 |
|
|
|
|
#581001 - 12/16/10 04:46 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 04/09/03
Posts: 241
Loc: My own little world
|
Here's my hypothesis about Paul's lack of posting on the JBF. Somebody here posted a link (maybe it was even in this thread) to some people discussing Paul on the JBF. They seem to realize over there that he has merely adopted their "defend JB at all costs" routine as a desperate plea for attention. In the JBF proper his clown act would just blend in, so he has to set his sights on other forums that have more critical opinions of Byrne. Apparently, he tried his schtick at IMWAN, but couldn't figure out how to post (or something). There were a couple of posts regarding myself at the JBF (one member has since been banned & posts here as Dr. Brian Fever), but it was barely a blip on the radar (Oh woe is me!). As far as IMWAN goes, they're a bunch of cowards (or at least those with stroke are the cowards) & I wouldn't post there now even if they paid me to. And I imagine it would be very easy to post there if I wasn't pre-banned (or something). I'm sure they tremble in fear of the very thought of you posting your nonsense there. TREMBLE!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581002 - 12/16/10 06:40 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Alexander Ness]
|
Member
Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 3230
Loc: Salem, MA, USA
|
I thought the new #1 issue of Next Men was pretty good. Lots of mysteries. Dreams within dreams and multiple layers of paradox. I'm looking forward to the next issue.
In that thread about the issue on the JBF, Byrne reveals that a death, which is ambiguous enough to be just a disappearance in the book, is an actual death. He says that he did it because he couldn't think of any further role for that character in the story. I guess I'm grateful to him for not keeping us all in suspense waiting for the character to reappear. I'm not sure why he couldn't include that info in the story itself, but maybe he wanted to keep the other characters in suspense for some reason that will pay off later?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581003 - 12/16/10 07:10 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Channeling Boris]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
I'm sure they tremble in fear of the very thought of you posting your nonsense there.
TREMBLE! If they are even half as idiotic as most of the Detractors™ that bravely post here, then my nonsense would indeed instill fear in them. Best I not overwhelm their already unscrupulous sensibilities.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581004 - 12/16/10 08:43 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Peter Urkowitz]
|
Member
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 1859
Loc: Penfield, Ny USA
|
Who died? Everyone's being too vague over there.
_________________________
"God you are a Genius Budman." --Alexander Ness
"I know." --Budman
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581007 - 12/16/10 10:06 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 04/09/03
Posts: 241
Loc: My own little world
|
I'm sure they tremble in fear of the very thought of you posting your nonsense there.
TREMBLE! If they are even half as idiotic as most of the Detractors™ that bravely post here, then my nonsense would indeed instill fear in them. Best I not overwhelm their already unscrupulous sensibilities. TREMBLE!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581013 - 12/17/10 10:52 AM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Peter Urkowitz]
|
Member
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 1340
Loc: Airdrie, Scotland
|
I thought the new #1 issue of Next Men was pretty good. Lots of mysteries. Dreams within dreams and multiple layers of paradox. I'm looking forward to the next issue.
In that thread about the issue on the JBF, Byrne reveals that a death, which is ambiguous enough to be just a disappearance in the book, is an actual death. He says that he did it because he couldn't think of any further role for that character in the story. I guess I'm grateful to him for not keeping us all in suspense waiting for the character to reappear. I'm not sure why he couldn't include that info in the story itself, but maybe he wanted to keep the other characters in suspense for some reason that will pay off later? It's probably a bit unfair to judge the (3)1st issue as it was an attempt to bring everyone up to speed as to what has happened previously. With that in mind I found it a tad confusing. I shall however get the next few issues, so then I can make a proper judgement.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581024 - 12/17/10 06:04 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: shjonescrk]
|
Member
Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 295
|
When the Image explosion happened, and retailers were making big bucks off the Image titles that did, occasionally, ship, there evolved a kind of thinking that involved what I dubbed "quality dollars". It really did seem that to some retailers a dollar made from a big seller was somehow superior to a dollar made from something that sold less. I began to see this quite specifically in terms of my own work, as it appeared some thought a dollar made off SPAWN was a "better" dollar than one made off NEXT MEN or DANGER UNLIMITED. It seemed to elude comprehension that MORE dollars might be being made off SPAWN than off NEXT MEN, but each and every one of those dollars had EXACTLY the same value! After all those years, he's still not over it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#581026 - 12/17/10 09:29 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 08/28/00
Posts: 3230
Loc: Salem, MA, USA
|
That thing about "quality dollars" just doesn't make sense. Nobody thought that money from Spawn was worth more in a simple dollar-vs.-dollar comparison. It's just that Spawn generated many MORE dollars than other titles. When one item sells really well, it's more profitable; that's not a mystery to anyone.
That's not to say that retailers shouldn't put in the extra work to try to sell lower-selling books. If Byrne is saying that retailers didn't want to put in that effort for Next Men, he has a valid complaint. But if he's claiming that X amount of effort expended on Next Men would have made retailers just as much profit as the same X amount of effort expended on Spawn, he is unfortunately mistaken.
The details of that calculus are up for debate, of course. If Byrne were to admit that his book was less profitable, but he still claimed that retailers were putting in even less effort than could be accounted for by that decreased profitability, he might be able to make a case, possibly. If he had access to a lot of data that neither he nor anyone else has access to, that is.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index