Dan Slott addresses the difference between Rich Johnston spoiling something and the New York Times spoiling something.
>>84471695
Shut the fuck up Slott. Marvel's current mandate is to piss off readers, don't be surprised when they pay you back in kind.
>>84471695
>>84471723
Uncharted Territory general?
>>84471695
He's not wrong, though.
>>84471695
He basically said NOTHING
>>84471803
But I thought anger sold.
>>84471695
Fuck off Slott.
>TL;DR
>it's alright when my corporate overlords do it but it's not alright when clickbait sites do it for the exact same reason marvel does
Slott is a hypocritical fanboy, news at 11.
Literally the tl;dr is:
>Major news sites have broader audiences and, thus, aren't solely targeted to current comic readers.
>oh and, as creators, we get """blindsided""" by spoilers from BC
Big fucking whoop.
>>84471695
Who the hell cares? Did this really bother him that much?
>>84471695
>when Rich spoils it, we make less money from exclusives
because the other option (making GOOD comics) is too hard.
>>84471695
>We can't make as much money if a comic gossip site publishes exclusives we were paid for.
>>84471941
He threw a big fit on twitter a couple days ago, so yes
>>84471941
Well looking at >>84471723
Brevoort was also upset.
He also didn't address people asking him about anger increasing sales.
>>84471695
I don't understand how announcing a bunch of books that were already in the process of being announced counts as spoilers?
>>84471941
He got upset because Marvel got called out for being shit, where as the NYT played into all their "THIS IS REALLY CHANGING EVERYTHING FOREVER" shit.
>>84471999
New York Times straight up spoiled Hulk getting shot in the face too.
So this all makes even less sense.
>>84471695
I totally don't agree with Marvel's policy of spoiling things for the sake of advertisement, but his argument is still sound.
CBR should do another poll now asking if people are excited for Marvel Now 2.
>>84471999
NYT spoiled events that happened within the pages, not just the covers and titles of the books.
>>84472005
THIS IS UNCHARTED TERRITORY, GUYS.
>>84472020
right, thats what I mean. Slott and Brevoort are pissed that BleedingCool ran info that was widely available to all comic shop owners/employees online two days before Marvel hoped to release it. Thats bad.
Marvel spoils a major plot point in their current NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME AGAIN event through a national news source that ruins it for far more people than bleedingcool could ever hope to get as readers, and thats perfectly okay?
>>84471695
>Its ok when spoilers are part of a media and promotional strategy where we control the message.
This isn't about spoilers its about Marvel's ability to control the media coverage. They are confused and angry when a journalist (technically Rich Johnston meets the bare minimum requirements) gives out information versus what is handed out in a press release that has been carefully crafted by a marketing team.
>>84472071
The justification is the target of the spoiling.
BleedingCool is spoiling it for current comic fans, people who come to the site for comic news, for people who already "care" about comics.
NYT is spoiling it for non-comic readers in the hopes that they'll see what is going on in the books and want to read more (i.e. buy more).
Of course, this is all assuming that anyone who reads BleedingCool would never possibly read the NYT, which is a bit insulting (but probably accurate).
It's also ridiculous to think stories from the NYT wouldn't get passed around the Internet just like stories from BC. If BC hadn't made a leak, they would have read the NYT article, and spread -that- around. So the same people get spoiled, anyway.
In short, spoiling for the sake of advertising is a cheap and stupid gimmick that harms the enjoyment of the actual product.
>>84472160
>
It's also ridiculous to think stories from the NYT wouldn't get passed around the Internet just like stories from BC. If BC hadn't made a leak, they would have read the NYT article, and spread -that- around. So the same people get spoiled, anyway.
Yeah, it's obvious Slott and Brevoort couldn't really justify that.
>>84472160
>In short,Marvel as an entire company is a cheap and stupid gimmicky piece of shit that no longer makes enjoyable product.
FTFY
I can' tell if this is a real controversy or another generated one from the "House of Ideas", Are they actually mad this time or are they just pretending to be to build hype for a dying event in a dying medium?
I'm automatically team anyone who pisses off Dan Slott's bitter ass.
>>84471999
It's not really just about things just being spoiled, but rather the possibility of the spoilers affecting the press releases at LCSes in a negative manner
Which really I get, retailers may get pissed that less people decided to go to one now that the catalogue was out online and marvel may have to do something about that money wise or whatever, but Slott and Brevoort just behaved too unprofessional and now marvel just look like hypocrites for spoilering their own shit and trying to be like "well it's okay when WE do it"
>>84471695
nigga i ant reading all that
>>84472270
>dying medium
The business model is dying not the medium.
>>84472237
Well sure, if you want to take all the subtlety and mystery out of the statement.
>>84472160
From Marvel's point of view, this is true. Marvel wants to control the message and decide what is OK to tell the public and when.
The problem is, journalists shouldn't be concerned about what's good for Marvel. The fact that so many of them will not reveal anything without a company's consent is not because this is the "right" thing, but because the company will cut them off from the flow of exclusive interviews.
But it's not *morally* wrong for journalists to tell us stuff the companies don't want us to know. That's pretty much the only reason for journalism to exist.
>>84472022
>I totally don't agree with Marvel's policy of spoiling things for the sake of advertisement, but his argument is still sound.
no it isn't
Isn't Dan Slott a SJW jackass now? He should be killed.
>it's ok when Marvel does it
>>84471695
When you make and sell clickbait comic books to get the fans good and angry, you attract clickbait websites who will use your products for clicks. It's really that simple.
Fuck Marvel. It's what they deserve at this point
>>84472445
Dominating market with sales and merch? Critically acclaimed movies that bring lots of money?
>>84472402
I wouldn't consider him a SJW. More of an asshole who happens to be a liberal (like most comics writers).
Few mainstream comics writers and editors can be full SJW because they actually have some belief that art shouldn't be 100% political.
>>84472312
Print in general is a dying medium.
>>84472489
Oh I meant comics not print. Like artistic medium, film, comics, prose etc.
I can agree print is dying.
>>84472474
If they are then they wouldn't be upset
>Critically acclaimed movies that bring lots of money?
People in the Marvel comics publishing side have little or no influence on the films now.
>>84472474
Then by all means they should become a film studio and leave the comics industry
>>84472402
Don't go cutting yourself on that edge, kid.
>>84472322
There's hardly any actual reporting on the comics industry. Even TV and movies, which are tightly controlled, have some "insider" stories that tell you about behind-the-scenes conflicts, like when Feige had the Marvel Publishing people fired from the movies.
With comics there's nothing, or almost nothing, because it's a tiny industry whose journalists aren't real journalists, even by the low standards of modern journalism. So we get mostly regurgitated press releases and politicized clickbait commentary.
>>84472322
I don't know the context in which BC revealed the spoilers, but if they are to remain in the "moral right" side of journalism, they would have titled their articles something vague, but clearly state "THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD." I've known so many sites that put the spoiler itself right there in the headline because it gets more clicks, though, so I'm reasonably pessimistic, but hopefully optimistic that BC did the former method and not the latter.
>>84472474
>Critically acclaimed movies
just like the comics, mediocre shit at best that gets overhyped by the mouse godly PR machine?
>>84472954
To be fair their MCU is currently leagues better than their regular 616 though as sad and formulaic as that fact may be. So yeah at this point of rather they stop printing books for the time being or at least trim the fucking fatasses that wrote this clickbait shit.
Its not the websites job to proved max PR for Marvel.
Hey, Rich finally noticed what /co/ noticed a month ago:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/07/13/skottie-young-spoiled-marvels-big-civil-war-ii-twist-months-ago/
>>84471695
The start of his criticism of leaks makes a pretty good case FOR them, before it goes all 'boo-hoo, they're meanies', which is irrelevant.
>>84471964
>Brevoort was also upset.
Hahahahahaaaa! That must be good for Marvel sales then, right?
As a writer myself, I kinda-sorta get where Slott's coming from. You have a plan you set in motion and you're excited for readers to find out, only for it to be revealed to them before you wanted. That's annoying.
But as someone who's ALSO a journalist, tough titty. No matter how much of a shitty rag bleeding cool might be, journalists have the right to report on public information, which is what the spoilers became when they leaked. If he hates it that much, he should be blaming Marvel for letting it leak in the first place.
>>84472780
>>84471723
>"Warning: This article contains spoilers..."
What was the newspaper headline?
>>84471695
He's right, Marvel choosing to spoil something is different from a site getting it in a scoop. That said, Rich can totally post them they're news.
>>84474178
Also, the "we need readers to come into comic shops based on our hot hot NYT spoilers" is the dumbest, most short-sighted and short-term focused method to try and boost sales in comics.
Like those guys aren't going to fucking stick around, especially once they get some sticker shock. Not to mention, buying off the rack doesn't count, unless the retailer decides to figure it into future pre-orders.
Dudes who read the NYT don't come into their LCS and go "you know what, set me up a pull list". They don't know what that fucking is.
So it's all really stupid.
>>84474178
But it wasn't even spoilers! The leak was the Marvel Now promo magazine, which is purely a marketing device. Slott is being his usual assoholic self over ADS.
If anything, the leak gave the internet a day or two to talk about the new books before Civil War II #3 hit and took up air.
>>84474582
I can't believe they decided to throw a tantrum over Rich when CW2 was going to be spoiled in the mainstream media. Surely they knew it would happen ahead of time and their complaining about Rich would make them look hypocritical no matter how many defenses they do.
>>84475069
They really overestimate how much everyone gives a damn about spoilers, and how much they'll help or hurt their business.
People who buy events don't stop buying events because of a spoiler. They buy that garbage regardless.
>>84472160
Slott is saying that a NYT article will reach potentially new readers that a BC article wouldn't. The issue is not that the spoiler will spread but who it will spread to. If BC leaks something, NYT won't publish an article based on the leak and it won't reach their audience who Marvel assumes does not read BC (I think that's a fair assumption) and who they would like to target for readership.
The problem with all this is that Slott thinks readers will be either enticed by the store or by the story and they'll return but Marvel comics are garbage and I highly doubt anyone will waste time going to a specialty store that just sold them $4 junk.
