Messages

(He's definitely not on the list of guests on the lawlesscomiccon website which is where I was looking ?)

That list is definitely out of date — I'm not on it, either! 

Here's the most up-to-date guest list, from the Lawless FB page...

I have finally got Aviva life to admit that they DO have a policy in my mothers name. But I have no idea how to get printed copies of my bank statements from my internet only bank.

You'll need to contact their customer service and request them, covering whatever date range you've been asked for — explain that you need hard copies printed by them (not by you, because they'll suggest that) to meet legal requirements.

If they're any good, they'll do it for free, but they may well charge you. If they want more than a quid per statement, argue with them. (After all, you've been saving them money all the time you haven't had paper statements.)

And what's with this "season 1" nonsense?

RTD has described this series as a 'soft' reboot. Also, with it being new to a massive streaming platform and likely reaching a lot of new potential viewers, "Season 1" is a lot less off-putting than "Season 14" (or whatever they're up to in the modern version).

How do you know the target audience for the show has clearly changed to a much younger demographic?

Did you watch it...?

Yep but it is far worse than most other overnight figures for the show.

But... as pointed out already, the target audience for the show has clearly changed to a much younger demographic who are unlikely to watch broadcast TV. I'm not saying the numbers will be great whenever they finally get tallied up, just that if they've lost [X] million older viewers from the live broadcast but gained [X+1] million younger ones on platforms that don't register in the overnights, then we can't infer much from the overnights, other than fewer people watched the show 'live'.

Only a couple million. The general audience don't care anymore.

There's no way to infer that from the viewing figures. Those numbers don't include iPlayer or Disney+ — if the show is being more directly and firmly targetted at a younger audience, kids really don't watch live TV any more.

[EDIT: Ninja-ed by IP.]

It is a kids' show. I didn't like the new first episode... I couldn't even get to the end. But I've made my peace with that — I'd rather kids grew up watching Dr Who and loving it than having them make the show for fifty-plus-year-old-men like me. If that means that old farts like me stop watching it (and I have, now) then that's better, IMO, than the reverse...

[big]

Are sound effects always scripted, or done by the artist, or done by the letterer? It's probably a mixture, right?

Honestly, it's anyone's guess. If the writer puts it in the script, then either the artist or the letterer will usually make sure it ends up on the page. However, artists who like doing SFX may well add their own, or completely change the scripted effect.

Letterers will generally just letter the sound effect per the script. Sometimes, I will edit SFX from the scripted version — writers will often script BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM because it takes up a lot of space in the script. I take that to mean that they want a big 'boom'. If I don't have a lot of horizontal space then I can make BOOOM a lot bigger than BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

On top of that, the artist will sometimes draw something other than what's in the script. If I've got a KRAKK in the script from a jaw-breaking punch but the artist has given me someone's fist going right through a person's head, then I'm lettering a SKPLUTCH.

I'm supposed to calmly and gently try to get to know someone who haphazardly throws a Piskor-bomb into the middle of a thread that started out as enthusiasm for a new project.

I have friends directly affected/involved in/by that clusterfuck, so spare me your outrage. You're clearly spoiling for a fight. Just dial it down a bit — this isn't the 1990s any more.

may not have been the actual word I used.

"Stomm"...?

everything about the wording of BPP's comments would still have my back up to precisely the same degree

To be clear: I'm not defending BPP's position here. I disagree with it, but Funt's posts are calculated to be inflammatory and combative and leap to a conclusion that BPP's own words here don't support. A more constructive engagement might have led to the same conclusion but going straight to the most fighty mode helps no one and gets us nowhere. It just puts us in trenches lobbing grenades at each other, and I'm so very, very tired of it.

This is (alledgedly) the "friendliest place on the internet". In my experience, that's not true... but maybe we ought to try a little bit harder to make it that way.

I appreciate the irony of the fact that I, of all people, should be saying this, but none of us is the same person we were five, ten, or twenty years ago. You've got more chance of changing someone's mind by engaging with them than you have by beating them with a stick.*

*Except Nazis, obviously. Find the biggest stick you can for Nazis. That, or shoot them in the nuts.

And Jim's right too - I should definitely be banned.

I didn't say that, and you know I didn't say that. I have no idea why you're being quite this confrontational, but, speaking as someone who was once such a stroppy bastard online that his reputation as such still dogs him a decade later, you're waaaay over the line into trolling here, Funt.

Step away from the keyboard and take a few deep breaths.

Well, you perhaps hold me in too high esteem. But - look closely - it says "BPP translated in Funt's head" - I'm not sure I could make it any more obvious that it's not a word-for-word quote. Nobody else seems confused, there.

No, sorry... I speak as an argumentative bastard who's done plenty of stroppy stuff online over the years, and I think that's out of line. There are plenty of forums I frequent where putting non-legitmate words inside a quote tag would get you banned.

Man, that Rogue Trooper pose is giving me serious Ian Gibson vibes! In a good way.

It's John McCrea, who can channel Gibson quite effectively without appearing to slavishly imitate him... which is a neat trick!

[2000 AD Yearbook 1992]

...at some point it was determined by Thargnanimous that Annuals were just meh, and they had to be replaced by Yearbooks.

To be fair, it wasn't some capricious whim — the old annuals weren't selling, so it made sense to try something new. Unfortunately, the yearbooks didn't sell, either.

2000 AD Yearbook 1992 (1991; Dermot Power)

That one's Sean Phillips, surely?

Also, I'm pretty sure I don't own (or have even read) anything after the '92 yearbook... which surprises me. I may have to head to eBay!

(I suppose the fact that a die-hard fan like me missed these supports the assertion that they didn't sell... )