Log in or sign up to comment
124 Comments
  • 124 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by Scary Tousers

To all people saying that Marvel is worse than DC, please consider that Marvel doesn't control imprints like Vertigo and Wildstorm they can screw over.

Posted by Silkcuts
@Scary Tousers said:
" To all people saying that Marvel is worse than DC, please consider that Marvel doesn't control imprints like Vertigo and Wildstorm they can screw over. "
That is arguable.  Epic was one of my favorite imprints and that was horribly mishandled over the years.
Posted by crackerjack82

My heart sank, when i heard they would shut down wildstorm, I loved the books from the imprint, and the stories were so much better,I enjoy marvel, but i cant stand them right now either, there MAX line had some great stuff, that SHOULD of never been brought to the main line, supreme power was one them, and that became a nightmare, ITs all about the bottom dollar, instead of the fans.

Edited by TirioAn

While I dislike corporate greed as much as the next guy, I still have to say a few things. One, "guys like me who wasted their money on great stories that are now not their history." Really? Why does the current character's history matter that much? That was what kept readers like me from trying out a number of DC books. Also, it sounds a bit too money oriented coming from somebody pointing the greed finger. Two, "the rate DC is going, it would not surprise me if I find love away from DC and read more of the Indy books." Why haven't you already? There are many great independent titles that you should be supporting. And if enough people make it possible for those other books to flourish, DC and Marvel might actually get the hint.

Edited by nszerdy

Justice League number 1 hasn't sold close to a million copies---where as when X-men 1 (Jim Lee and Claremont) was realeased it sold well into the Millions so I wouldn't agree about the greed. They are trying to keep the comic industry Vital when it is clearly fading away. And as far as the relaunching--I heard a few of the storylines that were going on prior to the relaunch--with parallel universes and different changes to characters/powers/objects---I just couldn't follow it and did not want to jump in. But now that the storylines are starting over--I am actually reading them! It gave me a chance to get back into it----- Dan Didio, Johns and Lee made a good decision.

Posted by BloodTalon

@Mainline said:

You're being silly by framing it as "greed" (the immoral wanting of more than one deserves)... if you can see the point about it being business then how about seeing it as a job for the individuals?

You realize they get up every morning to provide for themselves, their families, their future, and just happen to do it in a manner that involves your consumption, but they don't live for your consumption. If anything, condemning a person's personal and free will choices to provide for themselves as they see fit for the sake of your personal enjoyment... well, THAT is greed (hubris, and a number of other choice words in terms of mischaracterizing interests). Comics, on the publishing side, are not that big a business. The fact is that the vast majority of those working in it could find more lucrative work elsewhere- particularly in terms of those playing with the corporately owned toys of others- and it takes a special sort of insanity to decide to work in comics rather than reap the rewards of their talents doing something else. What makes you qualified to call an individual immoral and undeserving of their paycheck? What do you think DC hired those people to do?

Who are you, a mere consumer, to judge people who are often in the business at a loss (to themselves in terms of opportunity cost), beholden to corporate owners and shareholders, and simultaneously slagged off by ungrateful fans who complain about business decisions rather than voting with their dollars? Seriously, that's a much worse character flaw than anything mischaracterized as "greed", which is at least in the service of supply and demand... whereas bandying about terms like "greed" and airing irrational complaints ("Oh yes, they're economically motivated, therefore they don't care about their product! That makes perfect sense!") are nothing but meaningless rants. If you actually believe they're greedy monsters then you'd know slagging off does NOTHING and that only your dollars matter... otherwise, what's the point? You're trying to insult the nonexistent conscience of your imagined greedy beast? How does that make ANY sense? Are you encouraging more people to abandon the books to force cuts? I mean, THINK!

If you love something, then campaign FOR it. Slagging off the one thing that has any chance of keeping it alive is WORTHLESS. It's not intellectually deep, it's not effective, it's not analytical, it's not constructive, and all it does is promote uninformed hate which is equally pointless and stupid.

What has bitterness ever solved?

@Mainline said:

@Silkcuts said:

Because some of the response are making me feel like I put it a lot of work and not even 50% effort back. - Silkcuts "


Because YOU DIDN'T put "a lot of work" into it. Your argument, at a fundamental level MAKES NO SENSE.

ALL you did was free associate a list of grievances and nail it to a conveniently morally loaded term like "greed" without any logical or casual connection between the two.

You're lying because you don't give a damn what their motivations are one iota! If they had given in to every single one of your grievances and did it OUT OF GREED you wouldn't care and your hypocrisy would be exposed! If they had kept Wildstorm separate (and frankly we don't know what's happening so it's leaping to conclusions at this point), preserved Swamp Thing's continuity in your eyes, preserved Madame Xanadu, etc. all for the sake of not "turning away fans" (your fundamental greed based thesis) then you'd be a happy camper even if DC was being greedy about it! If fact, your arguments are all how matching your personal preferences would make long term business sense (not the moral or ethical reasons for preserving the art over the self-interests of the corporation).

In other words, logically, your argument isn't that DC is greedy... it's that it isn't GREEDY ENOUGH... that it should be greedy for those turned away revenue dollars in the phantom walk-away fans.

Of course, the reality is that your argument isn't all that sophisticated to begin with. All you're really doing is airing grievances and trying to call upon the moral authority of "greed" as a "bad word" to validate everything you say. You could've argued that some decisions were short sighted or ineffective gambles or a creative turn-off against your preference or the preference of others, or plain stupid or poorly thought out but you really weren't interested in the motivations (otherwise why use a blanket economic self-interest as a critique then proceed to explain how every one of your preferred outcomes would have been in their economic interest?) but merely listing the specific outcomes you disagreed with. You don't care if they're greedy or not, just that they're doing things you don't like.

Concisely, it's just nerd rage.

---

For those who need an illustrative example...

"DC is greedy because they gave up on Wally and brought back Barry! If they had kept Wally, they would have kept all these readers!"

If you break it down, the criticism is transparent. The writer doesn't care whether or not DC is greedy... in fact, they appeal to DC's greed by claiming their preferred outcome would have sated it better... the true point is "I want Wally back!" That doesn't mean you couldn't provide internally valid criticism for who you think the decision was short-sighted, or stupid, or wrong... but the "greed" criticism is completely a smokescreen for the writer's actual interests and commentary. In that example, if DC was greedy as all hell but the writer still had their preferred character do you think they would still post a moral condemnation of greed? Of course not.

  • S: "DC brought back Bart... I liked that, it kept me as a reader."
  • M: "But I thought DC was greedy? Didn't they do that out of greed?"
  • S: "Nah, bringing back Bart was entirely altruistic and filled with creative integrity right down to the de-aging!"
  • M: "Soooo... basically, DC is only greedy when they do something you don't like."
  • S: "Uh, yes... I mean, no... I mean... well, there are consequences when their greed does something I don't like."
  • M: "Wouldn't there be consequences if they did something you didn't like whether or not it was based on greed?"
  • S: "Uh... yeah... but then I couldn't call them out as being greedy to seem right and take the moral high ground!"

I have only read this far in to the topic but I had to quote this it is well written and I agree 100%

if you did not read this I think you should

Posted by Silkcuts
@BloodTalon said:

  • S: "DC brought back Bart... I liked that, it kept me as a reader."
  • M: "But I thought DC was greedy? Didn't they do that out of greed?"
  • S: "Nah, bringing back Bart was entirely altruistic and filled with creative integrity right down to the de-aging!"
  • M: "Soooo... basically, DC is only greedy when they do something you don't like."
  • S: "Uh, yes... I mean, no... I mean... well, there are consequences when their greed does something I don't like."
  • M: "Wouldn't there be consequences if they did something you didn't like whether or not it was based on greed?"
  • S: "Uh... yeah... but then I couldn't call them out as being greedy to seem right and take the moral high ground!"

I have only read this far in to the topic but I had to quote this it is well written and I agree 100%

if you did not read this I think you should

On the record!  The "S" quotes are fabricated.  Know your facts before you try to call me out.  Sure the 52 is popular, but the masses love the superheroes not the medium.  I am tired of people not understanding the difference from sequential arts and the mass market drama.
 
I am glad DC is selling comics, that means the industry is living, but when you know characters like Swamp Thing and John Constantine well before 52, then the view is different.  Anyone who tells me the 52 is good for John Constantine, I dare review all of Paul Jenkins run and proof they read it.  It is easy for the people 52 was pitched for yo like the 52, since the 52 are newer readers in general.  So DC did not turn away fans in general.  The gained more casual readers, but fans like me, older fans in general felt betrayed by the need to sell to new readers rather then established market.  The 52 was the best thing to happen to me, since I personally cut down on my heroes books.  I read more indie now and have dreams to write my own comics.  So DC's "greed" as I put it was a good thing for me after the fact.
 
So before you side against me, realized that this is an old blog and mainline can't attack me without putting words in my mouth I didn't say.  He never attacks my master piece work, because things like my Elegy review prove I am above him when it comes to understanding the medium.
 
Cheers
Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts:

Happy Birthday, Silk!

I know that your birthday is in April...but better early than never. XD

Posted by Silkcuts
@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts:

Happy Birthday, Silk!

I know that your birthday is in April...but better early than never. XD

You are the best
Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts:

Happy Birthday, Silk!

I know that your birthday is in April...but better early than never. XD

You are the best

Another attack of thread drift... :D

But getting back on point...in the future, fans will only pay $3.99 (or whatever) for paper copies of the comics that they really, really, REALLY have to have. The rest they will read in E book format for 99 cents a pop.

Posted by BloodTalon

@Silkcuts said:

@BloodTalon said:
  • S: "DC brought back Bart... I liked that, it kept me as a reader."
  • M: "But I thought DC was greedy? Didn't they do that out of greed?"
  • S: "Nah, bringing back Bart was entirely altruistic and filled with creative integrity right down to the de-aging!"
  • M: "Soooo... basically, DC is only greedy when they do something you don't like."
  • S: "Uh, yes... I mean, no... I mean... well, there are consequences when their greed does something I don't like."
  • M: "Wouldn't there be consequences if they did something you didn't like whether or not it was based on greed?"
  • S: "Uh... yeah... but then I couldn't call them out as being greedy to seem right and take the moral high ground!"

I have only read this far in to the topic but I had to quote this it is well written and I agree 100%

if you did not read this I think you should

On the record! The "S" quotes are fabricated. Know your facts before you try to call me out. Sure the 52 is popular, but the masses love the superheroes not the medium. I am tired of people not understanding the difference from sequential arts and the mass market drama.

I am glad DC is selling comics, that means the industry is living, but when you know characters like Swamp Thing and John Constantine well before 52, then the view is different. Anyone who tells me the 52 is good for John Constantine, I dare review all of Paul Jenkins run and proof they read it. It is easy for the people 52 was pitched for yo like the 52, since the 52 are newer readers in general. So DC did not turn away fans in general. The gained more casual readers, but fans like me, older fans in general felt betrayed by the need to sell to new readers rather then established market. The 52 was the best thing to happen to me, since I personally cut down on my heroes books. I read more indie now and have dreams to write my own comics. So DC's "greed" as I put it was a good thing for me after the fact.

So before you side against me, realized that this is an old blog and mainline can't attack me without putting words in my mouth I didn't say. He never attacks my master piece work, because things like my Elegy review prove I am above him when it comes to understanding the medium. Cheers

Wow you presume a lot and seem to be angry I feel sad for you that you can not handle a different opinion with out so much negativity

You know nothing about me like the fact that I am an older reader, I like hero books and apparently you presume that I can't read but I did know that this was an old topic and I read your whole blog and the rest of the thread in its entirety. All of your statements are opinion not fact and you have your rite to your opinion but to present them as facts is just wrong thats it

Oh ya Mainline is still right

Posted by BloodTalon

@Silkcuts said:

@ombla2 said:
As a friendly challenge, you don't have to accept it. But try a book, budget allowed, that is outside your norm. I guess its why I love Alan Moore, comics are so great because they can tell stories ways other mediums can't. I only comment, because you may discover something special. I don't know what your norm is, I am I guess campaigning to help the industry as a whole. Sales suck everywhere and a lot of talent is around outside the "Safe" books. Brian Wood's greatest book in mine and most Brian Wood fan's is Channel Zero and that is a book Vertigo has yet to purchase off him. I've become acquaintances with Jeff Lemire because the book that exposed me to him was Essex County and that was before his DC Exclusive. Now because of that grass roots relationship he knows me by name and he has been an great incite to the comic business to me. It is a business and they do need money. My view is money is important, but same with stories. Max profit should not be the goal because the product does suffer. So even if something like Vertigo or Image is outside your comfort, try something out. Or a Dark Horse or Top Shelf. There are so much great comics out their and so many gems to fine. It is just a friendly challenge, let me know what you think of the book you select if you do. I would love to hear a review. Thanks again for replying. Cheers. - Silkcuts

I do agree with this mostly trying new books is great

Posted by 218Comics

Looking at DC's sales numbers, I don't know how the answer could be anything but "no."

It certainly hasn't turned me away, and I'm enjoying most of the New 52.

Posted by Silkcuts
@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts:

Happy Birthday, Silk!

I know that your birthday is in April...but better early than never. XD

You are the best

Another attack of thread drift... :D

But getting back on point...in the future, fans will only pay $3.99 (or whatever) for paper copies of the comics that they really, really, REALLY have to have. The rest they will read in E book format for 99 cents a pop.

Its a sad truth.  Print is dying, because people would rather recycled plots and claim they understand the medium.
Posted by BloodTalon

@Silkcuts said:

@pikahyper: Great take. I really need to get over my dislike for digital comics. I guess I was raised with the paper feel in my hand, so reading comics on the compute I don't like.

I would have posted this yesterday but it would not let me post 3 times in a row so hear it is I agree with this 100% and if comics go completely digital I will still get them and if I can I will print out my own hard copy (or floppy as the case may be)

Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts:

When it gets right down to it...CONTENT is the only thing that matters.

If something is mediocre...if an artist doesn't "bait and switch" you by throwing something totally unexpected your way...

...it really doesn't matter how shiny the packaging is, be it digital or paper.

Posted by Silkcuts
@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts:

When it gets right down to it...CONTENT is the only thing that matters.

If something is mediocre...if an artist doesn't "bait and switch" you by throwing something totally unexpected your way...

...it really doesn't matter how shiny the packaging is, be it digital or paper.

Agreed Content is key.  But I disagree about digital, someone like J.H. Williams is so fluid with his panels and so dynamic with his art reading it in Comixology wouldn't do the same justice as in your hand.  For example, Promethea was intended and written for print.  Issue #32 can be read a few ways because more intended for the comic to be broken into separate pages.  Yes digital doesn't really effect the writing of guys like Geoff Johns, but guys like Johns don't push the medium like an Alan Moore or a Chris Ware.  This is why guys like me are getting turned away from the mainstream, the mainstreams core books are about the story only, but not the limitations and non limitations of sequential arts.  Give me a Will Eisner hardcover over a comixology JLA story any day.  One thing is for sure I will learn more about sequential art from Eisner.
Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts:

Have you ever read a comic book on an I pad?

As long as the colors are perfectly adjusted, whether you are flipping pages on the pad or flipping paper pages...no difference.

Posted by Silkcuts
@Roxanne Starr said:

@Silkcuts:

Have you ever read a comic book on an I pad?

As long as the colors are perfectly adjusted, whether you are flipping pages on the pad or flipping paper pages...no difference.

I know what you mean, I read comics on the go with my smart phone all the time now.  But some comics are designed fro print, Promethea is a great example of it.  The last issue cannot be digested by the brain the way it was intended, since you can't take it apart digitally.  Chris Ware has similar comics where you are suppose to take it part physically.  Yes digital makes most comics convenient, it also limits comics in some way.  Even something like Big numbers, if the panels are spoon fed then the acceptance of the information is different from when you are looking at the whole page.  This is why Alan Moore is the greatest sequential arts writer, he writes for the medium, while most people cannot maximize the medium in the same way.
Posted by turoksonofstone

  

  @Silkcuts:  Hey man Awesome thread. Warner Bros. lol!
Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts:

On an i-pad, you can see the whole page at the same time...or a double page spread.

On a screen of any decent size you don't have to read the comic one panel at a time, Silk.

Posted by Silkcuts
@Roxanne Starr: I'll get back to you when I upgrade.
You seem to have me at a current disadvantage.
Posted by Roxanne Starr

@Silkcuts said:

@Roxanne Starr: I'll get back to you when I upgrade. You seem to have me at a current disadvantage.

Yeah. I have all the bells and whistles at my disposal these days. :-)

Posted by jsphsmth

No, but Isaac Perlmutter's greed is going to alienate the Marvel fans. His budget cuts and layoffs are forcing fan-favorite, medium selling comics to be cancelled. The change in royalties on trades might make A-list talent less likely to work with Marvel. Not smart moves to make just because DC has equal marketshare with Marvel again. It is almost like he is punishing the company.

You cannot compare Isaac's greed to DC finally making some much need changes to their company.