akbogert's forum posts

#1 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

I looked through the preview book yesterday and was overwhelmed. Right now I want to try 16 of these, and half of those are pretty much definite pulls. Hopefully preview pages and solicits will help me whittle that list down.

(SUPER excited to see Laura in a solo book again, "Wolverine" name or not, and all the more because Tom Taylor is writing it)

#2 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

The Scott moment shocked me for sure, but I found the end with Strange at least as intriguing. I expected him to drop the mic and disappear or something, but, well...

#3 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

This book is already so fantastic in its medium, and gloriously cinematic on the page. I can see why it would be appealing as a television show -- and you'd better believe I'll watch it if it happens -- but this is one of those cases where I feel like media don't need to aspire to grow into other media.

#4 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

This was a weird, if enjoyable, book for me. I'm not for a moment buying that this book follows a continuity including her time with the Outlaws, though, because as others have pointed out there has been a complete reset on her understanding of Earth and basic human customs. So if this is supposed to actually follow that book, major failure on that front. I just sort of read it as a brand new reintroduction of the character, and in THAT light her naivety wasn't grating. It was indeed like seeing the cartoon character brought into the DCU, albeit not as young (but still as gullible). I can see why that would be annoying to people, especially anyone hoping for the pre-New 52 character. But I happily fell on the "this is a charming book" side of things.

#5 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

This feels kinda like a lose/lose situation for anyone who is hoping for something resembling a return of the Runaways. If you support this book, you basically tell Marvel "put "Runaways" on the cover and I'll be it, regardless of who or what is in it." Which doesn't incentivize actually giving us the team we miss. On the flip side, if you don't support this book, you basically tell Marvel "we can't sell a Runaways book."

This isn't a Runaways book by any stretch of imagination, so I have no interest in it, but I also don't want to kill the Runaways name by avoiding it...?

#6 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

Nygma remains my favorite thing about this show.

#7 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

I love how ridiculous all of this is. I just stopped considering adding anything Marvel to my pull until we get to the other side of this event. Several of the folks at my LCS have told me this is driving them crazy -- and they're as lost as anyone else as to what's actually going on.

At least with DC's Convergence, they provided a way of dealing with the temporary derailment. But it sounds like Marvel's not treating these Battleworld books as one-shots, but all ongoing series (even if most of them are de facto one-shots).

#8 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

Do Archie variants function like Marvel/DC variants (such that they're limited to retailers who order a certain amount) or can you actually specifically order the cover you want (as with some other publishers)?

#9 Posted by akbogert (3292 posts) - - Show Bio

"I laughed out loud during the shootout at the farmhouse, where the woman tripped and hit her head on the mantle. This show has jumped into the world of "so bad, it's hilarious" territory."

I saw your tweet about this but I was about ten minutes behind in the episode -- when this happened I was pretty sure it's what had led to the tweet. I laughed too. Terrible.

#10 Edited by akbogert (3292 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.