|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Aug 18, 2004 15:15:48 GMT -5
Continued from the administration section....
Todd,
The illustration of Jim Shooter on the "reading room" page is from a notorious illustrated biography. It was one of the things that polarized all the calm and peaceful creators against Jim. It is a memo that circulated from the Newlin Company. Don't ask me who they are, because I have no idea.
If you scroll down on that page, you can find the text that reads this:
"Jim Shooter Illustrated Biography - Page #1 (115 KB), Page #2 (131 KB), Page #3 (121 KB), Page #4 (103 KB) - This is an illustrated biography of Jim Shooter released in early 1993."
Click the links on that page and you are set. I actually own a copy of the memo. Pauline didn't know I had it posted already. She submitted a slightly larger .pdf file. I left my posting intact to save server space. If you'd prefer to have a pdf file of the memo, I can email it to you.
Defiant1
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd Luck on Aug 19, 2004 13:46:58 GMT -5
Continued from the administration section.... Todd, The illustration of Jim Shooter on the "reading room" page is from a notorious illustrated biography. It was one of the things that polarized all the calm and peaceful creators against Jim. It is a memo that circulated from the Newlin Company. Don't ask me who they are, because I have no idea. If you scroll down on that page, you can find the text that reads this: "Jim Shooter Illustrated Biography - Page #1 (115 KB), Page #2 (131 KB), Page #3 (121 KB), Page #4 (103 KB) - This is an illustrated biography of Jim Shooter released in early 1993." Click the links on that page and you are set. I actually own a copy of the memo. Pauline didn't know I had it posted already. She submitted a slightly larger .pdf file. I left my posting intact to save server space. If you'd prefer to have a pdf file of the memo, I can email it to you. Defiant1 Thanks for pointing out the link. I had a nice long thoughtful response typed out but I accidently erased it. Basically i said: Cool stuff. Wonder who drew it. If anyone else's name had been on that resume there would've been no firestorm over it. The Newlin Company was a marketing consultant firm (I did a quick Yahoo search) who must not have been very good if their resume caused so much trouble for their client. |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Aug 19, 2004 18:22:04 GMT -5
If anyone else's name had been on that resume there would've been no firestorm over it. I agree. This is a situation where Jim's personality in the media overshadowed the story elements DEFIANT was trying to sell. It's a marketing error when more people are talking about Jim himself than talking about the story elements of his product. The marketing company should not have made Jim the item they were trying to sell. DEFIANT1 |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Luck on Aug 29, 2004 15:19:38 GMT -5
I agree. This is a situation where Jim's personality in the media overshadowed the story elements DEFIANT was trying to sell. It's a marketing error when more people are talking about Jim himself than talking about the story elements of his product. The marketing company should not have made Jim the item they were trying to sell. DEFIANT1 Been busy for the last week. I meant to ask: Does anyone know how this resume got into the hands of whatever comic magazine that reported about it? It doesn’t look like anything that would be given to the press and certainly wasn’t designed for public consumption. It looks like something to give to investors, business partners, or certain employees. |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Aug 29, 2004 19:38:45 GMT -5
It doesn’t look like anything that would be given to the press and certainly wasn’t designed for public consumption. I got this from a retailer. They (more than 1) gave me anything VALIANT, DEFIANT, and Broadway releated that wasn't worth money to them and they gave me---or let me have first dibs on--- quite a few items that were worth money. I believe this was distributed to the press. Perhaps that is a very big screw up. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Luck on Sept 5, 2004 15:17:26 GMT -5
I got this from a retailer. They (more than 1) gave me anything VALIANT, DEFIANT, and Broadway releated that wasn't worth money to them and they gave me---or let me have first dibs on--- quite a few items that were worth money. I believe this was distributed to the press. Perhaps that is a very big screw up. Defiant1 Well it's not a press release, or atleast not a good one. It would A LOT of rewriting to make it into a story (it's WAY too long, uses libelious terms like "bad guys", and isn't written in any journalistic style). Who knows? Maybe these guys really didn't know what they were doing. How did the retailers get this? It doesn't seem good even for promotional purposes. The name of the comic company it's promoting isn't until the very end and would be easy to miss. Plus comic shop owners would already know everything in it. I can't imagine anyone sending that to comic shop owners unless it was accompanied with other (better) promotional materials. |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 5, 2004 16:23:16 GMT -5
Well it's not a press release, or atleast not a good one. It would A LOT of rewriting to make it into a story (it's WAY too long, uses libelious terms like "bad guys", and isn't written in any journalistic style). Who knows? Maybe these guys really didn't know what they were doing. How did the retailers get this? It doesn't seem good even for promotional purposes. The name of the comic company it's promoting isn't until the very end and would be easy to miss. Plus comic shop owners would already know everything in it. I can't imagine anyone sending that to comic shop owners unless it was accompanied with other (better) promotional materials. I can't see how a court of law would consider "bad guys" as a literal expression, especially with comic book art adjacent to it. Then again, my personality type speaks in figurative terms consistently and it has been a shock for me when I encounter people who are incapable of understanding anything beyond a literal interpretation. I'm sure this was one press report distributed with others. I had it with about three or four others in one envelope, but I can't be sure that I didn't consolidate them together 10 years ago. I ~think~ this press release was distributed by The River Group to the retailers WITH the signed Dark Dominion #1. I found that comic at the same time and I'd completely forgotten that I owned it. There was also some trading card with the comic and a letter apologizing for the comic book people <cough, choke, laugh> causing their cards to be late. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Luck on Sept 7, 2004 18:00:25 GMT -5
I can't see how a court of law would consider "bad guys" as a literal expression, especially with comic book art adjacent to it. Then again, my personality type speaks in figurative terms consistently and it has been a shock for me when I encounter people who are incapable of understanding anything beyond a literal interpretation. I'm sure this was one press report distributed with others. I had it with about three or four others in one envelope, but I can't be sure that I didn't consolidate them together 10 years ago. I ~think~ this press release was distributed by The River Group to the retailers WITH the signed Dark Dominion #1. I found that comic at the same time and I'd completely forgotten that I owned it. There was also some trading card with the comic and a letter apologizing for the comic book people <cough, choke, laugh> causing their cards to be late. Defiant1 It doesn't matter how clever the metaphor is, ANYTHING that could harm a person's reputation in any way could result in a libel suit. Even if it's a silly claim, fighting it in court takes years and lots of money. Most news organizations don't want to deal with that. So they stay away from ANY sort of inflamatory label unless they have a lot of solid evidence to prove it (truth is an absolute defense against libel). BTW, techniquely something given to a retailer isn't a press release. It's a a promotional or marketing package or something like that (my concentration Journalism, not Public Relations  ) It's meant to promote the product to the retailer specifically. A press release is usually a story you want to run in a newspaper, magazine, TV show, ect. You send it directly to an editor at the news organization you want to run it and if you're really lucky, they'll run it (they may run it straight, or rewrite it, or use it as the basis for a bigger story). However any PR firm worth their salt knows anything they send to retailers will eventually end up in the hands of the press and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by CORVETTEJIM1968 on Sept 7, 2004 18:12:32 GMT -5
im sure it did not come with the signed dark dominion #1,letter,and 3 card set.because i got that right from a store employee when it came out about 10+ years ago.and i do have the illustrated biography. plus the envelope it came in and the other 2 memos with it as well.i just scanned all of them on sunday.and it will be sent to you (defiant 1)in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 7, 2004 19:04:31 GMT -5
im sure it did not come with the signed dark dominion #1,letter,and 3 card set.because i got that right from a store employee when it came out about 10+ years ago.and i do have the illustrated biography. plus the envelope it came in and the other 2 memos with it as well.i just scanned all of them on sunday.and it will be sent to you (defiant 1)in the future. Several memo's are already posted in the Reading Room section of my site. There might be one or two I haven't posted yet, but I know the illustrated biography memo has been posted for months. I own the hard copy also. Defiant1 |
|
|
|
Post by Defiant1 on Sept 8, 2004 0:27:36 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how clever the metaphor is, ANYTHING that could harm a person's reputation in any way could result in a libel suit. Even if it's a silly claim, fighting it in court takes years and lots of money. Most news organizations don't want to deal with that. So they stay away from ANY sort of inflamatory label unless they have a lot of solid evidence to prove it (truth is an absolute defense against libel). Well, when you get down to it, anyone can sue over just about anything. And yes, anything brought to court can get expensive very quickly.... for both sides. BTW, techniquely something given to a retailer isn't a press release. It's a a promotional or marketing package or something like that (my concentration Journalism, not Public Relations ) It's meant to promote the product to the retailer specifically. Based on a technicality, I stand corrected. I had the two Newlin memo's together. I cannot prove they were distributed at the same time, nor whether they were intended to be distributed at the same time. I did recall that one (not necessarily both) was/were labeled "News Release". So you are correct that only one could be best described as a "Press Pelease". The other is not tagged as a "News Release". I am assuming these were sent out together. Regardless of it's intent, the logic behind sending out such the "story" is questionable and it ultimately proved to be unwise. A press release is usually a story you want to run in a newspaper, magazine, TV show, ect. You send it directly to an editor at the news organization you want to run it and if you're really lucky, they'll run it (they may run it straight, or rewrite it, or use it as the basis for a bigger story). In the comics world, they usually take the lazy way out when possible and quote the things verbatim. However any PR firm worth their salt knows anything they send to retailers will eventually end up in the hands of the press and vice versa. I guess that is what amazes me the most. I'm more interested in knowing who drew it and why they felt Jim need to be validated in this specific manner. I'd love to have seen it in a bound ashcan format... it might have a genuine collectible value then  Defiant1 |
|
) It's meant to promote the product to the retailer specifically. 
