*Membership spots not really limited!
Jubilee wrote:I can tell that this is not a comic for me before I read it.
I could tell that Teen Titans was not a comic for me before I read it either, but I read it. :p
*Membership spots not really limited!
thefourthman wrote:But it is okay for Marvel to do it? And to the harm of their long term business?
Punchy wrote:I don't read Marvel Fairy Tales or Noir, but I'm still able to read traditional Spider-Man stories, if I want to read a traditional Mickey and Donald book, I can't, I have to read another capes book, or a fantasy book, or whatever.
thefourthman wrote:but MFT and Noir hurt the main title, just like MA Spidey does. Always have. Marvel is under the impression that selling more books with a geometrically higher production cost is smart business. Archie knows that each arc is going to have highs or lows. Marvel goes well this isn't a good idea for the main book do it over here, then Spider-man fans have to pick if they want one or the other, both or none. Problem is they get like 1.5x for 2.0y (being issues sold, y being production cost - artists and writers, fuck them if they over print, especially these days in the world of half our books sold out this week how about yours). Archie realizes that the story may lose a few readers and this one may still pick up so while x varies a bit, y remains constant. As such, they make more money and are able to thrive without the DM whereas Marvel lives and dies by it as a publisher.
If you want to read a traditional one, you wait. But most KIDS don't care what Mickey is doing, as long as it is Mickey doing it.
Punchy wrote:But I'm not a kid, I care what Mickey is doing. I'm reviewing this from my own opinion not a projected view of what children might think.
I thought the purpose of the group was to read a comic that other people normally wouldn't pick up and review it. If you just wanted to read only Bendis or superhero comics and review that, they usually have their own thread on every single comic book forum on the net. Maybe this group isn't for you anymore since you seem to be closed-minded to trying other things.Jubilee wrote:I can tell that this is not a comic for me before I read it.
thefourthman wrote:part of being a GOOD reviewer is looking at a book objectively. Just because a story doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for the books intended audience. It is important to note that this kind of story isn't for me, just like it is important to note that this kind of story knocks your socks off. It is how I know to trust Robert Ebert when he discusses No Country For Old Men and to ignore his ass when he reviews Species. Your audience has to know who you are. Just like the customers know that because I am not digging an X story doesn't mean they won't and the ones who aren't so close to me, get a filtered opinion about the x titles.
Jess Nukem wrote:I thought the purpose of the group was to read a comic that other people normally wouldn't pick up and review it. If you just wanted to read only Bendis or superhero comics and review that, they usually have their own thread on every single comic book forum on the net. Maybe this group isn't for you anymore since you seem to be closed-minded to trying other things.
Punchy wrote:Isn't the whole point of a review to be subjective? The reader wants my view, not an imaginary child's. I could say that this might appeal to children more than me, but I won't make it the main focus of my review, that's an afterthought.
thefourthman wrote:There is a subjective component and an objective component. Unfortunately, you argue constantly that objective factors have nothing to do with the subjective components which is not only a purely subjective argument but a faulty one at that. My review actually spends no time talking about whether it is good for kids or adults, it does spend a bit of time talking about the history of the property though, which is important for context. I make my feelings about the story and art known plainly, sometimes that is through objective material, sometimes it is through subjective, most of the the time it is a combination of both.
When I read one of your reviews I can tell whether or not you liked the book. Usually it is hard to tell if anyone else would. So your reviews require the reader to know exactly who you are and while that is cool if you are someone like Roger Ebert who is omnipresent, it is not as cool for such a niche medium that has such varied sources of opinion. I have to assume that everytime some one is reading one of my reviews that it is the first time. I need it to be clear how and why the book has merit or does not. If I provide context, that is a lot easier to tell. "Hey I read and enjoyed the hell out of the rest of OML but for the price GSWOML seems not only lite, but down right disappointing." You say that isn't fair to the book, but it tells the reader of my review that I think the story is worth reading, but certainly not from this issue... if it is some one unfamiliar with OML but curious they can discern that this is not a good introduction to the concept and that it sounds like it might be worth reading in trade. Which is funny to me, because I have sold more copies off the shelf of the hardcover to OML then I did that one shot... mostly because one is a far better value to the reader and it ain't the cheaper one.
Punchy wrote:Considering the only people who read these reviews are other posters on this site, I feel comfortable in assuming they know who I am.
In other news, I've dug my copies of Cooke's Spirit run out of my cupboard, and will give them a re-read tomorrow.
thefourthman wrote:But you post reviews on the front page, the first place a new reader would come to. Forum readers usually access the front page content through the forum threads. That is why it is so important to have comments at the bottom and a thread that reflects those comments. It lets the new reader know there is a community if they wish to join and it appeases the community because they don't have to check the front page to know what is going on on it. Again, I have a lot of repeat readers at BF, we do have an audience, but I also assume that their are new readers every day. Maybe they did a google search for a review of that particular book and that is how they found it or maybe the site was recommended, who knows why there are new readers but if you don't cater to both audiences and well, you will lose one or the either. It is one of the things that hurts comics. They are only usually good at one or the other at any given time so sales stagnate or attrition occurs. Events have been a big boost the last 8 to ten years because they provide discernable jumping on points while actively engaging the older readers. Trades however do a real good job catering to the bookstore set (more likely to be checking it out for the first time) while single issues cater to the weekly shop goer (the deeply entrenched). Comics need to do a better job of finding a middle ground. It was actually easier to build sales for Walking Dead when it was constantly late because a trade would come out with in a week or two of the issue following it... that meant that a good salesperson can capitalize on the reader's need to know what happens next. I would like for the publishers to find a better balance for that. As a reviewer and a front page contributer, you have shown a care for the well being of the site, why not cater to both audiences as opposed to alienating those that don't know who you are or what you are saying means?
Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Juan Cena, MSNbot Media and 60 guests