akbogert's forum posts

#1 Edited by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukehero said:

DVR numbers don't count for ****. Why would advertisers really care when you can fastfoward through their expensive ADs. Honestly even VOD has its limitations and advertisers don't care as much as one would think about those numbers either. They wan't you to watch it live and sit through their commercials and buy their products & services.

Now premium channels don't care how you watch their shows, as long as you watch them and keep your subscription.

Yeah, that's incredibly obvious now that I'm actually reading it. But it didn't cross my mind at first.

If nothing else, DVR numbers should matter in telling whether low ratings are due to lack of interest or simply the poor time slot. Live numbers may determine whether a show is profitable for advertisers in its current slot, but assuming that the reason for low live numbers for a Friday night show is the show rather than the slot seems particularly poor logic to me. So taking into account DVR should matter, if for no other reason than it will better reflect actual interest in the show.

Though I understand the flip side: no guarantee that the time slot is the reason. It may be the kind of show that no one would prioritize watching -- you'd record it and watch something else live no matter when it was on.

I dunno. It still seems dumb to disregard DVR ratings for a show in that time slot when deciding whether the show itself is the problem.

#2 Posted by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

So does someone who knows more about TV ratings than I do want to clarify whether any show gets good live ratings on Friday nights? Because I feel like DVR is an even greater consideration for shows on Friday nights than any other night of the week.

#3 Edited by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@lagozzino: He randomly appeared in the last issue, and was immediately attacked and either seriously drained/injured or killed by an enemy named Siphon. Bonus points: Laura watched and didn't try to intervene, though a few pages later she risked her life to save Daken.

#4 Posted by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, that pricetag is pretty much prohibitive (though even at $3, honestly, a weekly series is going to be hard to handle for most people).

If the seeming death of Elixir at the end of Logan Legacy hadn't soured me to this series, the pricing would have.

#5 Edited by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

"I loved the moment when John walks into a meat locker and sees two dead bodies and changes the number of days before last incident."

Yup.

#6 Edited by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@meatwadf said:

@akbogert said:

@g_man said:

@meatwadf: I wonder how some people even enjoy comics anymore. So much bitterness and angst. It's like the 90s comic characters have spewed over onto the Internet when they disappeared from comics.

To be fair, I started reading comics less than two years ago (though I've spent disgusting amounts of money to "catch up," so I've read a lot further back and read about a lot more). And honestly the cynicism is almost always justified. Making predictions about the future based on the past is not jumping the gun -- it's educated guessing. People do not need to have seen "a single panel" of a new event to make inferences about it if previous events have all consistently disappointed them.

Actually, no, that's a terrible way to go about things. Imagine if you had read Countdown, then not read Final Crisis based on that event. Or, conversely, if you had seen the original Star Wars trilogy, and expected the prequels to be of the same caliber. The cynicism is absolutely not justified, and more often than not based on a sense of entitlement by the fan base. If someone isn't going to read a series or event, then they really have no place complaining. I didn't read any of the Superior Spiderman stuff, and I'm not going to try and judge the quality of the arc based on a few pages I've seen. Imagine if a movie reviewer wrote reviews based only on the trailers. They wouldn't last a day in the field, if they tried to pull that nonsense.

I'm not motivated enough to carry on a debate here, but some of the analogies are terrible. Whether cynicism is based on a sense of entitlement or not does not determine whether the cynicism is justified. "If someone isn't going to read a series or event, then they really have no place complaining." Really? I'm only allowed to dislike something if I buy it? My complaints can't be the reason I don't want to buy it?

We just had an election in the US. Say I voted for a Democrat because I have gotten tired of the Republican party -- even though this particular candidate for the Republican party hasn't been in office yet. By your logic, I'm not allowed to judge this particular candidate on the basis of past candidates from the same organization -- I have to treat him as if he were completely distinct from the party he is part of. And if I don't vote for him, then I'm not allowed to critique any of his policies, because I'm not even part of his campaign.

If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is ridiculous. When an organization routinely disappoints you, you are allowed to be cynical about the next thing they offer you -- you are allowed to expect it to disappoint you just as much as the previous offerings have disappointed you. You do not have to try this one too before deciding you wish you hadn't tried it.

The purpose of preview pages is expressly so that people can judge the quality of the product based on those preview pages and decide whether the product is worth their time. That is literally why they exist.

And a movie reviewer writing reviews based on a trailer would be nonsense. But no one's doing that. A film critic speculating on the quality of the film based on the trailer? That happens all the time. Especially when the critic is familiar with the director/actor/producer's previous work and can see parallels between that work and the upcoming film.

Anyway, like I said, I am not motivated to have a debate. I have been buying Marvel events for a couple years now and despite how optimistic I have tried to be, every single one of them has ended up disappointing or upsetting me. Every single one of them. I have paid a couple hundred dollars to earn my cynical outlook, and if you begrudge me that, so be it.

#7 Posted by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@g_man said:

@meatwadf: I wonder how some people even enjoy comics anymore. So much bitterness and angst. It's like the 90s comic characters have spewed over onto the Internet when they disappeared from comics.

To be fair, I started reading comics less than two years ago (though I've spent disgusting amounts of money to "catch up," so I've read a lot further back and read about a lot more). And honestly the cynicism is almost always justified. Making predictions about the future based on the past is not jumping the gun -- it's educated guessing. People do not need to have seen "a single panel" of a new event to make inferences about it if previous events have all consistently disappointed them.

#8 Posted by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

I do feel like the argumentation here (whether you agree that PG-13 is fine or not) is a little selective.

People loved Dredd and it has been hugely successful in home video sales.

Watchmen, Sin City (1), Blade, and Kick-Ass are all good comic-based films that were rated R and didn't tank. I also think successfulness is a somewhat subjective thing, because many of the higher-grossing movies were absolutely terrible and widely panned by fans and critics alike. Attracting a sufficient audience and attracting the largest possible audience are two very different criteria for success and if a lower rating means more people but a worse film, I'll pick the critical darling every time.

My thinking has been for years that if they ever brought Wade to the screen he's far more likely to be recognizable in an R-rated film. That's not changed now. But I do agree with people that if they manage to make a very good movie and have it be PG-13, everyone wins; we differ in our optimism about their ability to do so.

#9 Edited by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

@soulhakr said:

@burningzerox got to it before I could. This is sponsored by Twentieth Century Fox. They own the X-men franchise (and I think they even own the rights to the term "homo sapiens superior") This is obviously an augmented reality game / viral marketing campaign for the next x-men movie.

That said: this rawks.

Even without doing the research, that's what I was going to say (I've studied ARGs) but thanks to the sleuths for confirming.

#10 Posted by akbogert (3234 posts) - - Show Bio

So it wasn't until this issue that I finally saw the obvious parallel between the character assassination happening with Felicia and what DC is doing with Selina... both companies taking their actually awesome female cat-based thief characters and turning them into unlikable criminal kingpins.

On a side note, I've been complaining about this for like a year now, but is there some trick to adding issues like this to lists? Because when I'm in the list and search "amazing spider-man 6," I wade through ten pages of other ASM 6** issues and it never even finds the latest ongoing. Similar problems for X-Men and many other rebooted franchises.