|
Edit: Not funny on a new page.
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
At least one of those is 100% true. The rest of them would be, in a perfect world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
X-O posted:I would think it's a negligible effect. Anyone that would be impressed by that is probably already reading those books if they are interested based on the publicity they've already had. Dude, the Hugos are like the Oscars of speculative fiction. Nomination does tend to lead to a spike in sales. Winning tends to lead to a larger spike.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Here are the previous winners of the prestigious Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story: I'm not going to pretend I can argue with this. Objection withdrawn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I have a question towards this. Marvel's tried having a secondary line in the past, but it hasn't generally worked out for them. Their greatest success on that level was probably the MAX line, since that was the home of Alias and Ennis' legendary Punisher run. Otherwise, in terms of publishing books that aren't straight Marvel comics, that's not really their thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I'm annoyed that they didn't even put the character names in the order they appear. How can you tell?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Even if it's in a book it's fan fiction. In this case the definition would be "not published or acknowledged by the company that owns the intellectual property," and is far from arbitrary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:All fiction featuring characters and concepts not created by the original creator, that is done by someone who has even a cursory interest in them, is fanfiction. Just accept it. No. The concept is meaningless if you dilute it that far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I don't really adhere to that belief since it actually makes fan fiction less distinctive but it's a good argument to use against assholes who yell at fan fiction writers because their work is "not legitimate" The best argument against those assholes is a block button, not easily debunked nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Replace "block button" with "banhammer" and it works either way, though that depends on a well-moderated community, which might be too much to ask. One might also counter the effects of internet bullying by offering said 12-year-olds encouragement and support, but I'll admit that might be too idealistic a perspective for the internet.
haitfais fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
There are probably one or two, but I'm pretty sure Lightning Lord wasn't talking about creators. There are plenty of assholes on the internet willing to say horrible things to kids who dare to have Unapproved Fun with their fandom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
That's to your credit, but given how long you've been on SA, I'm sure you can imagine those assholes existing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:It's just kind of an icky definition to be honest. A corporate doctrine shouldn't dictate how you take in or view a piece of fiction, and diminishing what Claremont-- someone who really was an unprecedented creative drive for a group of superheroes-- because it's not the official company line seems silly. Especially for something where the subtext is really important for a lot of readers. No one is talking about dictating how anyone consumes or views fiction. We're talking about the difference between fanfiction and "officially" canonical material. Everyone decides for themselves how much they actually care about that distinction, and I can't make the case that there's a wrong answer to be found there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I'm going to assume without checking that at least one such comic exists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is arbitrary because it only applies to right now when that isn't the case for the 70s and 80s since both Kitty and Rachel were Claremonts through and through. Hell even part of the 90s. Guess what was never officially acknowledged in the comics Claremont was writing, or by the company he was writing them for? That's why the distinction isn't arbitrary. It was subtext, which could (and maybe should,) have found its way into the actual story, but didn't. Claremont's X-Men headcanon stopped mattering when he stopped writing X-Men.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I think Claremont's headcanon is pretty important Sure, but that's Kirby. None of this stuff would even exist if it weren't for him, so his headcanon is arguably the word of God regardless of context. That's not to short-sell Claremont's contribution. The X-Men were dead in the water before he came along. That doesn't change the fact that everything he wrote had to be approved by authorities before publication. I fully believe that, were it permitted, Claremont would have made that subtext overt and official. Unfortunately, the final decision was not his, and Kitty/Rachel will never be officially sanctioned. But, once again, you are under no obligation to give a poo poo about what's "officially" true. If believing that Kitty/Rachel is a thing makes the stories more enjoyable or authentic for you, then don't let pedants like me stop you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:All comic writing is at it's core fan fiction. Once again, at that point fanfiction becomes meaningless as a concept. It's a pointlessly simplistic assertion that fails to recognise that corporate-owned, shared fictional universes have been a thing longer than television. Any argument that begins with this as a premise fails by default.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Madkal posted:You know, every few months or so we do these "recommend a Batman story" thing and while there is nothing wrong with these lists, I am also kind of curious about some anti-recommend Batman lists. Which stories should people avoid and why. Avoid Hush if you're already familiar with the ins and outs of Batman and cape book story structure. It makes a half-decent "baby's first Batman," but the more comics you read, the more glaring its faults become. Also, I can't believe I'm the first to mention Kevin Smith's Cacophony and Widening Gyre. If you like yourself, don't read them. In fact, you'd be better off never reading a comic with Smith's name on it. For a man who loves comics in general, and Batman in particular, he is really loving bad at writing them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I read Cacophony and it was dire, and have heard only bad things about Widening Gyre, but I have also heard good things about his Green Arrow run and I seem to be one of the only people on this forum who liked his Daredevil run. I used to speak highly of Quiver and Guardian Devil, but it turns out that was mostly because I was fairly young when I read them. I revisited them when my podcast did a feature episode on Smith a couple years ago, and they didn't hold up at all. They're better than his Batman stuff (his most recent burrito fart is better than his Batman stuff,) but still really sloppy. It's really obvious that they're some of his earliest comic work, because they're hopelessly, hilariously dependent on narration boxes. Especially Guardian Devil. Drawing from memory, so there may be some exaggeration here, but there were pages in that book with more caption boxes than art. Apart from writing narration like Claremont wrote dialogue in the 70s, his work is guilty of haphazard story structure, inconsistent characterisation, and plot twists so far out of left field that they abruptly change the very genre of the stories, typically in the final chapter. None of that explains his Batman books, which are so completely hosed that I can't begin to explain them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Captain Fetch! loving genius.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Um, dude, did you only read that part of the paragraph? I was working at a (rather large,) family-owned bookstore during the "death of brick and mortar" days. I remember when Borders closed, and when it seemed like all the little streetcorner bookstores seemed to be dying off. I also remember when that stopped happening because the industry re-stabilised like six months later. This was about five years ago. Barnes and Noble's still kicking, the major Canadian retailers (Chapters and McNally Robinson, the latter being my alma mater,) were basically untouched, and tiny little corner bookstores are still everywhere. The Death of the Bookstore is just as much of a myth as the Death of Print was in the early days of ebooks, or the Death of the Hardcover when mass market paperbacks were introduced in the 1940s. Everytime a new "disruptive" product or business model pops up, the same short-sighted chorus heralds the death of the industry, and they've been proven wrong every single time. Just because a new format is introduced, even if it's cheaper/more convenient/made of chocolate/whatever, doesn't mean the prior format loses all of its market share. The new thing finds its niche alongside what already exists, the numbers are shuffled around accordingly, and life goes on. Retail won't die until society as a whole decides they don't much care for physical browsing and not waiting a week and a half to get the product they paid for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Hey Frank Miller doesn't look like he's dying anymore! Doesn't look any different to me, apart from the beard. Congrats, Rhyno.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:and his color is a lot better, last picture I saw of him his skin almost looked translucent. If I'm the only one who doesn't see it, I'm probably wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Zachack posted:In other possibly bad things news I managed to order Zero Hour: Crisis in Time by mistake (I meant to order the EC Library Zero Hour) and didn't realize it until I opened my IST box. Aside from apparently getting too old to notice these kinds of mistakes, what do I need to know before I read this? Is it good? Bad? Steeped in continuity? Will I be totally lost/bored/angry? Have fun with that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:I'll fight you I'll hold your coat and joehonkie's wallet. What I like about Mage is that it's an early effort by a talented creator in the early experimental days of modern indie comics. I enjoyed watching Wagner's craft develop and improve alongside the story. joehonkie posted:Will you be fighting me as a massive self-insert character and then wear the same exact clothes as that guy in real life? Because good stories never involve author insertion or wish fulfillment. Wagner, Morrison, Alighieri: all hacks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 02:05
|
|