|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 19:35:35 GMT -5
Yeah, if you got 6 dollars . Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Like peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 19:36:47 GMT -5
It still exists. I have plenty of comics with it still on them. It is not being used any more on new releases, but that's different than not existing. -M Apparently it was used on Heroes Union #1, an August 2021 book written by Roger Stern. The intellectual property rights of the CCA were purchased by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund in 2011. It's mostly been used on merchandise as a fund-raiser for the CBLDF. The Laws of Conservation of Mass even applies to funnybook censors. I really hate the term "funnybook". It's demeaning and just plain irritating. And it's inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 19:37:58 GMT -5
Apparently it was used on Heroes Union #1, an August 2021 book written by Roger Stern. The intellectual property rights of the CCA were purchased by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund in 2011. It's mostly been used on merchandise as a fund-raiser for the CBLDF. The Laws of Conservation of Mass even applies to funnybook censors. I really hate the term "funnybook". It's demeaning and just plain irritating. And it's inaccurate. Again...The Prosecution Rests.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 19:38:24 GMT -5
Yeah, if you got 6 dollars . Or whatever the cover price happens to be. Not, necessarily, in US dollars, because the rest of the world exists.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 19:39:14 GMT -5
I really hate the term "funnybook". It's demeaning and just plain irritating. And it's inaccurate. Again...The Prosecution Rests. I don't think you're worth my time. You think you're clever. I don't. How do I block someone?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 19:50:22 GMT -5
Again...The Prosecution Rests. I don't think you're worth my time. You think you're clever. I don't. How do I block someone? To be fair, I'm not the only one who thinks that I am. classiccomics.org/post/153564
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 19, 2021 19:53:21 GMT -5
The cover of Amazing Spider-Man #1 isnt that good: If not for the logo, this looks more like an issue of the Fantastic Four (with them cornering him), and showing the hero in peril on the cover of the very first issue isnt a very good look (and yeah, I know the use of the FF was likely to attract customers).
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 19, 2021 20:00:38 GMT -5
Again...The Prosecution Rests. I don't think you're worth my time. You think you're clever. I don't. How do I block someone? It's all in good fun, tingrametro.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 20:02:39 GMT -5
The cover of Amazing Spider-Man #1 isnt that good: If not for the logo, this looks more like an issue of the Fantastic Four (with them cornering him), and showing the hero in peril on the cover of the very first issue isnt a very good look (and yeah, I know the use of the FF was likely to attract customers). I'm pretty sure that's the re-colored reprint version. The background blues in the original were even more washed out, which makes it fade into the newsstand more than this one would. On the plus side, The Thing really looks like orange lumpy mashed potatoes. So that's something. The early issues of Marvel Comic struggled in the cover department.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 19, 2021 21:27:02 GMT -5
I had a film professor in college who hated theu term "movie." Must admit, when I was growing up I rarely heard anyone refer to films as movies, except in American TV shows. It's a word which only seems to have become popular here in the last twenty years. It's how they were marketed, in the early days, in America. They were called moving pictures," which got shortened to "movies," just as "talking pictures," with sound, got turned into "talkies," before silent film died out. Only Hollywood and critics called them "motion pictures" or "cinema." In rural areas, they would call them "the pictures" or "the picture show." I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't take the medium seriously, though the comic industry is another matter and certainly some content is less serious than others. I think you can take the medium and the historic works seriously, regardless of what you call them actual delivery method for the story (newspaper strips, comic magazines, squarebound "graphic novels", trade collections, web comics, etc...). You can call it a funnybook, yet still extoll the virtues of a particular work, creator(s) or genre of stories. You can call it a graphic novel and still have it filled with juvenile antics and mayhem. That's part of why I never poo-pooed stuff like the Harvey comics, or comics based on cartoons, or stuff like that, just because it wasn't serious. They weren't meant to be; but, that doesn't mean they didn't have a serious intent in delivering an entertaining or even enlightening story. They had a craftsmanship as much as anything done by Art Spiegelman or Moebius. They just had a different audience in mind, just as Roald Dahl had a different audience in mind than Evelyn Waugh. It doesn't mean one was less of a writer than the other or their work was less important to literature.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,740
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 19, 2021 21:33:13 GMT -5
I don't think you're worth my time. You think you're clever. I don't. How do I block someone? To be fair, I'm not the only one who thinks that I am. classiccomics.org/post/153564and if that gave winners/recipients free reign to talk to others in whatever way they please, I would delete the entire section right now and never run the event again. Cool it, both of you.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 19, 2021 21:43:31 GMT -5
I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't take the medium seriously, though the comic industry is another matter and certainly some content is less serious than others. I think you can take the medium and the historic works seriously, regardless of what you call them actual delivery method for the story (newspaper strips, comic magazines, squarebound "graphic novels", trade collections, web comics, etc...). You can call it a funnybook, yet still extoll the virtues of a particular work, creator(s) or genre of stories. You can call it a graphic novel and still have it filled with juvenile antics and mayhem. That's part of why I never poo-pooed stuff like the Harvey comics, or comics based on cartoons, or stuff like that, just because it wasn't serious. They weren't meant to be; but, that doesn't mean they didn't have a serious intent in delivering an entertaining or even enlightening story. They had a craftsmanship as much as anything done by Art Spiegelman or Moebius. They just had a different audience in mind, just as Roald Dahl had a different audience in mind than Evelyn Waugh. It doesn't mean one was less of a writer than the other or their work was less important to literature. Bingo. Besides, it's hard to beat a good issue of Hot Stuff! (though I'll usually pass on Richie Rich)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 20, 2021 0:14:06 GMT -5
I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't take the medium seriously, though the comic industry is another matter and certainly some content is less serious than others. I think you can take the medium and the historic works seriously, regardless of what you call them actual delivery method for the story (newspaper strips, comic magazines, squarebound "graphic novels", trade collections, web comics, etc...). You can call it a funnybook, yet still extoll the virtues of a particular work, creator(s) or genre of stories. You can call it a graphic novel and still have it filled with juvenile antics and mayhem. That's part of why I never poo-pooed stuff like the Harvey comics, or comics based on cartoons, or stuff like that, just because it wasn't serious. They weren't meant to be; but, that doesn't mean they didn't have a serious intent in delivering an entertaining or even enlightening story. They had a craftsmanship as much as anything done by Art Spiegelman or Moebius. They just had a different audience in mind, just as Roald Dahl had a different audience in mind than Evelyn Waugh. It doesn't mean one was less of a writer than the other or their work was less important to literature. Bingo. Besides, it's hard to be a good issue of Hot Stuff! (though I'll usually pass on Richie Rich) Richie was at his best in the 60s; but, he had some good adventures, in the early 70s. It was formulaic, to be sure; but, when Warren Kremer was doing the stories, they were pure gold. I bought and/or read comics from just about anyone, except Warren ( I was a bit young for them, until they were pretty much out of business) and that included everything from Uncle Scrooge, the Junior Woodchucks and Super Goof, to Archie & Richie Rich, Turok, Space Family Robinson, Scooby Doo, The Phantom to DC & Marvel superheroes and such. Westerns, war comics, superheroes, funny animal, cartoons; heck, even some romance comics. If it was a comic, I would read it. Even the Christian Spire line, though, man those comics were preachy!
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Oct 20, 2021 9:06:08 GMT -5
I really hate the term "funnybook". It's demeaning and just plain irritating. And it's inaccurate. Serious question(s). Why does it bother you so much? Why do you care so much what someone else calls them? Why do you think funnybook is less accurate than, say, comic book, which is not a book but a periodical. Closer to a magazine than anything, and nobody calls magazines books. You could argue that a collected edition is, but we already call those trade paper backs, graphic novels, etc. Is a graphic novel really a novel with graphics? I could argue no, its a collection of comics. It's just arbitrary semantics, and it doesn't really matter. Certainly not worth trying to police the language other people use, especially when anyone still posting on a comic book forum format in 2021 clearly isn't an enemy of the medium.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 20, 2021 9:53:19 GMT -5
It's what my Dad called them. But mostly it's because it tends to irritate people who take them far too seriously. Who are you to say how seriously people should take them? Comics are as legitimate a storytelling medium as any other and can be used to tell any kind of story. Are we not supposed to take Maus seriously? Interesting point; it is clear numerous writers and artists were creating serious content intended to resonate with readers in some relatable, realistic manner, despite the superhero or format trappings. The medium was never meant to be a catch-all of content to be considered the same way across the board. That Spider-Ham existed at the same time as The Savage Sword of Conan did not mean their creative / perception lines were blurred under the banner of comic books, etc.
|
|