Ult_Sm86 wrote:That's a very pessimistic and honestly, rather baseless assumption. Posted numbers from Diamond aside (which is never the best estimate as anyone in Marvel/DC/Image constantly say online), there is a professed knowledge in this debate that we don't actually have.
Pessimistic? Try realistic. We fans have to look at the evidence we have, limited though it may be. I don't give a furry rat's butt about the PR machine because it will never tell us anything but what it wants us to hear, and it sure as heck doesn't want us to hear anything negative.
Overall direct sales today are no better than they were in 1999. Remember also that the numbers we see are how many copies are shipped to retailers and not the number retailers manage to unload onto customers. Event titles, which typically sell the best, often did not sell through at the shops I frequented. It's disturbing to me how many copies of two-month-old books are still on the shelves when I've returned for visits over the years, particularly because I know these people struggle to break even much of the time. The industry isn't, and hasn't been, healthy for years. That's the impression I get from every shop I've visited, and those are the people best able to make an assessment. It's an industry selling 300,000 units, on an extremely good day with a pile of variants, to a population of 317,000,000. For sales like that, you're usually looking at single customers buying multiple issues. Comic buyers are a tiny
, aging minority.
You mention everything but comics when citing what keeps comics afloat. I don't know about DC, but I can tell you for a fact that Marvel titles that do not pay for themselves are canceled. This is something I've seen people inside the company say in public. With the exception of adaptations and the kids line, titles that drop below 20k on Diamond's reported sales get relaunched ('cause that's their thing now) or canceled. So, how much do we really think digital sales are helping here when a it's that easy to rely on the print sale numbers from one region to determine whether a book will be allowed to continue?
Yes, I think it's a safe assumption that more of us could and should be buying... but their prices prevent an easy-to-go-to access but keep in mind kids aren't going to the corner store and dropping a quarter (and then getting change!) for their comics anymore.
True, and it doesn't help that comics are no longer sold at the corner store. My husband and I drop a ridiculous amount of money on comics monthly. Luckily, we can afford it. I wouldn't have been able to get into the hobby if prices in 1995 were what they are today. What kid wants to burn their $20 on five comics that will net them an hour or so of entertainment when they could spend the same amount on a game, a couple movies, or a novel that will get them 6+ hours?
This is our "New Golden Age"? Batman
sold nearly 900k in 1966 and is currently barely hanging on above 100k after a reboot. Excuse me for finding that somewhat depressing. One can talk about how great today's comics are all day long, but that's not going to matter if they don't sell. I wish things were better than they are, but I see no value in pretending. I love the format and want to see it thrive. That won't happen if we fans stick our heads in the sand.
Oh no, dum dum dum...the thing every poet most fears...the ever-daunting reality check. Hmmm, well let's see if I can conjure any sense out of that stream-of-consciousness post.
I kinda got famous for them among my friends.
Yes, true, but if you peel off the labels, open all the canisters and heap them on a table would anybody be able to definitively sort the infinite array of dynamic strands into whole self-sustaining 'things'...no way!
Oh, this is pure neurology. We keep figuring out how the senses work, and that they're far more detailed than we thought. Itch and pain, for example, were thought to be part of the sense of touch. They aren't. They have their own sensors. A little bit of sideways wiring gets stuff mixed up and can cause synesthesia. A person with that may see red when they hear the note A, for example.
I actually think that sensory perception is more a function of outside than it is inside...i actually think that 'we' exist as part of collective 'experience' and that our 'self' perceptions are 'there' as 'motivators' to act...or (not)act - as it may be - in accordance with the collective whole. Our 'sixth' sense is actually our true sense and memory of 'being' both spiritually and corporeally cosmically entwined with all-creation.
Well, sensory perception does require something to perceive; after all, you can't know what apples taste like without ever having tasted one. In that way, I see where you're coming from with tying it into memory and calling it "a function of outside." I don't really do the collective consciousness thing because it seems, to me, too much like us anthropomorphizing the universe to make it like us. That's not to say humans are the only things with consciousness, but we do like to project our image onto other things. On the idea of being connected to the universe, though, I'm totally with you. We are flecks of paint on that glorious canvas.
Our skin...that wonderful organ...is permeable. That's astounding!
It's not so surprising that our skin is permeable. We, like everything else, are mostly empty space. That's the crazy thing: things look solid when they aren't. We see so very little of what is because of our sensory limitations, but those limitations probably help keep us sane. I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to see every color, smell every smell, or hear every sound. It would be incredibly overwhelming.
I am now utterly confused myself! I have accomplished nothing! But I'm pretty sure I'm on to something...onto something...which is the truest state of being...not here, not there...but 'onto'
Or maybe we think too much?
YES! In a way...
What I mean is that if you are able to 'transport' or 'teleport' another person...it doesn't just happen when you BAMF...but all the time!
You said this yourself...that breathing portal-ic light that IS Kurt - the way he is absorbed into shadow...like he is part shadow...meaning...he is part of the 'other' and 'all'
I don't think I quite said that
. It's not that he is the portal but that he's surrounded by the portal. It bends the light that tries to reach him, leaving him permanently cast in darkness. My, that sounds bleak, doesn't it? See, you're so much better at the poetic language.
The world is shifting never stable...when he 'ports he can't just go to where 'a place was' he must go to where it 'will be' - THUS, when he transports another - he must not transport just who he is touching...but the touch itself, and the fragment of an instant that is the current of time! How could he do this? How? Empathetic Kinesthesia! Right?
Nah, bad comic book physics.
I don't think empathetic kinesthesia would do that because it doesn't really apply to location so much as bodily awareness, so it wouldn't extend beyond him understanding the movements of his passenger. Time still passes, but he travels really fast. Actually, it might be better to say the portal--fun t-shirt alert!
--greatly shortens the distance because he maintains his momentum. If teleporting sped him through the Brimstone Dimension, he'd have to exit faster than he entered unless there's some kind of automatic slowing property and sustain massive amounts of bodily damage on the way unless he has a mutation to withstand it. Obviously, his passengers wouldn't have such a mutation, so it'd be less a way to transport people than to kill them. (I am vastly over-thinking this, aren't I?)
Really? That phrase isn't very old. I don't think most religions even had an 'image' of 'one true' God. Egoism is just a philosophy...just another religion...maybe even a product of that proclamation.
Unless 4000 years isn't very old, we're dealing with different ideas of old.
The idea contained in Genesis 1:27 is probably older than the culture that wrote it down. Granted, that was written in Hebrew, but it's precisely where the biggest religions in the world today get the idea. There were also the ancient Egyptians for whom the pharaoh was a son of Ra on Earth until Akhenaten came along and set up monotheism under the Aten sometime around 1353 BCE. A number of old cultures viewed their rulers as representatives or descendants of their gods. The idea of humans being reflective of gods is likely as old as written history, if not older. I'd say the wording is backwards to make us feel special.
I don't buy it Wahnsinn. He made himself look like Errol Flynn because he was a kid...and that was his hero...and because the girl he wanted to date Amanda was white...i don't think he used the image inducer to do anything but try and be 'cool' and 'to fit in.' He had an isolated life, never walked down a street, let alone a New York City street freely.
Exactly. He chose the image that would make him fit in with the dominant group. It's totally understandable because who would want to face a bunch of appearance-based difficulties when given the choice to take the easy road? It also made him easier to write. If he'd been, say, Vietnamese and chose to look it, his experience would have been much different. His background would also have been considerably different. It would have been much more work for white dudes to write than a European.
Kurt is a race unto himself. We all are really. Ethnicity washes out upstream and downstream. I'm actually surprised you'd even argue that Kurt in any way contributes to the problem. More than any character, it's Kurt, who embodies the struggle to find accord, bridge gaps and sustain hope through the most difficult and impossible conflicts.
Yes, after he ditched the image inducer. That was a refreshing change, seeing him be himself and be comfortable with it. It's one of his greatest strengths as a character. That's the kind of thing from which weirdos like myself can draw inspiration. That was a far better message than having him change his appearance completely to not only blend in with the "normals" but to blend in with the most privileged group.
One of the things about your writing that I really admire is the way you bring a fresh perspective to the x family by bringing in an 'outsider' and having the reader experience her unbiased interactions with the 'team.' Of course, I especially like that it's Kurt who understands her feelings - empathizes with the 'outsider' and patiently provides her an unconditional safe harbor in which to settle and simply 'be' (in fact) he's the first person ever to do this for her...and I love that! That to me is who Kurt is and why I just don't buy that he's part of the problem
I don't think he was ever a big, obvious part of the problem. That sits more on a subliminal level when delving deep into the issues of race in comics. His positive qualities are what really take center stage. He's all heart, and in a world like that, somebody needs to be.
Over on the CBR forum site there are sooooo many Nightcrawler haters that obsess about him being a sexist, misogynistic externalization of Claremont's 'knight in shining armor' philanderer - an irrepressible flirt with a prehensile penis - blah, blah, blah...
The internet can be such a grumpy place. Of course, some of those people might be trolling fans like ourselves, but some of them are probably serious. They may well even have some valid points, but why focus on all the flaws? I, like you, think Kurt is a positive character overall.
It's true. I do think the best way to support comic books is to head down to your nearest comic shop and start a folder - hopefully with a young'in. The other day a kid walked by me with a Spider-Man winter cap. I asked him if he was excited about Peter Parker coming back and he gave me a blank look and I immediately understood...ah ha, it's the movie...or the cartoon...not the comic...
Y'know, I sometimes think about when I'll let my incubating son read today's comics. Because the general audience has aged, mainstream comics aren't as kid-friendly as they used to be. The vocabulary of older comics could sometimes be a little advanced (not that that's a bad thing), but the content was usually something you wouldn't feel uncomfortable handing to a 10-year-old. Some of the stuff put out in the last several years might give a kid that age nightmares.