Amentep

$.25 in 1974 is like a $1.20 now. However, Fantastic Four (for example) had a PAID SUBSCRIBER BASE of 218,330* in 1974 (average print run 428,583) whereas the estimate for December's issue is 24,716 at $3.99 So for the sake of the math, lets say that Marvel got a third, the printer a third and the post office a third. So with Marvel's 1/3 of the subscriber base's $.25 in 1974, Marvel had $18,194.17 (or $87,367.44 in today's dollars) from the guaranteed sales of Fantastic Four each month. If we assume a similar third situation (Marvel, distributor, comic shop) for Fantastic Four's sales estimate, than Marvel got $32,872.28 on December's issue. So even with the 1596% increase in cost, Marvel is actually making about 38% of what they did in 1974 adjusting for inflation on that specific title. The real answer to decreasing the cost of comics? Get 180,000 more people buying Fantastic Four each month. It'd be great to get comics back on the newsstands except...newstands don't exist any longer by and large. And the chain stores that sale magazines and newspapers make more money per space for those than they do comics. Which is why they stopped selling them in the first place as chain stores put mom and pop stores out of business in the 1970s, which is what necessitated the move to the direct market in the early 1980s in the first place. *Almost twice the current estimated sales of the top Batman title

Pic is manipulated. Real picture here - http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/10/jailhouse_tales_an_protester_who_was_arrested_sunday_night_tells_about_her_experience.php Snopes article - http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/fergusonsign.asp

Or you'll get the really great Ms. Marvel character and series. Cheaper paper (and thus worse production values) is probably not going to help anything (unless you're talking reprints only which...probably still isn't going to help). The problem with comics can't be solved without a different distribution model to go along with ensuring they still fill a disposable entertainment niche. Which is why there's so many digital pushes for comics.

I agree that putting 4 friends together + comic relationships isn't inherently gendered. I'm not sure that's all SitC is, but as I've never seen it, I can't really assume one way or the other about it.

I don't see anything in the plot of Ghostbusters that said the four people had to be guys. What inherently about being thrown out of academia and creating a blue collar business in the private sector implies you're a man? I don't get it. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd argue that SEX AND THE CITY only works conceptially with a specific gender because its so specific to the relationships of women. Ghostbusters doesn't strike me as an inherently gendered concept, I don't see how you couldn't make those relationships the same with different gendered characters. YMMV. Regarding Aliens, since the Sigourny Weaver part was written as male originally, I wouldn't have a problem with casting a guy as Ripley (or another woman). Similarly I wouldn't have problem if you changed Dallas to a woman or Lambert as a man. I don't think that any of the parts are gender specific (although I do think casting Kane as a woman would bring a lot of additional/different baggage to the storyline). I've never seen that sentiment expressed. Were there people saying Die Hard 3 should have been a Lethal Weapon movie? Or did we all just think it was fun trivia that it started that way? Were there people going around saying that Disturbia should have been Rear Window 2? I don't think Disturbia or Die Hard 3 ended up being their source materials in all but name, which is how I took your implication of making a Ghostbusters film but calling it something else.

Which will lead to everyone saying "I don't understand why they just didn't make it a Ghostbusters movie!" I have to say I don't really see the problem with sequels, reboots or remakes as so many others seem to. Its not like Disney, et al, snuck into my house, knocked me unconsious and stole my copy of the original movies and then made sure I could never, ever see them again. The idea that it "spoils" the earlier film is just maddeningly confusing to me. Does Robert Downey Jr or Benedict Cumberbatch playing Sherlock Holmes suddenly make one forget Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone? Does remaking Psycho invalidate Hitch****'s original (or similarly, did the sequels)? Did rebooting Bond invalidate Connery, et al? If you don't want to see it, don't see it. If its good or bad though it doesn't reflect on anything else but itself.

I think its fair to say based on existing statements with the prequels, he was more excited by the technologies he could use than he was in the narrative he told. Even though the original trilogy had its actors complain that Lucas couldn't direct them well around the special effects, the word on the pre-quels was that he was even less able to direct the cast for making sure the special effects pieces were going to work. Mind you I think Lucas also suffers (in some respects) that fandom and Star Wars kept moving without him due to the EU and that created a lot of expectations that Lucas wasn't ever going to fulfill.

I suspect the reality of publishing gets in the way here. Game Reviewers are probably more than likely backgrounded as gamers and not journalists (because one of the pre-requisites is being willing to play a lot of games for a long time). Game Reviewers probably don't get to finish a game before having to review it, making their reviews more of extended hands-on previews than reviews that can discuss the game as a totality (and thus keeping them from making more nuanced critical analysis if that is their want).

I'm not sure I agree - in so much as I think any thing that is created has to be artistic or fail. What I would say is that games could use more art and could use more ambition. If you look at film, for example, we have decades of criticism but we also have some fairly prestigious awards that aren't simple popularity contests. Wonky politics of the Academy Awards or Golden Globes aside, studios see winning those awards as worth the risk of investing in narratives of questionable commercial value. There really doesn't seem to be a non-commercial reward for taking risks in video games (The Spike Video Game awards are essentially a popularity contest and the IGF awards seem to be a vastly different sort of thing than the artistic awards of the motion pictures).

I understand that, I just think that a rating system should be clear and consistant which it doesn't feel like it is with the mixed concepts. In other words, if "Needs Improvement" is the lowest rating, then your average rating should be "No Improvement Necessary" and your highest rating could be "Other games should follow this standard", therefore being clear and consistant. "Needs Improvement" isn't the opposite of "Excellent" (although now I'm thinking "UnExcellent" would make a great low end rating). But again, I'd go for something more complex altogether. Probably a two tiered goals/expectations based review system where each game was reviewed against what it tries to do (goals) and where it fits within its genre and system and even what the reviewer felt it should be (expectations). And I'd probably be the only one who wanted to review it that way. lol.

Oops, posted new instead of editing my previous post. Not really sure how this is relevant to GamersGate - and bothering to discuss it in a GamersGate context (IMO) just feeds the idea that GamersGate isn't about ethics in journalism. Relevant? It's fun goddammit! While gossip about celebrities has always been fodder for entertainment, I'll stick by my assertion that gamersgaters in general are handing the anti-gamersgate group "proof" that gamersgate isn't about ethics in journalism the more people who profess to be part of the movement spend their time talking about the personal lives of the people on the other side.

I'm not sure how "Needs Improvement" helps a shipped game unless the idea is that it can be fixed in a patch. I'd probably suggest a more complex (possibly byzantine) rating system, though so may not be the best choice for advice.

It wasn't well received when it came out; it got a cult following that has risen in stature over the years. Whether its disturbing or not, I think is up to the viewer (it was as I recall, originally inspired by Franz Kafka's Metamorphisis and other absurdist/surrealist works).

Not really sure how this is relevant to GamersGate - and bothering to discuss it in a GamersGate context (IMO) just feeds the idea that GamersGate isn't about ethics in journalism.

I can't imagine how Dr. Zahi Hawass is feeling, to be honest.

I'm not saying it isn't relevant. Comics are a good example of "new media hysteria", where a new media is embraced by the young and then the old decide that its warping children and therefore they have to be protected from it. In fact Wertham's last chapter in SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT isn't about comics but the evil of that other new media, Television. Anyhow, there is certainly an undercurrent of that with the backlash against violent games or particular representations in games of particular groups.

Which is why I'm interested. The next person that says "But what are you all so afraid of?! There is no censorship!!!" Look at what can and has happened. You should be, the American comics industry took a huge hit from the CCA and the only survivors were the large publishers who could afford not selling the popular sci-fi and horror comics. Nowadays American comics struggle to sell 40,000 copies per monthly issue, have high prices for little content(which is why pirating them has become so rampant), and are just now able to produce commercially viable comics that aren't superhero books. Imagine something like this happening to videogames and the picture is not very pretty. The funny thing is that the arguments of Fredric Wertham(whose hitpiece book Seduction of the Innocent is what contributed greatly to the moral panic preceding the CCA) resemble those of certain commentators on videogames, such as that they influence the attitudes of young people who play them and make them more violent. http://news.illinois.edu/news/13/0211comics_CarolTilley.html The above link goes over how he misused the data gathered to construct his arguments. It should look familiar as there is also no scientific evidence of videogames affecting behavior yet some still insist it does. Actually Sci-Fi comics did quite well in the 50s both pre- and post-code. It was Crime (Lev Gleason's CRIME DOES NOT PAY that was the biggest) and Horror (EC being the biggest publisher hit by this). Also it should be noted it wasn't the "biggest" publishers that survived, it was the ones who made the CCA (being a self-regulatory entity) DC, Marvel, Archie, et al used the CCA to take out their biggest rivals (EC and Lev Gleason). Gleason left comics and EC ended everything but MAD, which they made a magazine (and it was sold quiety to National in the 60s) It is a mistake to think that declining comic sales have anything to do with the CCA; while it is true that pre-code comics sold better than post-code comics, the "Silver Age" comic sold better than the comics immediately pre-"Silver Age" and those comics sold better than anything in the 80s. There are a complex series of reasons to explain declining sales, the vast majority of them stemming from the loss or retail outlets that sold comics (like newstand, mom & pop grocery and drug stores, etc) which necessitated the move to the Direct Market - selling to buyers through comic shops. That said, many people fall into the causality trap that Wertham does. Jack Thompson certainly did.

I thought the ending worked, but it deflated all my interest in the show too, so its not one I have any real compulsion to revisit.

I dunno, I hadn't looked at the thread in awhile, but there had been previous warnings that the thread shouldn't just be women in string bikinis (or nothing strategically covered by non-clothing; IIRC the warning was after about 10 thong butt shot pictures) and yet last time I looked at the thread it seemed like that's what people kept coming back to with their posts - women in skimpy lingerie, exercise wear, and bikinis.

Gromnir's a Lawyer, IIRC. Genetics will also play a part. Also how much of your normal exercise and health patterns you stay in as you age, as well as diet. And IIRC you'll be starting 30 better than most people from an exercise and general health standpoint.

To be fair, most of those are what are (locally at least) considered "applied" associate degrees, they're like half liberal arts and half technical degree.

The local two year college is 1/2 the cost (tuition and fees) of the nearest 4 year school and 1/5 the cost of the nearest local research university. But they're all ran by the same governing body and accredited by the same regional accredeting group.

Disagree, it will make you very slightly more marketable than a high school diploma. Very slightly. But that's not the point of most community college that don't have some form of technical or skill base component (in which case it'll make you much more marketable). I'm not talking about entrance requirements, however (last time I checked Havard's entrance requirement wasn't that high - paying for it was another matter altogether). I'm talking about academic rigor of coursework. Community colleges in a system like SUNY are typically accredited by the same body that accredited the 4 year units. However I know of some competitive programs that will accept community college credits (in fact the two year school I work at now has a program that specifically gets students admitted to a very competitive, nationally known program if they complete it with all the proper standards). These things vary by program and state (and by who is running the programs)

My entire working career has been at colleges and universities. This may give more/less weight to my argument, depending on your feeling. I also was one of those financially challenged students who started with a local two year college because I could afford anything else, then transferred on to the local 4 year university. I took no loans out to finance my education - something I'm greatful for now.