Month: January 2014

Posted on

It feels as if we’re all trying to be a cheeky guest on a late-night show, a reality show contestant or a toddler with a tiara on Twitter — delivering the performance of a lifetime, via a hot, rapid-fire string of commentary, GIFs or responses that help us stand out from the crowd. We’re sold on the idea that if we’re good enough, it could be our ticket to success, landing us a fleeting spot in a round-up on BuzzFeed or The Huffington Post, or at best, a writing gig. But more often than not, it translates to standing on a collective soapbox, elbowing each other for room, in the hopes of being credited with delivering the cleverest one-liner or reaction. Much of that ensues in hilarity. Perhaps an equal amount ensues in exhaustion.

The usual caveats of “by ‘we’re all’ do you mean ‘everyone you follow in the media’” apply, but nevertheless, I’ve noticed this. (via katherinestasaph)

Twitter’s business/advertising strategy at the moment is very influenced by its relationship with TV. It discovered this amazing symbiosis it had with in-the-moment TV viewing (which as far as I can tell came as a total surprise to Twitter’s strategists, but I may be wrong – certainly back in 2009ish when the “what is Twitter FOR?” question seemed pertinent nobody was saying “realtime text commentary on TV”). TV became its second “killer app” (after “a zoo for celebrities”) with obvious potential for advertising. Media planners already know how to buy space around TV; if Twitter can say “we follow the same rhythms as TV” they become far easier to understand from an ad perspective.

But the effect of this on Twitter is to create a house style which is more or less identical to the “watching TV” style – perpetual zingers, whether about news, what you’re reading, your entire life… it’s all done DVD commentary style. I don’t think outside the media people are thinking “please notice me Buzzfeed!”, I just think people adapt to the language and rhythms of the culture they’re in, and at the moment that’s what Twitter is (and wants to be).

(via tomewing)

Hrm. I need to think more about this.

Posted on

HAWKEYE #17 will now feature interior art by Chris Eliopoulos. This title was originally solicited with art by David Aja.
HAWKEYE #18 will now feature interior art by Annie Wu. This title was originally solicited with art by Chris Eliopoulos.
HAWKEYE #19 will now feature interior art by David Aja. This title was originally solicited with art by Annie Wu.

Breaking: Marvel to re-title Hawkeye “How Long Can We Keep Your Interest Without David Aja?”

Given that they just skipped #15 for now because Aja wasn’t finished with the issue and just jumped from #14 to #16, it’s worth wondering whether #17 and #18 will also be released before #15, depending on how late Aja is.

In that this is one of the few – maybe the only? – remaining $2.99 book at Marvel these days, you have to wonder how strong the desire is over there to relaunch it with a new #1, new (higher) price point and new, more reliable, artist sooner rather than later. Sure, it’s Marvel’s biggest critical success in years, but it’s also turned out to be Marvel’s least reliably published, most problematic (in terms of schedule) book in recent memory, as well.

Posted on

Why no mention at all of UK Marvel comics? I started collecting at 6, probably didn’t even *see* a US Marvel comic till about 11. Also, curious lack of any reference to Watchmen…

seanhowe:

US fans are barely exposed to the comics produced in the UK. Sorry, but it’s true! Outside of Captain Britain, I can’t think of a single Marvel UK character that popped up in the comics produced over here.

But worry not! Rob Kirby is writing a book just for you:
http://a-distant-beacon.blogspot.com/2013/07/fine-tuning-from-cents-to-pence.html

As far as WATCHMEN…well, there are a ton of excellent DC titles that aren’t referenced in the book. There’s only so much you can fit into 500 pages.

Man, I want to read that Marvel UK book more than is healthy. Those comics – especially the early 1980s reprints – were weirdly omnipresent as a kid, and because of that, an important part of my childhood.

Posted on

That’s the really super-cynical way of looking at it, I realize, and I’m exaggerating to some extent. But a lot of these relaunches and re-relaunches and ridiculous numbering schemes aren’t helping any. That recent Avengers comic that was actually #24 but tried to kick off a soft-relaunch by emphasizing the beginning of a brand new storyline with big ol’ “#1″ on the cover? I actually sold less of those than I did of previous issues. But I did bump my orders up slightly because I thought maybe sales would go up a bit, so Marvel got more money out of me, therefore this was a success for them, I guess.

But for a lot of these new Marvel relaunches I’m not ordering much more than what I’m already selling. Judging by Marvel’s…enthusiastic sales plateaus for the multiple variants they’re offering, it looks like they want me to order a lot more than what I have been, but I don’t see how a new Secret Avengers #1 is going to sell any more than the current Secret Avengers series which just debuted a few months ago.

Mike Sterling on the lack of longevity of current mainstream superhero titles.
Posted on

There are a lot of different ways the established media doesn’t seem to be getting young people today. It’s this idea that The Economist reader is fundamentally different from the person who enjoys cartoons. That’s a concept media is holding onto. That’s not something young people are holding onto. They enjoy a 5,000-word article on Syria and funny stuff. Young people don’t feel like that because most of their content comes from Facebook and Twitter. They’re used to seeing a breaking news video alongside cat GIFs. Media has been very snooty.

From here.

File under food for thought, for now.

Posted on

A culture that’s as hostile to critical thinking as comics– well, how much can we expect of it? When Tucker was like, “Hey would you like to do a guest thing”– I didn’t think there’d be enough stuff to write about, and instead, there were TWO VERY FULL YEARS of people putting egg on their face. I couldn’t even get to everything– there was too much stuff! A culture that isn’t self-critical is going to have stuff coming out of its ears. There was this blog entry by some d-list comic creator that got spread around late last year, like a “What I’ve Learned” and #2 was “never say anything negative.” Or wait– he even prefaced it with, “I don’t think it makes me a phony but I think it’s important to never say anything negative.” Which– it absolutely makes them a phony! Telling people “only present a face to the world that makes people like you more” makes you a phony! That is the fucking textbook definition of being a phony. And this was one of those things that got spread around as “good advice for aspiring pros” or whatever. When Before Watchmen got announced, I once watched comic creators stifle dissent in the ranks on Twitter in real time– but one guy was like, “That doesn’t sound–” and it was a pile-on from all these other mainstream creators with their little “don’t be a hater” logic. All the tweets got deleted within 15 minutes. Like it never happened, all to tweet heaven. You could see it happen with that sex harassment thing– as soon as it turned out to be a Marvel creator, I think a lot of people got silent fast with their little “let’s all be better people” talk. The Ghost Rider guy, when all that happened– you could hear a pin drop on some parts of the internet…

Abhay Khosla talks to Tim O’Neill, and it’s a must-read. Like, really, it’s a must-read.

(Actually, Tim’s piece about blogging for ten years is a must-read, too. I almost linked to it when it appeared, and then demurred because it mentioned me and I felt embarrassed. True story: I am weird that way.)

Posted on

Yet the next logical question to ask is why, then, the show hit the ground running with so many boring characters and stories that pigeonholed things into bland action-adventure standalones, particularly if the producers had so thoroughly planned out the season that they knew what the last image of the season one finale was before starting serious work on the show. (Over-planning is often a problem on first-season genre shows, which want to have a firm set of signposts in line, without realizing that the narrative pace of television is blistering.) And it’s not as though TV can’t do exciting action-adventure standalones, though Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. might make you believe it impossible.

The AV Club finds reason to be optimistic about the future of Agents of SHIELD, despite previous evidence.
Posted on

So I said, great, let’s look through the last five together. And not all of them were in the public domain. So, I said, “How do you think about the use of these images?”

“Photographers are welcome to file a complaint with Twitter, as long as they provide proof. Twitter contacts me and I’d be happy to remove it,” he said. “I’m sure the majority of photographers would be glad to have their work seen by the massives.”

I pressed him on this point. Shouldn’t the onus be on him and Cameron to get those rights from the photographers they assume would be grateful?

“It would not be practical,” he said. “The majority of the photographers are deceased. Or hard to find who took the images.”

Thought #1: Paying/crediting people who create your content? Pshaw! Playing by the rules generally doesn’t result in people having stories written about them in the Atlantic, especially not stories about them being disruptive influences to the traditional business model.

Thought #2: I should be neither surprised nor saddened by the idea that New Buzz Thing Online Doesn’t Care About Content Creators, given the history of the Internet, and yet, somehow I am.

Thought #3: Seeing this kind of behavior be not only accepted, I guess, but rewarded by the wider Internet at large – oh, people may complain about this, but I doubt that History in Pictures will really suffer in any way because of it – is this very demoralizing thing, a reminder that the Internet not only demands NEW CONTENT continually, but continually disregards and devalues said content in the process. Works of quality are less important than quantity of work.

Posted on

Zimmerman’s work is a more extreme version of the new, upside-down dynamic of web publishing. Instead of the publisher’s megaphone guaranteeing its articles an audience, the publisher only has an audience insofar as the articles “go viral.” Tens of thousands of readers see most of the dozen items Zimmerman posts each day, but millions see his blockbusters.

For those hits, the content and the clickbait headline are as important as the timing. He describes “going viral” like surfing: boarding a wave at the earliest possible point. “You don’t want to wait too long because you’ll miss that initial cresting,” he says. “It’s a race against everyone else.”

From this fascinating piece on Internet viral material, and why audio never goes viral online. Go read.