Canceling the event just means they didn't want to have video footage of their decision being booed loudly by an angry crowd, they're not gonna cancel the partnership.Rhyno posted:I am 100% for them cancelling the event but someone should point out to the person that tweeted this that A) comic books are not for children and the industry tossed that pretense out the window over a decade ago and B) NYCC is not aimed at or geared towards children specifically. But it's obvious those specific comics are attempting to recruit children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:No, Neal Adams spearheaded an attempt to establish one in the 70s but it didn't take off. http://comicsalliance.com/comic-creators-rates-1978/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:But it's obvious those specific comics are attempting to recruit children. You're not wrong. It's just amusing that next to no children will actually see this book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I am 100% for them cancelling the event but someone should point out to the person that tweeted this that A) comic books are not for children and the industry tossed that pretense out the window over a decade ago and B) NYCC is not aimed at or geared towards children specifically. I mean she's a comics professional and is on a panel at NYCC so I'm sure she knows those things, I think she was framing it that way as a very mildly hyperbolic way of underscoring how inappropriate the NG thing is. That being said I guess it was a weird way to put it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:You're not wrong. It's just amusing that next to no children will actually see this book. The book is explicitly being marketed as "all ages", kids are overtly the target demo
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 07:59
|
|
sexpig by night posted:The book is explicitly being marketed as "all ages", kids are overtly the target demo I think Rhyno is saying kids are a statistically small portion of the reader base, thus this effort wouldn't reach many of them.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Oh, yea then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Looking at Northrop Grumman's social media about this comic (which so far consists entirely of retweeting the Marvel account), the rest of their social media involves them really pushing themselves as sponsors of middle/high school STEM programs so this is probably going to end up being given out at STEM events at schools. So the intended demographic is kids aged 12-18 or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Looking at Northrop Grumman's social media about this comic (which so far consists entirely of retweeting the Marvel account), the rest of their social media involves them really pushing themselves as sponsors of middle/high school STEM programs so this is probably going to end up being given out at STEM events at schools. So the intended demographic is kids aged 12-18 or so. This is simply the plot of Spider-Man: Homecoming playing out in real life. Homecoming was the dream, this is the reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Canceling the event just means they didn't want to have video footage of their decision being booed loudly by an angry crowd, they're not gonna cancel the partnership. This is likely true, but I do think it's a good thing that the event got cancelled and I hope the people saying "exerting public pressure on a company never yields results" take note of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
I mean, we maintain planes because a superior air force is immensely important in modern day warfare. Defaulting to the thought that we'll probably just nuke each other eventually so it doesn't really matter doesn't seem to work in practice; that was the assumption that led to the USAF getting a bloodied nose from old MIG-15s in Vietnam. Still, regardless of whether you feel we need planes, it's definitely more than a little tone deaf to push this forward with a big smile considering their current reader base. Is it necessarily much worse to be trying to draw nerdy kids into going off to be engineers for a military aviation company than it is to try to be drawing kids to going off to join the military, though? It's hard to imagine that a partnership with Uncle Sam where Frank encourages kids to join the Marines would've been met with the same tenacity. e: There was a typo because I'm on my phone and I couldn't let it go Blade Runner fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Same FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
 "sorry you're stupid and didn't understand what we were doing"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:
Can you post a link to the announcement? Having trouble trying to find this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Can you post a link to the announcement? Having trouble trying to find this one. It's the quote they gave screenrant http://screenrant.com/marvel-northrop-grumman-controversy-nycc/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
David Heinrich posted:I mean, we maintain planes because a superior air force is immensely important in modern day warfare. Defaulting to the thought that we'll probably just nuke each other eventually so it doesn't really matter doesn't seem to work in practice; that was the assumption that led to the USAF getting a bloodied nose from old MIG-15s in Vietnam. Also its much worse for Marvel making recruitment ads for a Private Military enterprise because the whole company seeks profits over human life and often their equipment is sold to countries that can use it to commit war crimes. At least our military tries to find reasons other than making money when they invade countries and fail to build a nation out of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:It's the quote they gave screenrant I'm pretty glad they appear to be endng the whole partnership instead of just making it less public, that's rad. Again, don't let anyone tell you boycotts or the threat of boycotts can't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I'm pretty glad they appear to be endng the whole partnership instead of just making it less public, that's rad. Again, don't let anyone tell you boycotts or the threat of boycotts can't do anything. Yea very pleasantly surprised to read that, seems like they're rightly severing everything instead of how it just seemed like they were cancelling the big public event at first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Double post but haha didn't hear about this. https://www.themarysue.com/marvel-retailers-diversity/ quote:Two older retailers started raising their voices arguing about diversity and how it does not work. The words “black”, “homo” and “freaking females” were used multiple times, at which point other retailers started to boo those retailers and the room started to turn on itself. Marvel editor Nick Lowe tried to get calm by saying that Marvel try and they tell stories for everyone, that the old heroes are not going anywhere, neither are the new ones, there is room for them both. "Hey how'd Marvel do at NYCC?" "Well they had to nix their big Punisher show reveal after Las Vegas...." "Aw, unfortunate but that's a classy move of them to be that aware of tone and all." "Well then they spent a day advertising their deal with arms dealers who own a PMC until they got owned so hard by their own fans they had to pull out..." "Well that's a bit odd...." "Then they had a retailer panel where two old morons had a meltdown about 'freaking females' and 'homos' ruining their comics..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:
I don't think they were saying "sorry you're stupid" at all. That's a pretty bad read. sexpig by night posted:
If they're pissing off old bigots, they must be doing at least something right. Kill all retailers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
There's absolutely a tone in that statement that shows either a lack of awareness or a refusal to acknowledge why people were upset in the first place and instead takes a "Well I guess people just don't want comics that promote kids getting into STEM fields!" tack like they're the poor loving maligned victims here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
^^^ yea the whole 'well we're STILL dedicated to teaching STEM to the youth' thing sounds just whiny and lame. "Oh I guess you guys DON'T want kids to learn STEM, well alright, but we still think it's good..." Yea the fact that it was only two old idiots makes me happy, but also the fact that there were enough people in the crowd to go "YEA NO HOMOS" and cause a ruckus bums me out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:^^^ yea the whole 'well we're STILL dedicated to teaching STEM to the youth' thing sounds just whiny and lame. "Oh I guess you guys DON'T want kids to learn STEM, well alright, but we still think it's good..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I know its because of getting paid lots of money to do it, but they could have just made a partnership with NASA if they wanted to do that, I mean who hates NASA these days? Its like one of the 2 fields of science that everyone likes and gives money to support it, the other being paleontology of course. Like literally Republicans hate NASA and have defunded it over and over again I still don't read the spite in that statement tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:Like literally Republicans hate NASA and have defunded it over and over again I'd call it less spite and more rear end-covering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
yea 'spite' is a bit much. I'd call it more...'whiny' I guess? Like they're trying to keep some friendliness with the company by being all 'aw gee they just wanted to teach kids science....' about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I mean, yeah, it's the money. They wanted money. They're a corporation, I can't blame them too much over that. Grumman does legitimately do a lot of aerospace/NASA stuff, and I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find a company that's not doing something sort of hosed up at this point. I don't really feel animosity towards them for wanting advertisers, and I feel like there probably wouldn't be much outrage over them partnering up with Nestle for a classic "Superhero saves the day with the deliciousness of a candy bar" story, despite the reprehensible stuff that company has been up to lately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Things are going well at marvel pr dept https://twitter.com/RosieMarx/status/916691751469019140 David Heinrich posted:I mean, we maintain planes because a superior air force is immensely important in modern day warfare. Are you really saying the f22 and f35 are important and necessary Like, the a10 (from what I've heard in the news when they were talking about discontinuing the model) was one of the most efficient planes used in the middle east and those were built in the 80s iirc site fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
site posted:Things are going well at marvel pr dept I'm saying that blindly hating defense contractors just seems weird to me, and I don't feel like most of the people getting angry about this on Twitter are primarily annoyed about frivolous spending. Also to be fair, I believe Grumman is the primary support contact for A-10s and only has a minor role compared to other secondary contractors in Lockheed's aerospace developments (35 only, I think, primarily the radar and avionics suite, though I could be wrong) so if anything this post is a resounding advertisement for them
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
David Heinrich posted:I'm saying that blindly hating defense contractors just seems weird to me, and I don't feel like most of the people getting angry about this on Twitter are primarily annoyed about frivolous spending. this really isn't a hard formula dude. Most people on the left side of things feel that we have a bloated military that sucks down billions while we're being told we just can't afford to feed kids or have healthcare. The contractors literally make their bones telling the government they actually need to keep buying planes that sit in hangars and rot just in case those crafty chinese start an air war or whatever. Again my major issue with them is the whole 'they also own a pmc that's doing genuine evil in the world and their weapon systems are being sold to our proxy wars and keeping them going' but the general 'blind hate' for defense contractors mainly comes from those of us who literally just recently got told that single payer healthcare was too expensive after a bipartisan budget boost of 700 billion for the military to just kinda do whatever was passed. People who profit off war are bad people, people who keep grifting the most powerful nation in the world to spend all its budget on more war to profit from are very bad. Also their stealth bomber is loving ugly and it's held up as the big iconic cool sexy bomber and it's goddamn ugly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah it looks like they to over maintenance back in the late 80s but of they've been doing well for 30 years that wraps around into why we should be dumping trillions of dollars into planes that we don't need and don't actually work half the time. We could completely fund national health care, free college, repair billions in rotting infrastructure, low income housing, feed the homeless and poor/general minimum income, etc with all that wasted money I don't want to double post so here's an article about the billions of dollars in fines NG has paid out for all the illegal/shady poo poo they've gotten caught doing https://graphicpolicy.com/2017/10/06/marvel-teams-northrop-grumman-custom-propaganda/amp/ site fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:this really isn't a hard formula dude. Most people on the left side of things feel that we have a bloated military that sucks down billions while we're being told we just can't afford to feed kids or have healthcare. The contractors literally make their bones telling the government they actually need to keep buying planes that sit in hangars and rot just in case those crafty chinese start an air war or whatever. Again my major issue with them is the whole 'they also own a pmc that's doing genuine evil in the world and their weapon systems are being sold to our proxy wars and keeping them going' but the general 'blind hate' for defense contractors mainly comes from those of us who literally just recently got told that single payer healthcare was too expensive after a bipartisan budget boost of 700 billion for the military to just kinda do whatever was passed. Sure, but is that opposition wholly moral or more political? Like I said, I doubt anyone would skip a beat if you had a Nestle partnership with Marvel, and they've been going whole hog at murdering babies in impoverished countries, lately. I can accept that Grumman is awful, I just wonder at some types of awful being generally shrugged at. Marvel is partnered with Coca Cola and Ford, who have respectively hired PMCs to enslave and murder people in South America, and been a primary member of anti climate change lobbies. Acting like this is somehow a betrayal of their core values strikes me as weird. I guess this is sort of a "Well other companies are awful too" post, but realistically, they are, and specifically singling out this one partnership just strikes me as sort of weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
I can't speak for anyone else, but i haven't seen these other ads so i can't really post them to say look at them partnering up with this company that's a profiteer of slave labor and decimates local ecologies that's really gross and hosed up, and just because i haven't done so doesn't mean i endorse those ads and not these
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
site posted:I can't speak for anyone else, but i haven't seen these other ads so i can't really post them to say look at them partnering up with this company that's a profiteer of slave labor and decimates local ecologies that's really gross and hosed up, and just because i haven't done so doesn't mean i endorse those ads and not these Coke's ad partnership with Marvel was their Superbowl commercial. That's pretty immense exposure. Their Ford ad was GotG 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
David Heinrich posted:Sure, but is that opposition wholly moral or more political? Like I said, I doubt anyone would skip a beat if you had a Nestle partnership with Marvel, and they've been going whole hog at murdering babies in impoverished countries, lately. I can accept that Grumman is awful, I just wonder at some types of awful being generally shrugged at. Marvel is partnered with Coca Cola and Ford, who have respectively hired PMCs to enslave and murder people in South America, and been a primary member of anti climate change lobbies. Acting like this is somehow a betrayal of their core values strikes me as weird. I guess this is sort of a "Well other companies are awful too" post, but realistically, they are, and specifically singling out this one partnership just strikes me as sort of weird. I mean, I can either never consume anything because capitalism is an inherently cruel system backed by imperialism, or I can prioritize things and say 'yea it sucks that Nestle gets its lovely things ignored because it makes good chocolate but partnering with a company that in the real sense very much only profits off human misery and death is probably worse'. Yea in my perfect world all those companies you listed would be considered toxic assets to use but there has to be some level of scale we use even if it's a personal one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
David Heinrich posted:Coke's ad partnership with Marvel was their Superbowl commercial. That's pretty immense exposure. Their Ford ad was GotG 2. I don't watch network tv really, or any TV at all tbh I think st discovery will be the first show i keep up with in like a year lol But you're also evading the main thrust of my post which is that i don't find those cool either and you're making a lot of assumptions about what i do find acceptable to try and make a point site fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I mean, I can either never consume anything because capitalism is an inherently cruel system backed by imperialism, or I can prioritize things and say 'yea it sucks that Nestle gets its lovely things ignored because it makes good chocolate but partnering with a company that in the real sense very much only profits off human misery and death is probably worse'. Yea in my perfect world all those companies you listed would be considered toxic assets to use but there has to be some level of scale we use even if it's a personal one. Some may find this a cop-out answer but a full-scale boycott of Nestle, to the point of boycotting all companies that deal with them, would be extraordinarily difficult. They've really got their slimy fingers in just about everything. And I mean frankly as far as Marvel goes, Ike Perlmutter still being CEO makes them kinda toxic regardless, but the Northrup-Grumman deal still felt like a line-in-the-sand moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I think you're taking my statements personally, when that isn't how they're meant. I'm not saying you, personally, are cool with the acts of these mega corporations. I'm saying that the vast majority of people, comic readers among them, cannot seem to rouse themselves to give a gently caress; and in that same sense, you didn't see the Superbowl and you don't watch Network TV, but quite a lot of people do. Grumman also does innocuous aerospace stuff with NASA; honestly, it seems like the fact that it just plain hasn't needed good PR because it doesn't make consumer products is loving it over far more than its actual actions as a company. Getting up in arms about one thing because it's easy to do so but shying away from the acknowledgement of other similar things has always bothered me in that sense. It's the classic picture of someone saying that it's disgusting that a clothing company could use child labor, or abuse the third world for profit, posted from an iPhone 7.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:'yea it sucks that Nestle gets its lovely things ignored because it makes good chocolate They make poo poo chocolate though 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
David Heinrich posted:I think you're taking my statements personally, when that isn't how they're meant. I'm not saying you, personally, are cool with the acts of these mega corporations. I'm saying that the vast majority of people, comic readers among them, cannot seem to rouse themselves to give a gently caress; and in that same sense, you didn't see the Superbowl and you don't watch Network TV, but quite a lot of people do. Grumman also does innocuous aerospace stuff with NASA; honestly, it seems like the fact that it just plain hasn't needed good PR because it doesn't make consumer products is loving it over far more than its actual actions as a company. Getting up in arms about one thing because it's easy to do so but shying away from the acknowledgement of other similar things has always bothered me in that sense. It's the classic picture of someone saying that it's disgusting that a clothing company could use child labor, or abuse the third world for profit, posted from an iPhone 7. I mean, presumably you own a smartphone and/or a computer, so are you saying you yourself are not allowed to find any company's labor practices disgusting? Or do you think that maybe isn't the best argument?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:03
|
|