school and uninclined to care because I was in Christian school and we had our own pop culture to follow. Which puts things further back than I was even giving credit for. In which case I see why Lazorbeak was so sharp with me. To him, I must sound like the Confederate soldier who crawled out his bunker in 1900 and didn't realize the war had ended a generation previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjb000 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 tjb, let me clue you in on something. The reason the Ultimate universe doesn't matter is specifically for the reason you state. The writers are allowed to do whatever the hell pops into their mind at any given time, with little to no editorial control. With 616, Joe Q maintained an almost iron grip on the stories that got told. Look at the list of characters they just killed off. Who's left that anyone's going to care about? The marquee names are all gone so all you have left are gimmicks (like a biracial Spider-Man). Fair enough. Like I had mentioned I'm fairly new to comic books so my opinion wasn't very valid to begin with. However, I've heard some good things about the Ultimate Spider-Man series and was given the recommendation. This was before the whole killing off Spider-Man and making him biracial thing. I hadn't realized they've killed off so many characters in the Ultimate Universe until this thread. Again, like I said, I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the Ultimate Universe anyways. I really hate going off by 'what I hear' about stuff, but I guess that comes with beginning to get into things such as comics. I never thought I'd be into Captain America but I thought issue #1 of the new series was pretty good. I don't have a whole lot to compare it to but I enjoyed it. X-Men: Schism has also been pretty good, especially issue #1. Not perfect, as even I noticed some stuff that seemed off, but overall, I'm enjoying the series so far. Find it odd though that the main conflict that's suppose to happen in Schism hasn't even really begun yet and there's only 3 issues left. Seem like a lot the writer (Jason Aaron) will have to add to the next issues to plant it and deliver. I'm expecting issue #3 here shortly along with 5 other comics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Cappy, I dislike American comics (don't like most of the art styles, don't know why) and Liefelt is one of the worst. Terrible female figures, fight scenes that make no sense and disjointed positions make it glaringly obvious he's working more for cool than good art. It's quite obvious looking at his work, imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon_lit_tears Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Am I the only person that finds the idea of a middle-class, suburban white boy acting 'ghetto' Luke Cage hilarious? "Whazzup dawg, nah, I ain't fightin' no crime as Powerman tonight G...crashed my pop's Lexus on the way back from Lacrosse practise, now I'm grounded yo! Man's always keepin' me down!" I don't. It's all too common around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Cappy, I dislike American comics (don't like most of the art styles, don't know why) and Liefelt is one of the worst. Terrible female figures, fight scenes that make no sense and disjointed positions make it glaringly obvious he's working more for cool than good art. It's quite obvious looking at his work, imho. So essentially, it sounds like you're telling me this guy embodies my frustration that the art appears to be going for form over function. Just in a different way than the seeming art museum brochures with storylines I see in the average comic I run across at Books-A-Million these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The F4 have a new name a new look and a new member SPIDER MAN Also spider mans costume has been changed to white to match the new look of F4 http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/02/10/spider-man-fantastic-four-future-foundation/ I did not know that. Crazy stuff. The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but consider that Marvel is trying to make the old "Fantastic Four" brand lose value so that Fox won't do more movies untill the rights revert to Marvel, at which point they'll bring back The Human Torch and re-launch... /me puts on tinfoil hat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Remi, once again, you show why you are considered the oracle around here. I hope Lazorbeak reads this post and takes note of the tone. I get the feeling this is the type of thing he was trying to convey but was too befuddled to state as calmly. 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? In which case I see why Lazorbeak was so sharp with me. To him, I must sound like the Confederate soldier who crawled out his bunker in 1900 and didn't realize the war had ended a generation previously. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordJaguar Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 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. This attitude is what ruined comics...point blank period! You see, artist gets credit, artist gets big ego, big ego leads to bigger payday, leads to $3 comic books prices! As stated previously by Cappyboy, comics and baseball cards, both of which I used to collect, were/should be for KIDS. Problem is, the kids grew up and kept reading and the comics had to go from simple Good guy punches bad guy to complex "art" pieces on why the political unrest in the Sudan caused said villian to remove all the electronic devices from New Jersey blah blah blah! Comics should be simple, cheap, and fun. Go back to early 70's Marvel/DC and see the vast difference in stories, which are considered "Classic" to todays nonsense. Not to go off on a tangent, but this same trend is what's killing Wrestling. Give me guy in funky suit robbing a bank over a complex world shattering event any day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 This attitude is what ruined comics...point blank period! You see, artist gets credit, artist gets big ego, big ego leads to bigger payday, leads to $3 comic books prices! As stated previously by Cappyboy, comics and baseball cards, both of which I used to collect, were/should be for KIDS. Problem is, the kids grew up and kept reading and the comics had to go from simple Good guy punches bad guy to complex "art" pieces on why the political unrest in the Sudan caused said villian to remove all the electronic devices from New Jersey blah blah blah! Comics should be simple, cheap, and fun. Go back to early 70's Marvel/DC and see the vast difference in stories, which are considered "Classic" to todays nonsense. Not to go off on a tangent, but this same trend is what's killing Wrestling. Give me guy in funky suit robbing a bank over a complex world shattering event any day! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remianen Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Rob Liefeld cover (finished): <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BlsLZY4Qci8/TSOYos1GBxI/AAAAAAAABUk/NrSaSjQav_4/s1600/000sh14k.jpg" rel="external nofollow">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BlsLZY4Qci8/TSOYos1GBxI/AAAAAAAABUk/NrSaSjQav_4/s1600/000sh14k.jpg</a></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I got one better. Rob Liefeld's Captain America:</p><p> </p><p> <span>http://www.dubnerdesign.com/images/cap.jpeg</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Does that not look just a little bit strange? How about a woman?</p><p> </p><p> <span>http://www.progressiveboink.com/b/images/rob/liefeldgirl1.gif</span></p><p> </p><p> Where is her waist? How (or why) is she contorted like that, when she's supposed to be at rest?</p><p> </p><p> Here's a site you can check out for more examples: <a href="http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html" rel="external nofollow">http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> LordJaguar, I don't know where you're coming from with that. Let's follow your line of thinking in similar areas.</p><p> </p><p> Video games were for kids once too. Funny thing that, kids don't tend to have much money on their own and not every household has kids in it. So, you would have the video game industry shrink so that they're only making My Little Pony and Hello Kitty and Oregon Trail type games? Because here in America, anything else would have the bored soccer moms up in arms about content (or so it seems).</p><p> </p><p> News flash! The best selling games are not the ones targeted at kids (go read your Mass Effect 2 box. What's the rating on it?). Neither are the best selling comic series. Rockstar didn't become an iconic studio for making 'E for Everyone' games. Video games aren't just for kids and neither are comics. I'm sure Electronic Arts is spending almost a quarter of a billion dollars creating a video game for kids. The Death of Superman issue is largely credited as being the single highest grossing single issue in comics history (someone correct me if something has beaten it). Kids buying up all those copies?</p><p> </p><p> 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><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> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <p>I think comics, newspapers, etc... Could cost alot less. I don't know if comics have as many ad's in them as they used to have, but I'll tell you the truth, knowing a little about the newspaper bussiness, even at a local level. </p><p> </p><p> The truth is, the advertising alone can make enough to give just about any newspaper in any city, away for free. I'm sure (not 100%) that comic's make a similar good amount on advertising as well. This doesn't relate to just magazines (most magazines period, can and do make enough out of their advertisements, to be free). I'm sure there are some people here that can confirm the fact that some newspapers have already started going that route (or very close). </p><p> </p><p> Inside, where all those advertisements are, they are paid alot more money think you might think. You might say "Well, comics have to pay for artists, writers, etc." and magazines have to pay for all the same things, although maybe not as many different types of artists, but they have more writers (in general), that have to be paid. </p><p> </p><p> Just my two cents on the cost..... IF they dropped the price to where it would be more profitable for your local stores to carry a rack of them (like they used to), the stores would, and they could make their money be selling more (as Remi was saying would have to happen), to balance it out. </p><p> </p><p> As with alot of bussiness, they tend to adjust their prices a little bit at a time, to make up for the lack of sells. In the comics, this was like a nickle each time they went up. They figure a nickle isn't going to make a difference, and really, it makes very little difference... but when that nickle happens everytime there is a dip or increase in sells (taking advantage of it while it's "hot"), that nickle has gone (for example) for someone like me, from $0.35 to $2.99. I won't ever buy another one (haven't since it went over 75 cents). From 1968 to 1988, the average cost of comics went from 12 cents to 75 cents. From 1988 to 2008, the average cost went from 75 cents to $2.99. An increase of $2.44 since 1968, compared that to something like Milk (that doesn't get much in advertising money) that was $1.64 a gallon, and anywhere between $2.50 to $2.99 now, which is an increase of around $1.33. Before 1968, for years (since the 30's) comics were only 10 cents. </p><p> </p><p> DO I think costs of comics has jumped up way to much for what they are... Yeah, big time. Loss of sells means your product isn't worth what your trying to sell it for (if the product is worth buying at all). An increase is only a fast way of being in denial. Want me to buy any... Bring down the price. I go by what I feel it's worth, not by what I can afford.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike b Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 How iron man should have ended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <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> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="mike b" data-cite="mike b" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How iron man should have ended<p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/adW46gsMTXM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How Iron Man Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I see your Iron Man and raise you How The Dark Knight should have ended!</p><p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/seBpXt8_6xs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How The Dark Knight Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> </p><p> The truth is, the advertising alone can make enough to give just about any newspaper in any city, away for free. I'm sure (not 100%) that comic's make a similar good amount on advertising as well. This doesn't relate to just magazines (most magazines period, can and do make enough out of their advertisements, to be free). I'm sure there are some people here that can confirm the fact that some newspapers have already started going that route (or very close). </p><p> </p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> With newspapers, that's spot on. In fact, it seems that many papers and even glossy magazines are looking at free, ad-supported distribution as a way of maintaining viability in an age of digital content. </p><p> </p><p> Comic books, I'm told, not so much. It's apparently too niche of a market to attract the kind of advertising that would make reducing or removing the price-tag possible.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I see your Iron Man and raise you How The Dark Knight should have ended!<p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/seBpXt8_6xs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How The Dark Knight Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> When I bring How Thor should have ended to the table, you'll both fold.</p><p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1DTgNkkX2eU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How Thor Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hive" data-cite="Hive" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="31920" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>When I bring How Thor should have ended to the table, you'll both fold.<p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1DTgNkkX2eU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How Thor Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Nah, I'm gonna have to go all-in with Revenge of the Fallen!</p><p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JEdZ-yjxHLI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="How Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Should Have Ended"></iframe></div></div> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike b Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 <p>So will i with spider man 3</p><p> </p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/HoNgMVFQNBI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="Spider-Man 3 How It Should Have Ended (Original Version)"></iframe></div></div> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 <p>Lol. Way to completely ignore the thread I made just a month ago. New board members would do well to at least make an efford to check for existing threads. Sigh... I guess we'll keep this one. It kinda looks nicer with the 'official' status, even though it's not official at all. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Anyway, kinda excited about the whole DC Revamp coming up in a couple of days.</p><p> </p><p> Comix which i'm sure to check out:</p><p> </p><p> - Detective Comix: Classic Joker story, 'nuff said</p><p> - Batgirl: Love Oracle , can't wait to see her the way she used to be + Gail Simone is awesome</p><p> - Deathstroke: Like his character</p><p> </p><p> Changes I'll probably regret:</p><p> </p><p> - Teen Titans: Liked the current series, but the changes they made seem like way too much to handle to read now</p><p> - Birds of Prey: Without Oracle, it probably will fail, unless they come up with an exciting new twist, but I won't bother.</p><p> </p><p> What bothers me most is that they seem to be reinventing some characters, and continuing some characters. In that light, I'm happy I'm not a fervent reader since that would totally piss me off. I like continuity in entertainment. WWE provides this, almost every tv show follows the logic of time, but for some reason, they totally mix everything around. But that's probably the reason I'm not totally into comix: the randomness of it all. The change in their characters' powers has no realistic base, so it's hard to keep track of abilities and stuff. Therefore, I mostly care about the storylines and the relations.</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike b Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Anyone know off hand just what comics or characters/teams will get a overall besides ones mentioned in above post. And i cant see birds of prey without oracle either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingo Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Anyone know off hand just what comics or characters/teams will get a overall besides ones mentioned in above post. And i cant see birds of prey without oracle either. Only know the 'All new 52' which you probably know but if not have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_DC_Universe_reboot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike b Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 <p>Wow...um.....wow</p><p> </p><p> Sinestro back in the lantern corps:eek: with Hal's ring no less.</p><p> </p><p> Not so sure im going to be into this reboot have to wait and see</p> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.