We've seen comics leave their sexist roots and those comics and the artist tend to suck :p

The sales drop, no one likes the look of the character and usually the story starts to suck.

It's not a male thing, it's a person thing. Think Twilight or 50 Shades would sell if Edward or Christian were ugly? Or any romance novel lead :p I've read plenty of them and none of them are ever ugly. They're some form of good looking :p

I suspect they're saying it's not sexism, it's biology.

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

You know what else is in the eye of the beholder?

Freeking laser beams! And anti-magic!

So beautiful...

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

desviper wrote:

But don't act like her butt isn't a little accentuated.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

You know what else is in the eye of the beholder?

Freeking laser beams! And anti-magic!

So beautiful...

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

+1 :D

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

You know what else is in the eye of the beholder?

Freeking laser beams! And anti-magic!

[img=100x100]http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/newtodnd/Beholder_3E.jpg[/img]

So beautiful...

Yeah I wondered how long it'd take for someone to jump on that. Of course I love that those critters have become a multilayered cultural reference. For instance here's Futurama's take on a Beholder:

[img=300x300]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/1/11/BeholderMonster.png[/img]

Futurama has also shown us old school Rust Monsters and even the dreaded Gygax himself. ;)

[img=300x300]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cd/18/92/cd189221bae7cf94c83ce71ef36f1df2.jpg[/img]

Brand X wrote:

Death of a female character. You mean, death of the loved one. Works for either gender to lose their loved one. People just get upset when it's the female loved one who gets killed. That was always one of the stupid things for people to get upset with. "Oh no! The main character lost their lover! What will the main character do?!"

Damseling a female character. They do it to guys. "Look! The most bad ass member of the team, Wolverine, got his ass kicked once again!"

Called a trope.

What I'm saying is, lots of mediums have good looking characters as the main character. It's not limited to comics. And they sexualize them. Christian, Edward, Jacob...sexualized. Male characters of the story. This isn't a one way thing. It just gets whined about like it is. :p

Killing off a character and killing off a character specifically to give motivation to another character are different things. The latter happens way more frequently to female characters.

Your example of damseling isn't an example of damseling. For that example to work Wolverine would need to be captured then have him do nothing until rescued. Yes it happens sometimes to make characters but it happens far more often to female characters.

These are tropes for a reason. Because they happen all the time. They're directly named for female characters because they happen most often to female characters.

Wow, three examples from two sources. Welp that's it, everyone. Sexism no longer exists. Also from those sources all those characters are... Characters. They're not just defined by their soul trait of being attractive.

I think there's at least a couple of separate issues being mixed together here that probably ought to be dealt with individually. These are the question of sexism in comic book stories and the question of visual objectification of women.

As mentioned before the comic book industry has had a long unfortunate track record regarding sexism against female characters in its lore and narrative plotlines. It's out there, we all know about (via things like "Women in Refrigerators" and "The Hawkeye Initiative") and we know that various people have been doing various things about it in recent years whether you agree with those "remedies" or not. What's safe to say in terms of CoT is that the Devs of this game are likely going to avoid/eliminate sexist lore/stories as best they can in their game content.

Now as to the question of objectification of women we again know that it's been a traditional element of the comic book genre for a long time. There's always going to be a fine line between what's considered acceptable and what's considered crossing the line in terms of how "sexualized" comic book characters are allowed to be in any venue. Again I think in terms of this game the Devs are mindful of the issue and will react accordingly.

I actually think that our Devs' commitment to trying to eliminate "gender locked" costume items for CoT is a step in the right direction towards mitigating objectification of one gender over the other. If a game limits "sexy" things like corsets and garter belts to only one gender then it's tacitly encouraging only one gender to be the "sexy" gender. By making sure that both males and females can wear -anything- you're at least putting the responsibility for what players do with those options squarely in their hands as opposed to having the Devs be mostly to blame for what happens in the game.

Do I expect CoT to be a perfectly egalitarian game with absolutely no problems with regards to gender bias issues? No. But I think it'll be doing its best to offer an experience that's about as "non-sexist" as reasonably possible for a game based in the superhero genre.

Sure, comics used to be seist in that the female member of any superteam was the "weak" one. But I think that has pretty much gone away since the 80s and 90s, when Sue Storm, Jean Grey and Wanda Maximoff became each practically cosmic beings, and by far either the most powerful, or among the most powerful members of their respective teams. Add in Binary, Nova (Galactus' Herald) and others, and I don't think female characters are any longer the "meek and mild subserviants, we". As to them being good-looking, yes, they will always be so, to some degree. People LIKE good-looking people, and comics have always been about excess of various types, from abilities, to looks, to storylines, to levels of heroism/villainy.
Too bad so many people are too far up on their high horses to deal with it. Given the lessons of the past, their WORSE than the 50s people who wanted to ban comics for their content (who actually had more to object to).

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Sexism exists, but it's now swinging the other way. Creators can't seem to make a strong female character without them proving it by humiliating the men around them and making them like it. Which annoys me. I don't have to act like that, and I consider myself pretty strong-willed. Of course, I'm a smartass to everybody, regardless of gender, unless I'm ambivalent enough toward them that I just ignore them. :D

You got some examples there?

And it's less of a swinging the other way and more of a push back. Most media is still by men for men staring men doing manly things.

A pushback IS a swing the other way, when it gets to the point that the formerly oppressed are becoming the oppressors. The trope used to be of two men facing off, throwing testosterone around. Now, no such scene is complete without a woman either making fun of their testosterone (and then a few scenes later doing the same sort of thing), or out-testosteroning the men. It's a constant theme that men are stupid, weak, easily controlled, and that all women are queens/goddesses/wise/etc. Some men are the former, some women are the latter. But ANY stereotype is wrong, whether you feel the other person deserves to be stereotyped because people like them did/said horrible things in the past or not. You can't make up for historical mistreatment by mistreating the descendants of those who did the former mistreatment. All you accomplish is an unending cycle of resentment and conflict. Treat others as you wish to be treated, no more, no less.

Mordheim13 wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Power does not equal strong character.

So, you're saying that Jean Grey, the Scarlet Witch, and the Invisible Woman are weak characters? LOL

Sue Storm is in an incredibly abusive relationship (as often depicted) and has been since forever now.

Most of what I know about Jean Grey is from the 90's animated show which is most of Jean Grey grunting or moaning and not being able to do things. But given the fact her grave has a revolving door on it... Well... Oh and most of what I know about her revolves around her relationship with Scott.

And I don't know that much about Scarlet Witch, most of what I've read was after she was dead (house of M), so I can't really comment on her. Oh but a lot of what I do know about her revolves around her relationship with vision.

Lord Nightmare wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Power does not equal strong character.

Doom laughs at this notion.

[img]http://www.therobotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/drdoom_laughs.jpg[/img]

[img]https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/001/958/315/original/9c32c633fabac1aa.png[/img]

Mordheim13 wrote:

In other words, there is no pleasing some people. Fair enough. And... Harley? An example of a "strong" female character? Really? An appendage of Joker, and in the definition of an abusive relationship? Your definitions are funny and self-serving, as well as counter-intuitive.

Harley has been able to stand on her own since her Batman the animated series days. There's an awesome episode where she's trying to go straight, and an awesome episode where she teams up with poison ivy.

I can tell you what Harley's personality is without even mentioning the joker. I can't do the same with Sue Storm.

Also Harley and Mr. J's "relationship" is always viewed in a negative light, except when through Harley's view point but even then sometimes.

I don't think the same statement can be said about Sue's.

Also. Harley's crazy, so her putting up with an abusive relationship makes sense. Sue is supposed to be intelligent, I think, so her continually going back to her abusive relationship, which isn't especially framed as such in most comics, is very poor character writing.

Kid Rad wrote:

Is there any way you guys could take the discussion of the intricacies of superhero relationships and depiction of women in comic books to the off topic forum? I have some questions that are relevant to the actual thread that will probably get lost in all the off topic chatter.

To be fair the threads of this forum can usually survive multiple lines of discussion at the same time.

Kid Rad wrote:

Also, I don't need 10,000 e-mail updates on a thread I subscribed to when all the responses are completely unrelated to the actual thread. It's pretty annoying actually.

Well there are settings in your profile to shut those off but they are admittedly a bit flaky at times. *shrugs*

Kid Rad wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks there is something weird about how the hands/arms are configured?

I can see what you're saying and I even agree that the hands/wrists do look slightly "unnatural" to a certain degree. But for a body model that's still in the alpha stages of testing it's not completely horrible.

I suspect some of this has to do with how they implemented the individual finger and wrist animations. I'm sure this is the kind of thing that could (and will) be tweaked/adjusted over the course of continual testing and frankly at this point I wouldn't worry about it too much. If it still looks like that by the time this game launches then it might be worth asking the Devs to seriously look at it for adjustment in a future update.

Kid Rad wrote:

Another question: Since it seems we have a working prototype of the chargen, I'm wondering when it will be possible to have some preliminary alpha tests, or are you going right into beta with this, as it says at the end of the video? It would be cool to let some people in the community have access to this to really take it for a spin and see what they can come up with in terms of characters. Also also, what is the status of female characters, are they close to the same state of completion as male characters?

I'd actually be surprised if the "chargen" wasn't already being alpha tested. I'd assume -any- testing they are doing right now is only with people who directly work for MWM and/or are under very strict NDAs.

As far as the female model goes I thought I read that we'd be seeing more of that in just a few weeks (April timeframe?).

Also as the Devs have told us if things go according to their plans it shouldn't be too much longer (a few months?) before the costume creator is released in some form of open beta.

Obviously all of this is subject to change...

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

In other words, there is no pleasing some people. Fair enough. And... Harley? An example of a "strong" female character? Really? An appendage of Joker, and in the definition of an abusive relationship? Your definitions are funny and self-serving, as well as counter-intuitive.

Harley has been able to stand on her own since her Batman the animated series days. There's an awesome episode where she's trying to go straight, and an awesome episode where she teams up with poison ivy.

I can tell you what Harley's personality is without even mentioning the joker. I can't do the same with Sue Storm.

Also Harley and Mr. J's "relationship" is always viewed in a negative light, except when through Harley's view point but even then sometimes.

I don't think the same statement can be said about Sue's.

Also. Harley's crazy, so her putting up with an abusive relationship makes sense. Sue is supposed to be intelligent, I think, so her continually going back to her abusive relationship, which isn't especially framed as such in most comics, is very poor character writing.

Your ignorance of a character's personality is far from proof of that character's lack of strength. It is as easy to describe Sue without mentioning Reed as it is to so describe the Thing, the Human Torch, or Dr. Doom, and much easier than to describe Reed without mentioning Sue. Sue has a number of times taken over leadership of the team, very effectively. And she has held together a marriage and motherhood-- something almost NO OTHER comic book character has been able to do, male OR female. And I find the talk of her relationship with Reed being abusive highly unconvincing, considering that, if Reed hit her, both Dr. Doom and Namor would never rest until they had killed him, nor would Ben Grimm or her brother Johnny stand for it, even assuming she didn't handle the situation herself, which is highly unlikely. There may have been some ill-considered storylines in the past few years, as writers look more towards tearing down what came before than telling good stories, but recent weak writing hardly defines a character that's been around, and developing, since the 60s.
Apologies, Kid. I see your point (all of them, actually), and would be glad to end this discussion.

Whenever I see the FF, my mind goes to the Impossibles from Venture Brothers.
[youtube]N9LMmx-6AeM[/youtube]

That's probably the idle pose. We should be having several. The "claw" formation is actually ideal in this instance as it allows viewing each digit individually. I agree it's an odd looking pose though.

People can like or dislike whatever they do. But with liking a thing you shouldn't blind yourself to the problems of the thing. It's ok that a thing you like isn't perfect. It's ok to admit there are problems with it, you can still like it.

And yes, Jessica Jones is a great show. Would recommend.

Brainbot wrote:

Kid Rad wrote:

Yet, in the character creator, the character's wrists are arching inward slightly. To me, this looks incredibly unnatural and awkward. Furthermore, his fingers are all spread apart in a claw manner, whereas in a relaxed scenario, your fingers naturally are together.
Am I crazy? Am I the only one who sees this?

I think the guy in the character creator is in a more aggressive stance and not a relaxed pose. If anything I would say his shoulders are too far forward and should be back more like here:
[img=320x320]http://static8.depositphotos.com/1167812/874/i/950/depositphotos_8748931-stock-photo-muscular-man-in-aggressive-posture.jpg[/img]
If memory serves, we will have a choice of stances so how the character looks in the promo video is unlikely to be the final version we will see.

That was my thought when Kid Rad pointed it out. The thing that may be throwing off Kid Rad is that it's not a relaxed, neutral pose.

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Death of a female character. You mean, death of the loved one. Works for either gender to lose their loved one. People just get upset when it's the female loved one who gets killed. That was always one of the stupid things for people to get upset with. "Oh no! The main character lost their lover! What will the main character do?!"

Damseling a female character. They do it to guys. "Look! The most bad ass member of the team, Wolverine, got his ass kicked once again!"

Called a trope.

What I'm saying is, lots of mediums have good looking characters as the main character. It's not limited to comics. And they sexualize them. Christian, Edward, Jacob...sexualized. Male characters of the story. This isn't a one way thing. It just gets whined about like it is. :p

Killing off a character and killing off a character specifically to give motivation to another character are different things. The latter happens way more frequently to female characters.

Your example of damseling isn't an example of damseling. For that example to work Wolverine would need to be captured then have him do nothing until rescued. Yes it happens sometimes to make characters but it happens far more often to female characters.

These are tropes for a reason. Because they happen all the time. They're directly named for female characters because they happen most often to female characters.

Wow, three examples from two sources. Welp that's it, everyone. Sexism no longer exists. Also from those sources all those characters are... Characters. They're not just defined by their soul trait of being attractive.

That's not an issue with sexism. That's an issue with the hero usually being made male.

No one complained when Peta was made a damsel in distress and given ptsd to motivate Katniss.

Want it to happen less? Then make more stories with female heroes.

Or I guess, make a hero and never have their loved one get made helpless, ever. In fact, have their loved one who has nothing on the hero or the villains, who still manages to escape by doing it all by themself, so the hero of the story is shown to never be needed to do what they're the main character for! :)

Is it sexism if no one was buying the comic with genders swapped?

Wonder Woman for instance has never sold on the level of such heroes as Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man and she's considered the most well known and popular female super hero in the world. Yet she bombs so much (in the comics, as obviously, her movie did well) in the solo titles, she's been rebooted over and over.

I fail to see the sexism, when a creator in the job to make money, says "This isn't selling, so I'll do this...and omg it sells!"

Now, obviously some forms of a woman as a hero sells. It's worked for movies and books.

Yes, it sucks, when your title doesn't sell or made crappy because they think what the female hero needs to be popular is a pregnancy storyline that goes on for months and talks about all the pains of pregnancy (and then they wonder why the comic didn't sell :p).

Superhero comics started with Superman. So all others after were made off of that. "Oh! That did well, let's copy that!" mentality. Like creators making MMOs!

Project_Hero wrote:

We've been over this multiple times, Brand.

The comics industry has many problems. Not marketing outside of their own readerbase is one of these problems.

Wonder Woman was failing to sell from the beginning. Back when it's reader base was anyone.

New 52? 11th best selling title of the new 52.

And everyone knows Wonder Woman is a comic book character. New titles may need better advertisement, WW is not one of them. World's most known female super hero and all :p

I think they need to get comics to stop being seen as for kids, little boys, geeky adult men.

They fall into the same trap as cartoons and anime.

Wonder Woman is also a feminist icon, which may or may not hurt her sales. Not to mention her constant reboots, trying to find the right origin for her.

Personally, I love how the movie (and current comics I believe) have her the daughter of Zeus and not actually made of clay (but love how they incorporated it into the movie, with her believing she was made of clay, because of her mom).

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

We've been over this multiple times, Brand.

The comics industry has many problems. Not marketing outside of their own readerbase is one of these problems.

you consider them to be problems, others do not. neither you nor those others are bad, you just have differences of opinion.

Ah yes. How could only marketing to an ever shrinking readerbase possibly be bad? It's not like they'll run out of customers, right?

then the market will punish them for their mistakes. its a business problem, not a social one.

To bring up a point, Marvel and DC are both suffering, while independent comic publishers are doing quite well. Valiant for example are experiencing exponential growth.

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

[img]https://78.media.tumblr.com/18b4c8045796b5c9c4c58355f69e4247/tumblr_inline_mv8lky6Dyg1soo5ac.jpg[/img]

Also abuse can come in more forms than just physical.

THIS is your example? Reed using psychology to suppress Malice, to bring Susan back to the fore? As well to say that Deadshot "abused" the fireguy in "Suicide Squad", to get him to use his powers. And yes, abuse can come in more forms than physical. Women have been expert at controlling men without ever laying a hand on them for time out of mind. LOL

That is one example, yes. You said if Reed hit her there would be consequences, from other FF members, Namor, Dr. Doom, etc. In the search I found another of him hitting her telling her to "stay out of this" also at least one instance of him hitting one of his kids.

None of these are from modern comics, but I have never seen Richards be anything close to a loving husband even in modern comics.

And yeah, bullying someone into being of use to you is abuse. There were mitigating circumstances there, but yeah. It is abuse. Just because good actions can come from a bad action doesn't stop the action from being bad.

Also you should note that you compared Reed and Sue's relationship or at least that interaction to a group of jerk bad guys. The whole point of the suicide squad is that they're all pretty terrible people, some have a few redeeming qualities, but on the whole they're not good people.

"Bullying someone into being of use to you is abuse." In that case, Reed isn't sexist, he's just naturally abusive (by your high-moral-ground definition). I submit the issue of Secret Wars (the original limited series, not the later imitation) where the Molecule Man dropped a mountain on the heroes. The Hulk was holding that mountain up, while Reed worked feverishly to cobble Iron Man's armor, Spider-Man's web-shooters, and some of Hawkeye's arrows into a device to blow a hole in the mountain so they could escape before the Hulk gave out. When Hulk was weakening, Reed insulted him, multiple times, angering him enough to hold the mountain up long enough for their escape attempt to succeed. What an evil bastard, bullying poor Hulk like that, just to make him useful! Shame, shame upon him, for thus saving half the Marvel superheroes of that time period!

Mordheim13 wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

[img]https://78.media.tumblr.com/18b4c8045796b5c9c4c58355f69e4247/tumblr_inline_mv8lky6Dyg1soo5ac.jpg[/img]

Also abuse can come in more forms than just physical.

THIS is your example? Reed using psychology to suppress Malice, to bring Susan back to the fore? As well to say that Deadshot "abused" the fireguy in "Suicide Squad", to get him to use his powers. And yes, abuse can come in more forms than physical. Women have been expert at controlling men without ever laying a hand on them for time out of mind. LOL

That is one example, yes. You said if Reed hit her there would be consequences, from other FF members, Namor, Dr. Doom, etc. In the search I found another of him hitting her telling her to "stay out of this" also at least one instance of him hitting one of his kids.

None of these are from modern comics, but I have never seen Richards be anything close to a loving husband even in modern comics.

And yeah, bullying someone into being of use to you is abuse. There were mitigating circumstances there, but yeah. It is abuse. Just because good actions can come from a bad action doesn't stop the action from being bad.

Also you should note that you compared Reed and Sue's relationship or at least that interaction to a group of jerk bad guys. The whole point of the suicide squad is that they're all pretty terrible people, some have a few redeeming qualities, but on the whole they're not good people.

"Bullying someone into being of use to you is abuse." In that case, Reed isn't sexist, he's just naturally abusive (by your high-moral-ground definition). I submit the issue of Secret Wars (the original limited series, not the later imitation) where the Molecule Man dropped a mountain on the heroes. The Hulk was holding that mountain up, while Reed worked feverishly to cobble Iron Man's armor, Spider-Man's web-shooters, and some of Hawkeye's arrows into a device to blow a hole in the mountain so they could escape before the Hulk gave out. When Hulk was weakening, Reed insulted him, multiple times, angering him enough to hold the mountain up long enough for their escape attempt to succeed. What an evil bastard, bullying poor Hulk like that, just to make him useful! Shame, shame upon him, for thus saving half the Marvel superheroes of that time period!

I never said Reed was sexist, only that he was a terrible husband who Sue shouldn't put up with.

And yeah, poor Hulk. People kept making him turn into the Hulk get angrier and angrier till he was enough of a danger then the "heroes" shot him into space.

Hulk just want to be left alone!

Brainbot wrote:

The point that Tyche was trying to make (again correct me if I am wrong), is that while Marvel and DC are bleeding customers, Independent comic companies are growing. He wasn't trying to compare market values or company sizes, just that the big two are losing customers and the smaller ones are getting new customers.

For me it's a distinction without consequence. I honestly couldn't care less whether all of the recent "wonderful growth" of the independent comic companies is a result of customers being leeched away from the other existing labels or whether they are simply attracting brand new customers. As we both know it's probably a little bit of both going on regardless.

Brainbot wrote:

Also(not an argument just a fun fact), many of the independent comic companies has signed deals for multi-picture projects. Valiant just signed a 5 picture deal for example. They are not making these movies themselves of course but then again they are not owned by disney or warner brothers.

You know as well as I do that almost everyone signs "movie deals" for everything these days even when many of these deals never produce movies. There were even rights signed for a CoH movie for instance. Again get back to me on this point when these third party movies actually exist in significant numbers.

Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Brainbot wrote:

My personal opinion on why comics are struggling for sales is the same reason why books, magazines and newspapers are struggling. The shift from printed medium to electronic medium.

Well that would mostly be their fault then wouldn't it? If their customers are no longer buying paper-based media they should be doing their best to shift over to electronic media ASAP.

One way to look at it. Except Marvel and DC have had electronic media for a while now and it just isn't as lucrative as the printed medium despite increased sales in those arenas. The electronic medium is just not as profitable as the hardcopy medium in regards to comics, books and magazines for a whole slew of reasons a google search can explain better than I ever could.

I'm aware the big comic book companies have been experimenting with electronic publishing for years now. But obviously when you effectively eliminate the paper media you're basically destroying the future of the collectible after market. You can't really collect intangible digital data in the same way you can collect physical comic books, especially considering that most of the digital media is so tightly controlled to the point where you don't really "own" it as much as "rent" it. Frankly that's the part annoys the crap out of me. *shrugs*

Again it's not the consumers' fault that the technology is rendering the old school media paradigms obsolete. The companies will either adapt to the new realities and give the consumers what they want or die trying. My guess is that even if the comic book companies eventually shift a majority of their business over to digital media there will always be a market for "special limited run" print releases the same way that vinyl records have managed to carve out a niche market for enthusiasts.

Mordheim13 wrote:

So, the answer to having a little strife in your life is to "take the kids and leave." and that's your notion of what a strong person does? Cut and run in the face of adversity? I guess that says it all, doesn't it? LOL

A little strife? The man is neglectful and a danger to everyone around him. He built a horrific robot Thor which killed someone. He sent the Hulk into space and is partially responsible for killing millions!

Being around Reed isn't a "little strife" it's constant strife.

He's a terrible husband and a pretty awful human being.

But no, the stronger thing in your mind is for Sue to stay with the man who neglects her, is emotionally abusive or dismissive, and is an all round kind of awful person.

So YES the stronger thing to do is to recognize the toxic elements in your life then cut them out of it.

Right, it was the writers demonizing the white male characters... Which is why, according to the writer of civil war, Tony was right.

But no, it's to demonize the white man. Of course it's all some huge conspiracy that comic companies, who are often jerks to women staff, are trying to demonize men.

Of course.

But you have made up your mind, and no amount of logic, reason, or evidence can change your mind.

Well I hope the Chargen gets another update soon. Or better yet, released. From what I have seen I can make nearly any size or shape within reasonable limits. Flat or large chested. Fat or skeletal. Muscular or toned like a marshmallow.
Yumm... Marshmallows....
Hopefully we can respectfully contribute to the comic genre with humor and tolerance with our daring, digital, do-gooders. Or vengful, virtual, villians...

rookslide wrote:

Wow how far off topic can we get while demoralizing each other?

sic

So about the Chargen! It’s looking great! Let’s hear one for all the work the devs are putting in! Great work guys!

Here's your lance, and there's the windmill. Tilt away, friend. Tilt away.

While true, Sue isn't especially written that way.

rookslide wrote:

Wow how far off topic can we get while demoralizing each other?

Attitudes and accepted norms change over time. Writers often reflect society though they are breaking from that mold somewhat of late. Yes Reed has been a poor quality husband and yes Sue has had weak moments emotionally. This doesn’t negate loving each other. Love exists often despite the flaws our beloveds demonstrate. I’m afraid that is simply part of being human...

Some will see that as weakness others as strength. Likewise they will have strong opinions about how to “balance” the scales of such matters.

Personally I think there are valid arguments for each side however, I’ll never see Sue Richards as a weak person, character, etc nor Will I see Reed as a horrid human. I tend to imagine Reed as a highly functioning Autistic though that is only based on my probable misunderstandings of the term. In this light, yes he is frequently absent of subtlety and tends not to consider the others feelings even his wife’s. He also tends to neglect others until it is brought to his attention in a very dire way. One I might suggest Sue has somewhat adapted to though I doubt many others would view the matter as I do.

So about the Chargen! It’s looking great! Let’s hear one for all the work the devs are putting in! Great work guys!

Precisely. We fall into a trap when we judge people of the past by current norms and behaviors. Thus we assume that a slave-owner in the old South, a medieval executioner, a gladiator games spectator in Rome, or a conqueror of the ancient world were all horrible, evil people. Should we own slaves, draw and quarter people, put people in an arena to fight each other or animals to the death (I'm looking at YOU, bullfighters! LOL), or just randomly invade other lands that aren't bothering anyone and take their stuff? Of course not! Neither should men ignore women, or refer to them as useless, and certainly not hit them (those who have tried any of that with ME, for instance, have not fared well)-- or vice versa. But assuming that those who did these things when it was socially normal to do so is like villifying people who smoked cigarettes back when everyone smoked cigarettes and the health hazards were, while known, not widely focused upon. You might as well look down upon someone from a third world nation who never had electricity for not knowing how to use a computer. It's pointless, and in fact, demeans us, as it reveals our own ignorance of perceived superiority.
And yes, the chargen makes me very excitedly anticipatory of the game release. :)

Lothic may well be right about our anticipation of the game leading to frustration, which manifests as lashing out at each other. I don't know; I'm no psychiatrist or psychologist. For my part in perpetuating any such propensity, I do apologize.

oh, the 60s....:p

Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:

For me it's a distinction without consequence. I honestly couldn't care less whether all of the recent "wonderful growth" of the independent comic companies is a result of customers being leeched away from the other existing labels or whether they are simply attracting brand new customers. As we both know it's probably a little bit of both going on regardless.

For me it's an important distinction. If customers are leaving one company for another then there must be a reason for it. If one company can't keep it's customers but another is getting people who haven't been a customer of anyone before there must be a reason for it. If the creators from one company leave citing too much editorial involvement and they thrive in a new company then I start to see a picture being painted.
Marvel and DC both have been through these types of cycles many times. In the 70's it was controversial storylines, which they beat to death. In the 80's it was a strong focus on their bankable characters until each of them had more titles than the rest of their line. The 90's was all about collectables with alternate and foil covers being the norm until the market crashed. Now it's ret-cons and massive crossovers that are diving people away. They drive away their customers and talent until they change business plans and try to rebuild what they lost, each time emerging smaller than they were.

While I'm sure the details are very important to the "suits" of the various companies involved I PERSONALLY couldn't care less about what's behind the market "churn" you're referring to PRECISELY because of all the ups and downs you cited here in the histories of DC and Marvel. Things go up... things go down.

Perhaps as a simple point of academic curiosity it'll be interesting to see what happens here with the fate of the "big boys" versus "the upstarts". In the long run I just don't have a proverbial "dog" in the outcome either way.

Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Brainbot wrote:

Also(not an argument just a fun fact), many of the independent comic companies has signed deals for multi-picture projects. Valiant just signed a 5 picture deal for example. They are not making these movies themselves of course but then again they are not owned by disney or warner brothers.

You know as well as I do that almost everyone signs "movie deals" for everything these days even when many of these deals never produce movies. There were even rights signed for a CoH movie for instance. Again get back to me on this point when these third party movies actually exist in significant numbers.

Well, I found it interesting because those deals were signed by DMG, a major stakeholder in Valiant comics. It's a situation very similar to the disney/marvel one and they even state that business model as one they intend to take ideas from. Currently they have signed Jared Leto (not finalized), Vin Diesel and Jason David Frank for various project which are in different stages of development, including filming (mostly second unit stuff like crowds and locations but still). Again, I am not arguing anything with this, just that I found it interesting to see the effect that the current MCU success is having on smaller companies.

I'm not arguing about this either. It's just that I've read about so many "almost happened" movies (with actors involved and everything) for decades so I've just learned not to care too much them until things -actually- happen.

Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:

I'm aware the big comic book companies have been experimenting with electronic publishing for years now. But obviously when you effectively eliminate the paper media you're basically destroying the future of the collectible after market. You can't really collect intangible digital data in the same way you can collect physical comic books, especially considering that most of the digital media is so tightly controlled to the point where you don't really "own" it as much as "rent" it. Frankly that's the part annoys the crap out of me. *shrugs*

Again it's not the consumers' fault that the technology is rendering the old school media paradigms obsolete. The companies will either adapt to the new realities and give the consumers what they want or die trying. My guess is that even if the comic book companies eventually shift a majority of their business over to digital media there will always be a market for "special limited run" print releases the same way that vinyl records have managed to carve out a niche market for enthusiasts.

To be fair, they haven't been experimenting with it. They have a fully developed and supported platform for electronic media. But it's like you said, the electronic medium really hurts a major selling point of the industry, collecting the physical comics.

Since they haven't been able to overcome the core problems of disrupting the collector-based after market I'm still willing to say that the companies involved are still "experimenting" with how to really get the whole digital media thing to work. I realize that's a bit of a quibble on my part but I'm not going to call the thus far incomplete transition to digital media an actual "ready for prime time" thing until, as you yourself point out, they figure out how to STOP losing customers over it.

Brainbot wrote:

Your vinyl example is great. It's an obsolete technology that some prefer over the modern advancements. It's niche and expensive by comparison but still a big enough business that it isn't hard to find what you want on vinyl.
That's all I was saying with my opinion of why comics are struggling. The companies can survive by shifting to a different medium (like the current marvel movies for example) but the printed versions will dwindle until they are the same niche and expensive item that vinyl is.

I can almost envision a time when like a full 95% of the "comic book" business is digitally based but they still print out a few super-high class "collectors editions" of various issues (with of course all sorts of multiple-cover artworks and the like) to satisfy the "hard core collector" market. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.