>>215910846
The whole twist of season 1 is it is a false flag intelligence plot
4chan Search
4 results for "03f5304c5052eab0bce27ac472e46a7c"
>>215796341
This reminds me of this Marvel comics editor speaking about the 00s. This editor said anger sells (pic related).
A bunch of tv writers/producers of the early 00s, like Kurtzman, or people like Joss Wheedon, took on this exact same attitude, that if they were pissing off, getting people talking on the message board, using cheap tricks and gimmicks, then that was somehow a success for them. A lot of people get a few successes and then repeat the same ideas across their whole career until it fizzles out. (And those early successes had nothing to do with this attitude, it was a coincidence.)
You're reading into a bunch of stuff that isn't there. His argument is 50/50 is good because debate = good, which fits into my point that these idiot producers think online debates/divisiveness is good for the show, because no publicity is bad publicity to them and they think it made their shows successful in the 00s. He thinks that when that is unbalanced, then it is bad. This is all part of the same misunderstand that these producers have because they don't understand any of this. But like I said, rather than attributing it to ignorance or stupidity, you think he is being purposefully subversive, why? To piss off a load of fans so they stop watching? Okay, done.
This reminds me of this Marvel comics editor speaking about the 00s. This editor said anger sells (pic related).
A bunch of tv writers/producers of the early 00s, like Kurtzman, or people like Joss Wheedon, took on this exact same attitude, that if they were pissing off, getting people talking on the message board, using cheap tricks and gimmicks, then that was somehow a success for them. A lot of people get a few successes and then repeat the same ideas across their whole career until it fizzles out. (And those early successes had nothing to do with this attitude, it was a coincidence.)
You're reading into a bunch of stuff that isn't there. His argument is 50/50 is good because debate = good, which fits into my point that these idiot producers think online debates/divisiveness is good for the show, because no publicity is bad publicity to them and they think it made their shows successful in the 00s. He thinks that when that is unbalanced, then it is bad. This is all part of the same misunderstand that these producers have because they don't understand any of this. But like I said, rather than attributing it to ignorance or stupidity, you think he is being purposefully subversive, why? To piss off a load of fans so they stop watching? Okay, done.
>>150085101
>I think people were starting to turn on him over Avengers Disassembled, but at the time the 00s fans and Bendis fans were numerous enough to replace long-time fans.
Obviously this is all subjective and open to debate but I am defining things a bit differently than you. I think there is a subtle difference in eras. For me that Disassembled/House of M stuff is the phase of "anger sells". We're gonna make big blockbuster events and books and piss people off. They were polarising but they were there and in your face. X-Men and Guardians represent a more "huh" phase where I feel that people weren't raging angry (oh plenty of people were), just becoming turned off completely. Anecdotally I know a few people who would say this is how they felt. It went from, tune into the train wreck viewing to, oh Bendis did x now.
>But after Siege I think there was some kind of change in audience reception. Maybe people finally saw an excuse to bail, maybe people started catching on to how Bendis' stories go.
This is what I meant when I said "over time this changed". Because I think by Siege a lot of this was used up and burnt out.
>I think people were starting to turn on him over Avengers Disassembled, but at the time the 00s fans and Bendis fans were numerous enough to replace long-time fans.
Obviously this is all subjective and open to debate but I am defining things a bit differently than you. I think there is a subtle difference in eras. For me that Disassembled/House of M stuff is the phase of "anger sells". We're gonna make big blockbuster events and books and piss people off. They were polarising but they were there and in your face. X-Men and Guardians represent a more "huh" phase where I feel that people weren't raging angry (oh plenty of people were), just becoming turned off completely. Anecdotally I know a few people who would say this is how they felt. It went from, tune into the train wreck viewing to, oh Bendis did x now.
>But after Siege I think there was some kind of change in audience reception. Maybe people finally saw an excuse to bail, maybe people started catching on to how Bendis' stories go.
This is what I meant when I said "over time this changed". Because I think by Siege a lot of this was used up and burnt out.
>>150050863
>What happened in 2014 to give birth to ANAD diversity schizophrenia like this?
The 2010s had a lot of this at Marvel. A lot of creators saw which way the wind was blowing in terms of adaptations and decided to make diverse characters, Miles in 2011 was the forerunner to this. Pic related is what a Marvel editor said about the 00s into the 10s period of comics: anger sells. In the 2010s period it was: anger sells + politics. If they were pissing people off, they considered it a GOOD thing.These people were stuck in an online buble.
To make matters worse, several creators have talked about the book market conspiracy. That is to say: a lot of creators wanted to TANK comics on purpose to destroy comic shops and make comics fall back into the book market. A lot of these creators are convinced the book market would be better for them because the market is slower meaning their small sales would be looked more favourably and the market would better fit their politics and ideas.
It got so bad with main characters being replaced by diverse replacements that in 2017 comic book shop owners at an event let the Marvel representatives know their frustration. David Gabriel who was VP of publishing at the time said diversity had harmed sales but he later backtracked and "clarified" his comments.
>What happened in 2014 to give birth to ANAD diversity schizophrenia like this?
The 2010s had a lot of this at Marvel. A lot of creators saw which way the wind was blowing in terms of adaptations and decided to make diverse characters, Miles in 2011 was the forerunner to this. Pic related is what a Marvel editor said about the 00s into the 10s period of comics: anger sells. In the 2010s period it was: anger sells + politics. If they were pissing people off, they considered it a GOOD thing.These people were stuck in an online buble.
To make matters worse, several creators have talked about the book market conspiracy. That is to say: a lot of creators wanted to TANK comics on purpose to destroy comic shops and make comics fall back into the book market. A lot of these creators are convinced the book market would be better for them because the market is slower meaning their small sales would be looked more favourably and the market would better fit their politics and ideas.
It got so bad with main characters being replaced by diverse replacements that in 2017 comic book shop owners at an event let the Marvel representatives know their frustration. David Gabriel who was VP of publishing at the time said diversity had harmed sales but he later backtracked and "clarified" his comments.