| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6427
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:26pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Landry: Actually, the pages in question could have easily been a bluff. It
would hardly have been the first time comics resorted to misdirection
in an attempt to keep the readers guessing.
***
Name one other instance that would match this scenario.
Landry: The copied pages in
question showed a nightmare sequence. Nothing definitive. They did not
contain the actual death scene and they did not contain any text. It
was left to the recipient of the advance pages to infer whether or not
the dream sequence was a representation of reality. Without
confirmation, any conclusion the reader makes remains assumption.
Nothing is definitive until the actual issue is read.
***
None of what you just wrote is according to JB's story. If you don't believe JB why are you asking him for more "clarification?"
Landry: Furthermore, I
read those issues when they were new. I never heard of this and the
marketing was not ruined for me. This was not something distributed
universally and the majority of casual comic readers are unlikely to
have actually seen the artwork in question. Leaving the supposed spoiler to travel
through the standard word of mouth channels, which makes the spoiler
even less definitive.
***
It didn't bother you so it shouldn't bother JB either. You don't believe JB got any of the mail he says he got, then? Why are you here?
Landry: "Mark Haslett: "Stop dancing around trying to act like you have
light to shed on these events--"
That's funny. I've done nothing of the sort. I've been asking for
clarification on the details of this event for multiple posts now. The
one who can shed light on the issue of culpability is Byrne.
***
He did. That's when you started dancing. "Oh, but why do you assume it was negative intent?" "I don't, you infer that I do. I don't read minds. I simply know what happened."
Landry: He implied
that Peter David did not pursue this as a malicious act. So I would
like to know who was responsible at the time for the dissemination of
marketing material? The editorial staff, who are charged with guiding
the title, or marketing, who are typically using the materials
presented to them to promote?
***
You've heard JB's version and PAD's version. Now you REALLY want to get to the bottom of it. You're a knight in armor. If you don't believe what these two have said so far, who will you believe?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Orlando Teuta Jr
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1043
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:57pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Scott Rowland wrote:
>>>Also to review PAD's statement in context, He says he didn't spoil the story, JB did. PAD may not be telling the truth*, but the story I've read on his website does seem to be internally consistent. JB's story also seems to be internally consistent.<<<<
Good point. One thing to keep in mind, is that PAD's initial reaction was that it was questionable to give out these pages. He even says he double checked with his boss to see if he should give those out. Both JB and PAD seem to agree it was questionable to give out those pages.
"Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian's death at a con about a month before the book shipped." JB
On his blog, PAD wrote regarding this comment:
"Nnnnnno. A popular lie of John's, but no."
What, in JB's response could be taken as a lie?
PAD gave out xeoroxes.
They showed a dead guardian.
They were given out about a month before the title shipped.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Martin Redmond
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 June 2006
Posts: 3882
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Well, not to carry the argument forever. I'm just saying that this is my opinion. You don't have to agree. :]
I've been reading solicits for years before the net and I've been
avoiding them too when it pleased me. I really don't feel it ever
changed anything regarding comics for me. I know sometimes, there's big
surprises you should keep secret. But, overall, if my 22 pages of story
got ruined by a 2 line solicitation or cover, I think the comic was
running on thin content to begin with.
Furthermore, I grew up on french reprints, so I always had a generic
idea of where my books were going years in advance. I also got to
read many disparate issues from relatives collections, etc and I was
just as eager to read them all out of proper order.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Mark Haslett: "Name one other instance that would match this scenario."
This scenario perfectly? Nothing off the top of my head. I fail to see
how an existing precedent dictates marketing an element of surprise. In
fact, the smart thing to do is misdirect in new ways, to
keep the readers guessing. Death in comics is something readers accept
only nominally. Though admittedly, this was less the case at the time.
However, it's rather moot considering I
already conceded that I was unaware there was dispute over the actual
art that was distributed. I was under the assumption that it was a
dream sequence.
Mark Haslett:
"None of what you just wrote is according to JB's story. If you don't
believe JB why are you asking him for more 'clarification?' "
I seem to have already conceded that I was unaware there was a dispute
over which pages were shown. And how does an incomplete understanding
of a situation now translate into disbelief? I would think that this is
the very moment when one would seek clarification. So please, don't
attribute attitudes to me that do not represent what I have actually been saying.
Mark Haslett:
"It
didn't bother you so it shouldn't bother JB either. You don't believe
JB got any of the mail he says he got, then?"
I'm not disputing John Byrne here. I'm addressing your charge that the
marketing was "ruined". Clearly it wasn't as the spoiler did not reach
a universal audience. The marketing was derailed, yes. But
this is hardly synonymous with "ruined" in my eye. The marketing
remained as intended for anyone who was not exposed to the spoilers.
Mark Haslett:
"Why are you here?"
To participate in a discussion. That's a big draw of the whole "message board" thing. Why are you here?
Mark Haslett:
"He
did. That's when you started dancing."
Hardly. Clarification on who was in charge of the distribution of
marketing content is clearly relevant, and John Byrne happens to be in the
position to answer. If he has done so beyond his suggestion that it was
100% open door, I have missed it. So yeah, I'm here for clarification
on this event. Can you provide it?
Mark Haslett:
"You've
heard JB's version and PAD's version. Now you REALLY want to get to
the bottom of it. You're a knight in armor. If you don't believe what
these two have said so far, who will you believe?"
Who said I don't believe them? By all means, point to me calling either
of them a liar. I concede that Byrne has a right to be angry. I
question the direction his anger is focused in. Now, I was not part of
Marvel in the early eighties and I assume you were not either. As Byrne
was, I'm curious for his answers on these simple questions. He has not delved into
much depth in the statments I have read. I do believe somebody screwed up by releasing the
material in question. But as it has been explained, I don't think it
was Peter David. I do not believe the release was detrimental enough to
warrant the vitriol it has. My current opinions are based on the
limited information on the topic. I'm not looking to start a fight here
and I'm not looking to accuse. I'm looking for clarification on an
issue two creators made public. You don't like my questions to Byrne,
you don't have to respond to them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Carr
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1850
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:12pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I am genuinely sorry that I half-remembered this incident.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Oren
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1209
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Scott wrote:
Robert, that's not fair. LWalker's been polite and reasonable, and not at all trollish.
************************************
IF i offended anyone Scott then i am truly sorry. But you have to admit this place at times is crawling with trolls and it gets old after awhile. Someone comes in and just starts blasting J.B. with i heard this and that and you are just a jerk and blah,blah blah,blah it takes away from the greatness of this board.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:36pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
LWalker is passive-aggressive. Not polite at all.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robert Oren
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1209
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And if Joe said it....trust me it's true. i consider him and a handful other people on this board as "class acts" always insightful and interesting. a true joy to read his post!!!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 7:51pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Robert Oren: "IF i offended anyone Scott then i am truly sorry. But you have to
admit this place at times is crawling with trolls and it gets old after
awhile. Someone comes in and just starts blasting J.B. with i heard
this and that and you are just a jerk and blah,blah blah,blah it takes
away from the greatness of this board."
I'm not particularly offended. But I don't really see where I gave the
appearance of trolling or any other aspects of your description. That
said, no harm no foul. I hope you understand that I actually am just
here to discuss.
Joe Zhang: "LWalker is passive-aggressive. Not polite at all."
Believe what you like. If you do not think my questions have validity,
challenge them. The most passive aggressive thing you could probably do
is simply dismiss someone as you just did, after all..
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 8:11pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I didn't question the validity of your questions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 8:12pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
" i consider him and a handful other people on this board as "class acts" "
I'm not sure i deserve that , Robert !
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Gene Arnold
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 8:21pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I just love melodrama. Someone pass the popcorn.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
