Before facebook and twitter...

Before facebook and twitter, we lived in a world where creators and businesspeople just kind of accepted that their product would receive criticism and it was their job to earn the public's money. Now if you say comics are shitty you'll actually get senior writers and editors calling you names, threatening you, and insisting that they're owed your money because they have the correct opinions.

We are now in a world where Andrew Dobson's mentality is the norm in comic book companies. (Blowing off criticisms, picking fights against fans, starting autism wars against trolls, or even just a random sperg (D&C), etc). Makes me wonder how come Dobson STILL can't get a job working there. He'd fit right in.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lNJ6dFwh8a4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

This is the whole reason why I got into checkers.

I don’t know anything about Dobson’s particular situation, but the professional world is full of nepotism and who-do-you-know quid pro quo. It’s not the best thing ever, but you’re more than likely going to offer a job to someone you’ve known for a while that you have a hunch can do what you’re looking for, vs risking going on a search for a candidate that may not work out.

Reputation plays a huge factor in this.

Creative industries are small and even though some people think remote areas like Sup Forums or reddit or tumblr or whatever are nestled and hidden, industry folks pay enough attention that they’ll know a name like Dobson before he even sets foot in the door, for better or worse.

Twitter/social media, is a social optics game, and if you are exposed to people bad-mouthing your shit, of course you’re gonna throw a hissy fit or respond because that’s your reputation/livelihood potentially at stake if the buzz gains momentum.

>Twitter/social media, is a social optics game, and if you are exposed to people bad-mouthing your shit, of course you’re gonna throw a hissy fit or respond because that’s your reputation/livelihood potentially at stake if the buzz gains momentum.

Yes, but to the point where you end up making yourself look even WORSE?

Is everyone remotely famous REQUIRED to have a Twitter these days? Only winning move is not to play.

I think the best creators/authors/whatever that use Twitter are the ones that gracefully ignore or navigate around their critics (or hire genius social media managers that curate their feeds).

But I mean... it’s all bad. The more you learn about people, the more you are likely to hate them. It’s why I choose NOT to follow my favorite writers/artists.

AAH-HAHA! WHOT THE FUCK AH YOU ON ABAOT, YA ROUND-HEADED CUNT?!

So hang on, hang on!

Karl, you mean to tell me that instead of reading better books, you decided to switch from reading juvenile fantasy fiction to board games? Let's a logical leap right there, Karl!

OH GOD...OH GOD.

"Oh, comics are rubbish these days, I think I'll play checkers instead! I could just pick up a better book, but I think I'll go learn an entirely new hobby instead!" Fucking brilliant.

Actually yeah, these days if you don't have an active social media presence that's an active bad mark on an art job application.

It does beg the question. If comic creators in the industry these days all behave like Andrew Dobson, why is Dobson still jobless? It's not his attitude that turns them off, that's for sure.

Is this really true? A little of the old letter pages have a lot of the same shit we have now.

The guy who did Midnighter of all people want to start a fight against D&C, which is ironic because D&C used his work as an example of doing LGBT right.

What is causing comic creators to do this?

>art
>job

The problem is multi-pronged, like anything worth discussing

>Creators often don't have a clear creative vision or message they want to convey; if they do it's often not something they've meditated on, researched or participated in long enough to actually create something derived from it; their inspirations are often very shallow and it becomes obvious in whatever they produce; long gone are the days of Hemingway writing about an exciting adventurous life, derived from his own
>Creators are seldom auteurs or risk-takers anymore; they bend to the whims of what's cool, they want to be "liked" rather than derive pleasure in the core act of creating and conveying; they are slaves to what others tell them (particularly consumers and the figureheads they worship) or worse, they crave the arrogance or "authority" that comes with being a renowned creator, the creations themselves end up being just a means to an end
>Creators tend to be (or become) spineless due to the above, but even those who do have an interest in breaking norms pr experimenting often find themselves consciously blocked by corporate contracts, wannabe moral guardians, social media cliques and other people who should not be within 1000 miles of a creative project; there are too many institutions and groups who seem to exist solely to encourage (read: reinforce) "right" art and stomp on any "wrong" art that tries to find prominent exposure
>Creators very rarely have the balls to look at the hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of their own work, totally divorce themselves from it, and then ask themselves if it's actually any good; it's entirely possible to gather up tons of passion and skill and invest it into a project, but so much remains unrefined or in need of adjusting/changing that the entire product ends up wasted potential

This isn't every artist obviously but its becoming increasingly common, the horrible culture in art reinforces these faults and teaches them to new creators

Sometimes it happens even when you aren't trying to be an ass. You get fans that want to make a crusade out of fucking with you they will, then play victim if even if you give them the most polite response to their bullshit.

Sure there's a lot of prima donna thin skinned artists out there like Dobson, but it's annoying seeing how childish and shitty some fandoms get toward creators that aren't dicks at all.

That's also true.

>a world where creators and businesspeople just kind of accepted that their product would receive criticism
youtube.com/watch?v=lNJ6dFwh8a4
Nope.

Pretty sure this is more of a jab towards wikia type faggots who practically base their whole life around fictional trivia shit.

Go away, Diversity & Comics. Pros call you names because you call them names, or worse.

Then just delete your tweets like Noelle Stevenson
Now she's getting her works adapted into film and television

>Breaking norms and experimenting is all you need to make great art! Let's just ignore the centuries of history (and trial-and-error) in this respect instead of educating ourselves!
Just like many other things, Americans have ruined art for everyone.

>Now if you say comics are shitty you'll actually get senior writers and editors calling you names, threatening you, and insisting that they're owed your money because they have the correct opinions.
boo fucking hoo you little faggot

You first, Nick Spencer.

I dont go to work to post on the twitter, I go to get paid, what is it to them?

Wasn't she the one who said she'll blacklist anyone who presents a portfolio that has attractive women like Chel?

Could be botth.

I wonder though.

Why D&C? There are FAR worse people to go after when it comes to comic critics. Some of them are even the kind of people that they would LOVE to parade as being "the Alt Right". Why would comic creators as a whole start an autism holy war against a faggot who in the grand scheme of things, is worthless? Wouldn't ignoring him be more productive? (I know that's what Sup Forums says to do, but comic creators don't get the memo)

It's a terrifying fucking world is what it is. Social media is the norm. Nowadays if you aren't using it, people wonder what you're hiding.

>Why would comic creators as a whole start an autism holy war against a faggot who in the grand scheme of things, is worthless?
Same reason people hashtags on twitter - it's easy and they can convince themselves something was accomplished.

Ironically, fighting D&C made them look even worse than usual. Imagine if Michael Bay going after the Nostalgia Critic. Or Devin Faraci going after the AVGN oh wait...

>We are now in a world where Andrew Dobson's mentality is the norm in comic book companies. (Blowing off criticisms, picking fights against fans, starting autism wars against trolls, or even just a random sperg (D&C), etc).

that's the entire point. that's the scam.

Perlmutter is friends with Trump. Perlmutter allows over the top SJW bullshit (without class consciousness by the way) and then Trump gets more votes, also vice versa, also rinse and repeat.

So who wants to wise up first? Because the "woke" crowd are blind to this.

All I'm saying is, you might as well just be reading them black and white chinese comics you see in the book stores, e'cause even if the creator is an arse on the social medias you can't understand what they're saying aight?

That's fucking hilarious though

Karl. Do you know how to read Chinese though?

So you're basically fine with Hitler's tweets because you can't read German? Makes sense then!

You orange headed mank twat.

I'm jus' sayin'

>why is Dobson still jobless?
He’s a straight white male with no nepotism privileges.

>What is causing comic creators to do this?
Ignorance resulting from misinformation, hearsay, and confirmation bias.

>my online friend said this guy is a racist, sexist bigot. So he is most definitely a racist, sexist bigot. I’ll now go on social media declaring this person to be a racist, sexist bigot.

>Or Devin Faraci going after the AVGN oh wait...

That whole shitshow was such a fucking embarrassment to watch. Especially since AVGN only said he wasn't going to watch it.

I ended up not being surprised when Faraci had allegations leveled at him.

This is correct.

And honestly, it's not a new thing. I've seen it happen a lot in the 00's in comments sections. It just got worse with the rise of Twitter, where every message can be seen (unless you change the privacy settings, which a lot of people don't want to do for obvious reasons).

Shitty people do shitty things. The internet hasn't changed that, it's just enabled people to act on impulse.

>Before facebook and twitter, we lived in a world where creators and businesspeople just kind of accepted that their product would receive criticism and it was their job to earn the public's money. Now if you say comics are shitty you'll actually get senior writers and editors calling you names, threatening you, and insisting that they're owed your money because they have the correct opinions.


Yes, and before facebook and twitter, celebrities were in an untouchable world to you. The only way you could contact the people you were a "fan" of was to send fanmail that would never get answered and probably never read.

You got social media that brought them down to your level, so what are you bitching about? That "celebrities" should behave with a higher level of professionalism than the average person? That went out the window when the average person decided the celebrities were just average people too that they could mock and troll on their cell phones the way they would any jackoff back in an AOL chatroom, you get what you give is all I'm saying. Social media is a blessing and a curse, enjoy the drama from the sidelines and don't use it if it triggers you.

>Before facebook and twitter, we lived in a world where creators and businesspeople just kind of accepted that their product would receive criticism and it was their job to earn the public's money. Now if you say comics are shitty you'll actually get senior writers and editors calling you names, threatening you, and insisting that they're owed your money because they have the correct opinions.

When did you start using the internet? Because I remembered this gradually happening during the 00's. Maybe even earlier in the 90's. (stories of John Byrne on 90's AOL were not that different from stories of John Byrne on his forum during the 00's)

It's just worse now because Twitter gave an even worse platform for people to succumb to their baser instincts, and people online confuse thinking that they're morally right with being actually right.

>Yes, and before facebook and twitter, celebrities were in an untouchable world to you.

If OP's talking about comic book creators, then it's not true, during the 90's there was Compuserve and AOL where Peter David, Erik Larsen, and John Byrne got into arguments, and then the 00's had creators going to a lot of comic book forums or interacting in comments sections of some blogs or whatever.

aside from H.E.A.T, what was the last non-online organized bitch group?

i do remember people wanting the writer who killed gwen stacy dead or something but never really got organized.

I don't know. I mean even when Marvel did some bad things in the 90's like the Clone Saga, I can't recall anything being formed like HEAT.

I guess maybe Comics Journal's readership?

Forget it

>t. Stalin-approved "artist"

"Untouchable" is probably not the word I'd use. More like having some basic decency. Which is what's lacking online these days. (whether you're a fan or a creator).

You mean shen? Or shadman?