| Author |
|
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 5:50pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Mark Haslett: "Context: a marketing build up asked readers: "which one will die?" PAD
revealed to people the answer, thus ruining that marketing."
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. 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. 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.
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 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?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 5:52pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Pronoun clarification (unless I missed something):
When you say "His boss said he didn't permit PAD to do this, yet witnesses confirm it happened." are you referring to Denny O'Neil? He was JB's editor, not PAD's boss. The distinction being important, because DO did have incentive to keep JB happy, and probably no incentive to keep PAD happy.
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.
"witnesses confirm it happened." Has anyone who was there other than JB and PAD come forth to say what they remember happening? Because both PAD and JB are a) obviously biased and b) seem convinced their own version of the story is the way it happened. When two witnesses offer conflicting testimony, you've got to decide which explanation is more reasonable -- and without mindreading, I can't see any rmotive for anybody working in Marvel promotions to deliberately sabotage JB's story. Doubly so with JB in attendance at that convention! Hence my earlier question if there was bad blood between the two before then? If so, maybe it would be believable that someone would go to the effort to spoil a story.
*Keep in mind, "not telling the truth" is not the same as "lying." If PAD or JB don't know the truth, but think they do, there's no intent to deceive. Personally, that seems like what's going on.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Oren
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1209
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 5:57pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
L Walker wrote:I don't sign up to forums to stir sh*t up. I sign up at forums when there is something I am interested in talking about. Previous to this, I had not encountered something I of enough interest to me to pursue
******************
so basically your here to stir sh%t up.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 5:58pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"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."
only according to PAD. According to JB, they were the pages showing the actual death. So without picking a person to believe, which pages they were is up in the air, and they shouldn't weigh into figuring out what the true story is.
But overall, the logical conclusion does seem to be that someone asleep at the switch in the Editorial office is the real cause.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:00pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Yup.
|
| 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 6:03pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
J.B. WROTE: Now you see why I absolutely never, ever, post anywhere but here.
********************************
Boy and how !!! Hey J.B. when you leave the house do you look over your shoulder the whole time your gone? .....or do you just never leave the house?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:03pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Robert, that's not fair. LWalker's been polite and reasonable, and not at all trollish.
Doesn't it make more sense for someone to come here and find out JB's side of the story rather than take what was said elsewhere as gospel?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:04pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Robert Oren: "so basically your here to stir sh%t up."
If that's your definition, then sure. And so are you and everyone else.
I'm here to discuss a subject I find interesting. Why are you here?
Edited by L. Walker on 29 August 2006 at 6:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134314
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:07pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I'm here to discuss a subject I find interesting. Why
are you here?
*****
NOTHING has previously peaked your interest.
Amazing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2710
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
L. Walker,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The blame game misses the point. To carry forward the allusion about the dog, if it was my parent's car and they threw me the keys, are they responsible for running over the dog even though I was behind the wheel at the time?
And yeah, after 22 years the dog is still dead. But if I continued to smirk about the time you came unglued when I flattened your pouch, you might still be a little upset after all those years.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:15pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
It's sobering to think that guys like PAD , Johnston, Joe Q., who say
one thing and do another, THOSE are the guys who are rewarded in the
comic industy. Sad.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 6:21pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Scott Rowland: "According to JB, they were the pages showing the actual death."
I had missed that bit of the conflict, and I concede it mitigates my charge.
John Byrne: "NOTHING has previously peaked your interest.
Amazing."
Thanks John. As you can see, that's not at all what I said: "Previous
to this, I had not encountered something of enough interest to me to
pursue."
I hadn't encountered anything.
That's not to say nothing existed that I would have enjoyed
participating on, but I do not spend my time searching forums for
discussion. I'm more prone to reading news posts, and Peter David keeps
one. That led me here. If you keep one, I've missed it.
For that matter, I've been reading Peter David's journal for a few
years. And the number of threads I've participated on can probably be
counted on one hand. So what's your point? I don't comment enough to
your satisfaction? That I find this topic of culpability interesting is
somehow damning? Controversial topics between two creators whose work
you enjoy is obviously of interest. Why should that surprise you?
So if you have a point to make, please make it. Why leave it to me to "infer" your meaning?
And as previously stated: 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.
If you don't want to address this aspect, that's clearly your
prerogative. But I find it unfortunate that you
seemingly dodge reasonable questions with veiled jabs. Theoretically,
you're the person who can shed light on the details of this event. So,
at the point
when you were working on Alpha Flight, who was responsible for the
dissemination of material to the marketing staff?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
