FastestBlender

The argument of "hey, we'll just do more of what people click on" is inherently flawed, particularly when it comes to the podcast. I've watched over the past year as the comic book section of the show gets shorter and subjugated to he back of the show and the written reviews dwindle down to a handful a week. The logic behind this is the entertainment press releases get more clicks, so that should take precedence. Do you know how boring it is to listen to the two of you regurgitate press releases? There's nothing to do but speculate, sometimes with only having an actors name attached to a property. Whereas talking about comics, that have a story and art, and connections to a wider universe, THAT has actual intellectual substance (particularly if you eliminate the spoiler phobia that still persists). You're COMICvine, reportedly the largest database of comic information out there. Own your identity.

PS I'm sure some 13 year old (or one with that age's mentality) will flag this post just because I'm "hating" on the site but actually listen to what I'm saying. This golden age of nerd entertainment ain't reflected in the world of sequential art. Look at DC's latest sales numbers. We have to keep championing comics.

No one I know is saying that except for @g_man who says it sarcastically every week like it's some crackpot theory or vicious bleeding cool rumor. There is an avalanche of proof to support that these properties are being pushed to the background and The Thing in Guardians and Johnny in Inhumans does not refute it. If anything, their keeping the license for these character by having them appear in a comic based on a blockbuster movie and an upcoming movie (not to mention the Inhuman's presence in Agents of Shield). To refute it at this point is naive.

And I'll bring it up this week because you all bring it up every week: You three complaining about complaints only spreads negativity. If you can't take it, disable comments on the site. Most people don't read the comments and are unaware of of the disagreements. So by you all airing them out in a podcast only spreads them further.

Why would you do that? The only way to cut down on bad product like this is to not support it.

@themantisshrimp said:

@g_man@captainhoopla Aja tweeted months ago that he turned in the pages.

Thank you. Lott mis information out there.

So the Guerro counter argument for the 1/2 page ads is "it happened in the 60's"? There's a lot of things that happened in the 60's that are no longer acceptable. Even in comics alone. Those ads are a real insult to artists. You're reducing the space in which they create and altering the reading experience. Panel layout is an aspect to the art of comics. Remember the deliberate 9 panel grid of From Hell and Watchman? The orientation altering of Capullo's Batman and Quesada's Daredevil? And the aspect ratio of digital releases is not a valid argument either because the size of the art remains basically the same. From Bleeding Cool:

That's not ok. And it's just the latest of DC's blunders. Again, very few of us a reveling in the failures of this company. We're voicing our opinion online and voting with our dollar to enact change.

I refuse to believe the majority of people complaining about DC's decisions over the past few years are doing it just to pile on. The majority like myself are trying to enact change. We see characters we love being mistreated and unsupported all for a quick bump in sales through marketing campaigns. And because the hiring at DC Comics isn't part of the public election, we want to make our voice heard. How many garbage comics are you going to sit through thinking, "well, we'll just have to see if the next event writes the ship". At some point, you've have to take a hard look at the people telling these stories . Matt says "If it's not for me, I won't buy it" and "I just want good stories". The people complaining are reading good stories from Image, Marvel and others. However they still enjoy the DC characters and would like to read a halfway decent story with them from time to time. It's really amazing, DC puts out a tone deaf marketing campaign and you all twist it into bad fans spreading negativity on the internet.

Here's a fun game, tally up how many times Tony ends a news article or review with "I don't know". Quite a lot, huh? If you don't take one side or the other, it keeps the publishers happy.

Re: Harley Quinn

Different takes on characters are fine. In fact, they can help evolve the character and create new and interesting stories. However when you miss the fundamental point of a character, that's when fans react negatively. For instance, none of you all seemed to pleased with the Jimmy Olsen casting for Supergirl. They missed the core values of the character. The same thing is happening to Harley Quinn. Chris Simms explains:

See, that’s the tragedy of Harley Quinn, the thing that makes her so compelling underneath all the bright, poppy cheer. She’s in love with someone who will never, ever love her back. Someone who can never, ever love her back, because he’s thoroughly obsessed with someone else.Read More: Ask Chris #173: The Trouble With Harley Quinn | http://comicsalliance.com/harley-quinn-paul-dini-bruce-timm-dc-ask-chris/?trackback=tsmclip

So when you remove the Joker from the equation as DC has done, you're left with a character so adrift and rudderless, someone decides she's perfectly fine murdering children

That's not the character Paul Dini created. That's not the character Arlene Sorkin voiced. It's trash.

"We're not idiots" - Matt E. Comic Vine

Talk about diversity every week. Don't talk down to people who have a different opinion than yours.

Also, some cognitive dissonance: You've instructed comic fans to stop overanalyzing and nitpicking adaptations in other media because that adaptation "isn't for us. It's for new fans". If that's the case, why does comic book adaptation press releases take up the first third of the podcast? The Comic Vine podcast, reportedly the #1 comic book resource.

Neptune's beard could we steer this show back to comics first? Oscars noms, race debates, soft drink preferences? It takes an hour before a comic book is discussed

Lucius Fox: Let me get this straight. You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands; and your plan, is to *blackmail* this person?

[pause, Reese looks nervous]

Lucius Fox: Good luck

Let me get this straight. You think Original Sin needed scenes cut out, the characters didn't react properly to the revelation, don't like the decision to kill the watcher, and found Dr. Midas' appearance confusing; and your verdict, is wavering between three and *four* stars?

[pause, GmanFromHeck looks nervous]

Good luck

Someone's really full of it this week

• If you want to hear about comic books, start at the 20 minute mark. Seriously
• You can't just preface a statement with 'everyone is entitled to their opinions' and then complain about the comments on your site. A vocal majority thought Zero Year dragged and just as many think Original Sin went off the rails. Very few people think the world is just filled with 4 and 5 star books. So people are more salty and one sided about their opinions online, who cares? You could not read the comments. Or you could disable them on reviews. Either decision is a lot more productive than whining on the podcast.
• What is the source for the data that Comic Vine doesn't want to hear spoilers? A comment thread? a poll? As Corey has mentioned, there are studies out there with a much larger data pool that prove knowing plot points ahead of time isn't the disaster you make it out to be:
  Spoilers Don’t Spoil Anything
  also, many say 2 days is plenty of time for someone to catch up. Comics come out Wednesday, your podcast comes out Friday http://www.avclub.com/article/new-study-asks-how-long-spoilers-are-fair-game-tot-208178
  It's ludicrous to suggest someone won't buy a comic because now they know how the story goes. Do you think people won't go see Guardians of the Galaxy because they can read the plot on wikipedia? We're asking for plot points to be discussed so there is some critical discussion of whether they story is good or not. Where Spidey webs a woman in distress is not critical discussion
• You are wrong about Utah Comic Con. Local artist and fellow podcaster Scott Johnson will tell you as much

And this is just the first hour? Wah wah wee wah...

5.5 on IGN

"Jensen essentially reveals that Fatality never loved Stewart, and that he has been unknowingly raping Fatality for the entirety of their relationship. It’s enough to give any Stewart fans the heebs, and this also means that all of the time that has been used to set up this relationship and any attachments that fans may have built up towards this relationship has all been for naught. In addition to that, Stewart’s reaction to this news is ripped straight out of Star Wars Episode III, and in case you are wondering, that’s a very bad thing. Instead of feeling anything for Stewart, you’re left laughing at the absurdity of the scene. "