Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 31 Next >>
Topic: Has the internet ruined comics? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:39pm | IP Logged | 1  

K-Mart must have had a Blue Light Special on disingenuousness.

Even in those pre-internet days, it took only slightly more than a nanosecond for this spoiler to get flashed all over the country. (There were these things called "telephones". I hear some people still use them to this day.) Responses I got on ALPHA FLIGHT 12 contained about a third of the mail with some variant on "I would have enjoyed this more if I hadn't already found out the ending." Of course, none of those people got their spoilers from this source, did they? They just plucked it out of the air.

Was this a permanent, long-lasting effect? Of course not. Has anyone said it was? Of course not.

But a story I had been working on for a year was damaged for about 1/3rd of the readers. Those people had their enjoyment spoiled. And for no good reason. No logical reason. No rational reason.

That's what's missing here. David admits -- even flaunts -- the fact that he handed out the xeroxes (even if he constantly "refines" the scenario to make sure he comes out looking good). What he never, ever bothers to attempt to explain is how REVEALING THE END OF THE STORY qualifies as "promotion". To me, it reads, as it always has, as an "insider" saying "Look how cool I am! I can show you stuff only people in the Office are supposed to know about!"

****************************

I wasn't being disingenuous, I was trying to make the point that it's a little thing in the grand scheme of things, considering the length of your career and in the hundreds of thousands of people who have enjoyed your work. 

David has explained that he confirmed with O'Neil that it was OK that he hand out what he says he was given to hand out.  That you don't believe him doesn't mean that he hasn't attempted to explain it. 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Horton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3574
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:44pm | IP Logged | 2  

Not to mention previews at the end of episodes, or even promotional clips! Fox is most egregious. You cannot watch a "24" preview or promo, as often the main plot twist of the episode is given away.

I like the "Battlestar Galactica" approach. Show some spoilers in quick flashes at the beginning - not long enough to really see what's going on, just enough to whet your appetite! I believe they borrowed that trick from "Space: 1999".
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:44pm | IP Logged | 3  

John Byrne: "Go look up the difference between "infer" and "imply".

I infer. You imply. And it is clear from my statement that I believe you implied this. Inference on my part is (no pun intended) implicit in this dialog.

Regardless, if it was not an act borne out of negative intent, then he was, in fact, just doing his job. Was it his job to screen material? Was it his job to be aware of a major story development that was apparently a tight-lipped secret? You say it was standard practice for the people in his position to waltz in and take artwork for the sake of promotion. Whose job was it to determine what story elements should or should not be revealed through said promotion? Who guides the material in this instance, the editor, or the individuals in marketing. It happened all the time? It sounds mostly like it was a policy failure.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133711
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:47pm | IP Logged | 4  

I infer. You imply. And it is clear from my statement that I believe you implied this.

***

You made an inference then. Back to square one.

Unless you sometimes go by the name Kreskin.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Ian M. Palmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 1342
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:53pm | IP Logged | 5  

I'm not irrelevant. I'm a hippopotamus.

And also, apparently, a Marx Brothers fan.

IMP.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:54pm | IP Logged | 6  

From what I've read on the PAD page, he pretty much washes his hands of the matter: I was doing my job, it was Denny's fault, I asked Denny if it would be okay...

If we want to find logic in the "conflicting" stories, think about this for a minute: if by his own admission PAD was aware enough to ask Denny if those pages were okay (i.e. he realized that a cat might be released from its bag), then why should PAD be shocked to learn the creator of the work became a bit hot under the collar at the release?

"I was just following orders" is never a good defense...

Back to Top profile | search
 
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 7  

Me: "I infer. You imply. And it is clear from my statement that I believe you implied this. Inference on my part is (no pun intended) implicit in this dialog."

John Byrne:
"You made an inference then. Back to square one."

As I said: "Inference on my part is (no pun intended) implicit in this dialog."

So your point? Of course I have attempted to infer meaning from your statements. You of course, are in the position to correct said inferences and clarify your actual intent. To that end...

...if it was not an act borne out of negative intent, then he was, in fact, just doing his job. Was it his job to screen material? Was it his job to be aware of a major story development that was apparently a tight-lipped secret? You say it was standard practice for the people in his position to waltz in and take artwork for the sake of promotion. Whose job was it to determine what story elements should or should not be revealed through said promotion? Who guides the material in this instance, the editor, or the individuals in marketing. It happened all the time? It sounds mostly like it was a policy failure.

Now, we can dance around the definitions or appropriate applications of infer and imply for as long as you like. Or you can address the actual body of my posts. Your choice, obviously. You were there at the time. You are in the position to clarify the details surrounding this event. Who was responsible for determining what material was suitable for promotion? Who was responsible for determining what story threads should be kept secret? Who was responsible for properly communicating this or enforcing this?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Arvid Spejare
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 386
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 4:08pm | IP Logged | 8  

Personally, I'm with the "If some not-exactly-famous sales guy showed artwork not okayed by the editorial which spoiled something big in one of the top selling books, then why in the world wasn't he fired about ten minutes later?"-camp.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36132
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 4:09pm | IP Logged | 9  

 John Byrne wrote:
Yeah. TV GUIDE has been doing this for years. Their issues come out the week before the broadcast, yet often their capsule desciptions contain information that should not be known until the previous -- ie, the week the issue ships -- episode has been viewed. I have sometimes been able to follow whole series (DALLAS, for instance) in this fashion, without ever watching a single episode!

You know what's recently been bugging me in this same vein? Put a DVD of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA into your player.  Chose an episode, any episode.  Read the menu.  IT'S A FRIGGIN' SPOILER!!  The entire plot of the episode is encapsulated in one paragraph.  What's up with that?  WHY?  Makes no sense to me at all, but it bugs the ever-lovin' crap out of me!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Horton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3574
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 4:13pm | IP Logged | 10  

Matt: Arggg! It's getting to so you have to hit Play blind without reading the screen. Stupid!

At least the FRIENDS DVDs put the spoilers in the episode guide written all over the packaging instead. Not much better, but better!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Troy Nunis
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 4:19pm | IP Logged | 11  

i've long been bothred by DVD-TV packaging, from Buffy DVDs which show key stills montaged in the packing and the episode menues, to HOUSE season 1, which had the paragraph spoilers - they are clearly being made for people who have alreayd seen the shows run on TV and not in mind for people who are watching it for the first time on DVD
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
Posted: 29 August 2006 at 4:35pm | IP Logged | 12  

" Guardian dies?"

LOL
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 31 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login