(CNN)Toys “R” United States stated insolvency previously this month and stated it would rearrange its service to deal with a significantly tough retail environment.
The truth is that the renowned merchant went bust due to the fact that a group of personal equity companies utilized it as a toy in a video game of “Borrow, Overpay and Pray.” They lost the video game, broke the toy and have now moved onto other things while the little individuals (the providers and workers) are made to suffer, consultants make millions tidying up a mess that other advisors made millions producing, and PR-hacks work to deflect the blame by pinning it on Amazon (or is it Walmart?). It’s all quite ridiculous
in many ways.
But after we’ve had an excellent laugh and appreciated the schadenfreude that originates from the devastating financial investments of others, we must review exactly what this ordeal informs us about the damage done when financiers wander off from taking threat, the helpful work of personal equity, into making danger, its sinister doppelganger.
Risk taking happens when a financier presumes threats that currently exist worldwide. A financier taking threat generally does so by putting loan into a business that faces it.
Risk making takes place when a financier produces danger as part of an otherwise unappealing financial investment. A financier makes threat by taking loan from a business, leaving it more vulnerable however juicing the possible returns from owning it. (The most typical method to do this is by requiring business to handle extreme financial obligation to fund its own acquisition.) If anything) in return, the threat associated with the weakened business is mostly borne by its providers, workers and consumers who get little (.
Value of danger taking
Risk taking plays an essential function by enabling business to pursue activities that, while possibly gratifying, bring a great deal of associated functional, technological, market or monetary danger.
This supplies essential direct advantages– revenues for effective business, ingenious and brand-new items, work and understanding– while likewise offering people and organizations the chance to exercise their rights to purchase, offer and pursue their dreams. Start-ups require danger taking financiers, however so too do high-growth business, restructurings and turn-arounds.
By contrast, danger making includes absolutely nothing to our economy. It might be legal, it might be financially rewarding, however it’s a nasty thing to do and an outrageous method to make a living. (If I established an unsafe barrier course and force you to go through it so that I can bank on your time, I am a beast. If financial experts blather on about how these “high-powered rewards” are required to enhance your efficiency, they are fools.)
If threat is a bad thing, why do financiers make it? Due to the fact that in a from another location effective market without threat there’s no benefit. At any given minute, there is a limited quantity of danger out in the world owned by aspects beyond any financier’s control: the state of innovation, the actions and mindsets of big business, the level of entrepreneurial spirit, and so on. As well as when there are threats out there worth taking, some financiers might not have the abilities to discover and assess them.
By contrast, there’s an almost endless quantity of threat that can be produced by smart investors. When their supply of cash goes beyond the quantity of danger they can discover, restless investors can be lured to make more danger to soak up the excess: idle spreadsheets are the devil’s workshop.
Too much threat?
Private equity companies are especially vulnerable to run the risk of making considering that they raise “utilize it or lose it” funds; get 20% of the revenues however bear practically none of the losses; have actually engine spaces filled with young partners and others desperate to join their ranks, under pressure to “do offers”; and do not care if some business they purchase fail offered their portfolio pays as a whole. Provided this, it’s not a surprise that personal equity companies make a lot more threat than is reasonable to trouble those involuntarily along for the trip.
The Toys “R” United States fiasco started in 2005 when personal equity companies purchased the business for $7.5 billion.
Over the last 12 years, this initial “take personal” offer has actually most likely drawn more than $5 billion from the business: $470 million in “advisory” costs and interest to the personal equity companies and $4.8 billion ($ 400 million annually for 12 years) in interest on the acquisition financial obligation plus the 10s of countless dollars in legal charges Toys “R” United States will invest in insolvency. (It’s paradoxical that the financiers who bankrupted the business will not be paying any of these charges.).
Yet in spite of a hard retail environment, Toys “R” United States really made $460 million from offering toys in 2016 however that didn’t assist much because all of it– 100%– went to pay interest on the financial obligation.
A couple of things deserve keeping in mind in this story:
The monetary loss to the financiers is most likely rather little. Web of charges gotten from the dedication and the business costs made on the hidden capital, it’s most likely no greater than $800 countless which the companies themselves may just bear $160 million provided the basic 20%/ 80% split of earnings in between personal equity companies and their hidden financiers. Now $160 million looks like a great deal of cash to lose however offered the huge possession base of the financial investment groups, I ‘d think it’s less than a month or more of payment for the partners. Sure it’s humiliating and a couple of folks most likely got fired however economically it’s no huge offer for the financiers who have a portfolio of other financial investments to balance out the loss.
By contrast, the personal bankruptcy is a huge offer genuine individuals in spite of exactly what financing theory might state about “smooth recapitalizations.” Unlike the financiers, all their eggs remain in one basket. And the needless suffering of Toys “R” United States providers and staff members is just partly balanced out by the delight felt in Amazon’s head office in Seattle and Walmart’s in Fayetteville as an as soon as practical rival was given its knees.
The charges paid by the business given that 2005 have actually contributed to inequality. They were paid to attorneys, lenders and personal equity financiers all easily ensconced in the 1%. We cannot understand how this loan would otherwise have actually been utilized, it’s safe to presume that some of it would have discovered its method to the 65,000 workers and thousands of providers that “are” Toys “R” United States. None of these costs had anything to do with offering toys.
Since the interest paid on the acquisition financial obligation was tax deductible, all United States taxpayers were de facto partners in the offer. Why did we concur to do that? Exactly what remained in it for us?
Piling on the financial obligation
The most perverse component of this story is that the financiers had the ability to concern a business with financial obligation without themselves being on the hook. You are on the hook even if your loan provider likewise takes the vehicle as security if you purchase a cars and truck with obtained cash. If you purchase a business it’s various. It’s paradoxical however the restricted liability business structure established in the mid-19th century as a “business veil” to motivate financiers to put cash into business is exactly what enables financiers to take cash out without being on the hook.
The financiers would never ever have actually accepted pay $7.5 billion for Toys “R” United States if they ‘d needed to obtain the cash themselves. They were happy to make the business obtain it on their behalf while remaining securely outside the business veil.
While Toys “R” United States is an unfortunate story, some quantity of danger making is inevitable in an economy where financiers are totally free to take danger. And guidelines to avoid danger making would contravene other things we worth, such as the capability of a business to offer itself to the greatest bidder. Some easy modifications might at least make threat making a little more difficult and thus motivate more threat taking by financiers with money to spare. And the nation frantically requires more threat taking provided its paltry level of brand-n.w.organisation development and the worn out state of its facilities.
Rules versus “monetary support”– typical in some global jurisdictions– might be put in location to restrict the degree to which business can promise properties to money their own acquisition. (Companies might still be obtained with obtained cash however the financier would have to be the one loaning it.)
The tax code might be altered to minimize the tax-advantage of interest over dividends. Under the United States tax code, business can subtract interest paid on acquisition financial obligation as a cost, unlike dividends paid to investors, which can not be expensed. (The tax overhaul proposed by President Trump today would make this modification.)
Laws might make it simpler to “pierce” the business veil or to bring fits for deceptive conveyance when financiers purposefully deciding that leave a business materially weaker in order to enhance themselves.
Since these modifications will not come at any time quickly, threat making will stay an ever present threat despite the excellent that personal equity might do taken as a whole. If a personal equity financier comes knocking on your business door singing sweet tunes of danger and benefit, be sure he actually is a risk-taker, and not the malicious doppelganger, prior to you let him in. And this Christmas, as you take pleasure in purchasing toys at “failing” costs, remember who to thank.
Masaya Nakamura, the founder of an innovative Japanese entertainment company that invented the video game Pac-Man, has died. He was 91.
The Associated Press reported Monday that game maker Bandai Namco, which includes the company Nakamura founded in 1955, confirmed his death, which occurred Jan. 22 2017. Company officials did not reveal a cause, The New York Times reported.
Nakamuras company, Namco, introduced Pac-Man in 1980, as the video game industry was in its infancy.The game became an instant hit with arcade players, who enjoyed racking up points by moving a chomping, circular Pac-Man around a board with an insatiable appetite to eat gold balls and elude ghosts.
Versions of Pac-Man were later made for home-gaming systems like Nintendo. Its popularity led to Pac-Man-themed merchandise and apparel, a short-lived animated television series, and spinoff games like Ms. Pac Man.
Nintendo, which worked with Namco for years, tweeted a tribute to Nakamura on Monday.
Nakamura Manufacturing originally operated mechanical rides at a Tokyo department store. The company, later renamed Namco, partnered with the retail chain that wanted childrens rides in all of its locations. In the 1970s, Namco delved into video games with Galaxian, a shooter game, and acquired Atari Japan.
Namco engineer Toru Iwatani invented Pac-Man, but it was reportedly Nakamura who came up with the name. Pac is short for pakku, which in Japanese denotes a munching sound.
The A.V. Club reported an alternate history of the games creation. It said Nakamura renamed the creation Pac-Man after recognizing that the original title, Puck Man, would inevitably lead vandals to deface the arcade game by replacing the P with an F.
‘ Blade Runner 2049’ takes goal at ticket office’s leading area.
Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford’s futuristic follow-up to the sci-fi classic leads today’s list of brand-new films and Blade Runner 2049 is out now at The Hebden Bridge Picture House, well until this coming Thursday 2nd November 2017, please take a look at the Program here for a full list of what is on there.
The box office may be struggling this year.
This weekend the” Groundhog Day”- like scary pic” Happy Death Day” scored a first-place surface, going beyond expectations and blowing the much more expensive and star-driven “Blade Runner 2049 “from the water.
Studio approximates Sunday reveal” Happy Death Day” took in$ 26.5 million from 3,149 North American theaters. With a$ 5million production price, “Happy Death Day” is currently a hit.
With a PG-13 ranking, the movie scored huge with more youthful audiences– 63 percent were under 25.
It’s the current success story from Blumhouse Productions, which previously — this year launched “Split “and” Get Out,” with the aid of Universal Pictures, which dispersed.
Jim Orr, executive vice president of domestic circulation for Universal, stated” Happy Death Day” is an initial movie that’s reimaging the category.
“It’s as much thriller as it is a scary movie. It’s frightening, its amusing, and it has an extremely smart script that is extremely well performed,” Orr stated.” Blumhouse owns this area no doubt about it, and they do this much better than anyone regularly.”
The movie likewise had the advantage of beginning the heels of the huge success of” It, “which has actually made$ 314.9 million locally to this day. The” Happy Death Day” trailer played in front of “It” at theaters, which” significantly increased “audience awareness, stated comScore senior media expert Paul Dergarabedian.
Horror continues to be among the intense areas throughout a roller-coaster year at package workplace.
” This is a scary gold rush at the theaters,” Dergarabedian stated.” It’s been maybe the most regularly favorable story this year.”
One movie that does not look predestined for a delighted ending is “Blade Runner 2049,” which fell 54 percent in its 2nd weekend in theaters, including$15.1 million to bring its domestic overall to$ 60.6 million.
The movie was a pricey undertaking with a production cost north of $150 million and was well-reviewed by critics. It could not handle to draw in considerable audiences beyond the fans of the 1982 initial, which was likewise a flop upon release.
Jackie Chan’s “The Foreigner” debuted in 3rd location with $12.8 million from 2,515 screens, while” It” landed in 4th location in its 6th weekend in theaters.
The Kate Winslet and Idris Elba catastrophe pic “The Mountain Between United States” completed the leading 5 with $5.7 million.
Other brand-new releases landed outside the leading ten. The Thurgood Marshall biopic “Marshall “took in an appealing$ 3 million from 821 theaters.
” Marshall is off to a strong start,” stated Open Road Films CEO Tom Ortenberg in a declaration.” We anticipate Marshall to hold effectively and run well into the fall.”
But the Wonder Woman developer biopic” Professor Marston and the Wonder Woman “cannot capitalize from the huge success of” Wonder Woman” previously this year. The movie made just$ 737,000 from over 1,200 areas.
” Goodbye Christopher Robin,” about author A.A. Milne and the development of the precious kids’s characters and books, likewise left to a bad start with$ 56,000 from 9 theaters.
” October is off to a sluggish start,” Dergarabedian stated.
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, inning accordance with comScore. Where readily available, the current worldwide numbers for Friday through Sunday are likewise consisted of. Last domestic figures will be launched Monday.
1. “Happy Death Day, “$ 26.5 million($ 5 million worldwide ).
2.” Blade Runner 2049,”$ 15.1 million($ 29.3 million global).
3.” The Foreigner,” $12.8 million ($ 5.2 million global).
4.” It,” $6.1 million ($ 10.4 million worldwide).
5.” The Mountain Between United States,”$ 5.7 million ($ 4.1 million worldwide).
6.” American Made,”$ 5.4 million($ 3.2million worldwide).
7.” Kingsman: The Golden Circle,”$ 5.3 million( $15.6 million global).
8.” The Lego Ninjago Movie,”$ 4.3 million ($ 9.5 million global).
9.” My Little Pony: The Movie,”$ 4 million($ 4.9 million worldwide ).
10.” Victoria and Abdul,”$ 3.1 million($ 1.9 million worldwide).
“Living history” museums are like senior citizen housing centers. They’re remarkable reminders of the past, they dress and smell a little strangely, and all of the residents are effectively trapped there, waiting for people to visit. Every year, fourth-graders on field trips and old people collectively go on pilgrimages to places that people used to live in before highways and the Internet were invented, staffed by actors wearing period costumes and pretending the world was frozen in place 300 years ago by some kind of time ray.
The actors choose to live there, taking on the role on a daily basis. Their kids, on the other hand, have no choice. We spoke to one of the former children who grew up in Colonial Williamsburg during the late ’80s and who took a break from partying like it’s 1699 to tell us …
#5. You Can’t Have Anything Modern Be Visible In Your House
Several decades ago, one of my parents began to work at Colonial Williamsburg. At the time, Williamsburg was just on its way to becoming a travel destination for families who like the long, boring parts of vacation, such as traveling and sightseeing, but inexplicably hate all of the fun parts, such as beaches and roller coasters. My family moved into a historical house from the 17th century that we were told was an employee “perk.” We were to be living in the exhibits.
Whether building codes from the same time as Ben Franklin count as a benefit
is a question only the next major natural disaster can answer.
What they didn’t tell us about our new house was that it came with a list of insane rules designed to preserve the illusion that my family and I were currently living under the British crown. Most of them pertained to ensuring that nothing resembling a modern invention could be seen around your home, but try to imagine doing this in your own home. It gets complicated. We had things such as grills and bicycles we had to tuck away behind our houses.
Somehow, the rules got even more intrusive than that. Since the land our house was on was owned by the museum, the actual interior layout of our home had to be Colony-approved. Aside from the obvious rules about having a SNES sitting out where tourists can see it, our furniture had to look “18th century enough” to fool all the tourists occasionally peeking into our windows.
That “mattress” is really stacked-up video-game cartridges and bags of Sour Patch Kids.
As a result, I grew up on a street that had nonstop tourists going by and sometimes looking in. When I began visiting other friends at their houses, I was amazed that they left toys out in the open and didn’t have to hide them. I just had this notion that we always had to hide things away from tourists.
Going to school even got a little weird. Buses wouldn’t run into most of the historical parts of the colony, so I literally took a carriage to school like an American Girl doll.
#4. Tourists Have No Respect For Boundaries
Most of the tourists (*ahem*, I mean guests) weren’t so bad. Many just enjoyed walking around, visiting the museums, and having a colonial chat or two with us. However, far too many decided to get a little more up-close and personal than the 17th century would realistically prefer.
While guests were allowed to look in the historical homes, many people abused this privilege and just watched us — I mean full-on staring at us through our windows at least once a week. Like I mentioned, I grew up around this, so it didn’t strike me as unusual, and my parents were actually jazzed that we got to experience this. Some people wanted to show off the inside of the homes (like my family), and others opted to just black curtain it off from tourists.
Too bad window blinds weren’t invented in the 1750s.
People looking in was harmless enough, but things did get dangerous … at least for the animals. I would frequently see guests try to feed them all sorts of things. Horses were huge targets; tourist after tourist tried to feed them totally inedible objects, such as plastic beads or wood, because they apparently thought horses were just enlarged goats.
“I’m not, but you’re definitely an enlarged jackass.”
#3. We Have Actors Who Pretend To Be Slaves (And That Gets Awkward)
Colonial Williamsburg is, above all things, a museum, and it tackles every part of colonial history, including the racist parts. Southern Virginia has a large African-American population, so, consequently, we had a lot of black actors portraying slaves in town. As far as I know, Williamsburg is the only living history museum to show slavery to the extent we did.
It’s not like Walt Disney World is lining up to build “Mr. Turner‘s Wild Ride”.
There are small tobacco crops growing in Colonial Williamsburg, and the black actors will go out and do just enough field work for the visitors to look at. Visitors can also ask the actors questions, and, to put it nicely, some can be kind of insensitive about it (because, duh, there are insensitive people in this world). I’ve literally heard guests ask the actors if they ever get whipped, because people will always be exactly as terrible as they feel they are allowed to be in any given situation. But, the actors and reenactors were armed with the facts and highly trained — they knew exactly what to say.
Slave auctions are, for whatever reason, another hot topic. To be clear, we have never reenacted any of those, but when the guests ask about them, the actors pretend as if there is an auction coming up and use it as a chance to discuss the emotional impact of being sold like livestock. It’s pretty dark, but, like I said, Colonial Williamsburg is a museum, and nothing good ever came from pretending shameful acts of human cruelty never happened.
Where this took a turn for the terrible was when people, mostly children, would ask the “slaves” how much it would cost to buy them. This happens way more often than you would be comfortable thinking about. The “slave” actors in particular have a hard time with this — because they’re museum employees, they know what the factual answer is, but the whole point of the job is to be able to demonstrate how awful slavery was without being glib about it.
There is a silver lining, however. Many of the children making “offers” to buy the actors, especially the ones who aren’t totally aware that it’s all an act, do so because they want to set the actors free. So, as long as we teach kids to be like this, instead of training them to, I don’t know, feed trash to horses, everything should turn out okay.
My job didn’t require those kind of awkward exchanges, but I still had to interact with guests …
#2. The Kids Are (Unpaid) Performers
I won’t pretend to have any idea how difficult it is to get many small children to wear fancy clothing to a wedding or a funeral (I personally loved it, and you couldn’t get me out of it), but I dare any parent to attempt to get their child to dress like a 17th-century colonist every other day. I wore historical period dress three to four times per week as a kid, and it was quite the experience.
First off, we had our own costume department through which all of the clothing was handmade. A ton of time and money went into it. I remember women’s corsets having a two-year waiting period because they all had to be custom-made. As children, we had a file documenting our measurements and growth. because puberty is a costume designer’s worst nightmare. So, yeah, my parents had to keep a bunch of costumers in the loop as I grew up.
Nothing eases the humiliation of puberty like sharing your measurements with a glaring seamstress.
All of this was so that we could walk around acting like old-timey kids, turning us into unpaid performers (which absolutely seems like it’s in violation of a bunch of child labor laws). For example, the museum would often put out exciting games for us such as lawn bowling, just so tourists could point at me and my friends and say, “Oooohhh, look at the time children!” and get their children to come play with us. The colonial higher-ups would bribe us with candy to play with tourist children for three hours at a time, but, sweet mother of Pocahontas, we were never bored. The tourist kids would play with us for a couple minutes before asking us where the gift shop was so that they could have their parents buy them their very own wooden toys to take home.
“And it’s only yours for only 40 sheets of that strange paper you carry with General Washington on it!”
Colonial Williamsburg also puts on huge reenactments during the summer, with people portraying historical figures coming out to visit our town. It’s all hands on deck, but, since real colonial children were little more than bred farmhands, we were just expected to be scenery during these big productions. We were told to walk up and down streets with our pet goats and/or chickens, or maybe just spin wool under a tent. Again, we weren’t paid. But, since our parents did it, we had to pitch in, too.
So, why would a family decide to go through all of this?
#1. We’re Literally Keeping the Past Alive
Living history sites are run by people who love history and who are dedicated to making sure every single detail is historically accurate. This is another way of saying that anytime there was a project going on, everyone brought out their inner Stanley Kubrick. And 17th-century Stanley Kubrick is the Stanley Kubrickiest Stanley Kubrick there is.
For those not up on their lunatic filmmakers, that’s code for “Utterly batshit.”
For instance, all those animals the tourists feed garbage to? Colonial Williamsburg has a rare breeds program that has halted the extinction of several animals and reintroduced others that were around back in the days of wooden dentures and towns with five buildings in them. They brought in a shipment of Leicester Sheep from New Zealand (a breed that the colonists originally brought to America from the UK, but since died out), and, now, they are the only ones currently on the continent. They also brought back a few types of cows from the brink of nonexistence.
That’s right — we are so dedicated to historical accuracy that we essentially did a less-dangerous Jurassic Park operation. Some guests get confused that we aren’t running a more traditional Old MacDonald-type farm, but we are simply keeping animals that Williamsburg settlers would have had.
Minus the corks on the horns.
It isn’t just animals, either. We keep the cooper trade (the crafting of wooden utensils, casks, and barrels) alive, specifically the kind of cooper who isn’t just making whiskey barrels. We have one of the few gunsmiths who still makes and repairs flintlock pistols — he’s currently got a backlog about five years long for handmade guns. We’re home to one of the last silversmith programs in the United States. We even have our own movie studio of sorts — Cold Mountain is one of more than a few major productions to have filmed at Colonial Williamsburg, because we maintain the colonial aesthetic so well (in exchange for small sacrifices like privacy and the ability to ride a bus to school).
So, if Hollywood ever decides to make a movie about, say, the 1700s, there’s a place in Virginia for that.
When it was Comic-Con time, statistically speaking, about 20 percent of the people reading this were there then.
For a certain kind of nerd, it’s the equivalent of a pilgrimage to Mecca: spiritually fulfilling, extraordinarily expensive, and primarily profiting the Saudi royal family.
However, Comic-Con wasn’t always a pop culture bacchanal of elaborate costumes, star-studded panels, and drug-fueled parties. We talked to early fan (and current media critic) Brian Lowry and legendary comics artist and early keynote guest Neal Adams. (He drew Superman, Batman, the X-Men, and, at various points, roughly 40 percent of your childhood.) Here’s what they told us about the early-ass days of a geek culture touchstone.
When Comic-Con Started, Comics Were A Shameful Business
In the late ’60s, the comic book industry was barely clinging to life after years of social stigma, rotten sales, and lack of interest by readers. Neal could have put “I drew Superman” on his resume, but that wouldn’t necessarily have been a smart move. In fact, if you’d popped out of a wormhole to tell him that in a few decades, the characters he drew would be the biggest names in pop culture, he’d have hit you in the teeth for your filthy lies.
As the 20th century edged into its second half, comics found themselves under attack by, well, one of the biggest things that you can be attacked by: Congress. And as Neal explained, this was because some people thought that a love of The Flash would turn you into a hoodlum, stealing milk money and listening to Elvis after 8 p.m.:
“… because [comics] obviously led to juvenile delinquency, and they should be burned, tossed in the garbage, whatever. And the sales of comic books were terrible. When I got out of high school and fell into this industry, they told me that comic books would be out of business in a year. So I did other things, and several years later I fell back into comic books, and they still hadn’t disappeared.”
Today, comic books are a wild medium where anything can happen. Batman can be a Soviet Commissar. The Hulk can be a Las Vegas enforcer. Superman can be charismatic. But back then, after the attacks by Congress, work became pretty limited: “The leftover companies and artists continued to believe they would be out of business in a year, to the extent that they destroyed comic book artwork when they no longer needed it, they had no contracts or agreements [with artists]. Nothing was important, nobody cared, everybody walked around with a long face, everybody was ashamed that they did comic books.”
Then, into this period of doubt came a fine gent named Phil Seuling. An English teacher and bookstore owner, Seuling would put together the New York Comic Art Convention in 1968.
To put this in a timeframe that superhero fans can understand, Robert Downey Jr. was three.
Though this wasn’t the first comic convention (Stan Lee’s Yell-At-You-About-Spider-Man-In-The-Streets-Of-Brooklyn-Fest was a classic event), it was the largest one ever organised until the San Diego Comic-Con began two years later. Neal Adams was one of the first keynote speakers at that event. He described the early Comic-Cons as basically a Hail Mary for the concept of “comic books.”
“So you had this business that was about to go out of business, and on the outside you had these fans. And they were there, but because we didn’t have the internet, nobody really knew how you would contact other comic book fans.” Conventions basically did the job of the internet before the internet was around to make it clear that comic book fans collectively had billions of dollars to spend on their hobby. Neal’s first Comic-Con was the second one ever, in 1971.
“There was me, Jack Kirby, and two other people. And they had a kind of luncheon in the El Cortez hotel, and there were four tables, and there were ten people around the tables, and they essentially paid for the artists’ meal.” Jack Kirby helped create Captain America. And the Hulk. And the Fantastic Four. And the Avengers. But back then, he was such small potatoes that anyone who enjoyed comics and wandered into San Diego could have lunch with him and the dude who drew Superman, provided they picked up the check.
DC Comics “Sure, you can sit here … as long as you’re faster than a speeding bullet with your wallet.”
“… they got to hang out with the artists and bullshit and talk. Jack was at one table, I was at another, and these other two were at another table. And that became one of the featured events at the later conventions. Phil did similar things, and because he was in a hotel, he could rent two rooms one year, then eight rooms the next. And sometimes they were on different floors, but the fans didn’t care, they could go on different floors and listen to Harlan Ellison talk or me talk, whoever was around. The conventions became more and more popular. You would have as many as ten guest artists.” For reference, it’ll take you around 20 minutes to read through all the guests for the 2017 Comic-Con.
Later, Seuling would strike a deal with the major comic publishers (including DC and Marvel) to buy a ton of comic books off of them and sell them in his shop without returning them. This created what would become known as the “direct market” for comic books, and began the era of comic shops, allowing comics to sell for better prices and comic nerds to get their fix without doing it next to someone else buying the latest issue of Newsweek.
So in the beginning, Comic-Con was helping to keep the industry alive, or at least on life support, until Hollywood started to care about Captain America and the sundry Men of Bats/Iron/etc. But despite it seeming like a no-brainer now, they didn’t always have it nailed down …
The Studios Didn’t Get It At First
At this year’s Comic-Con, fans can expect to see footage from Marvel’s Infinity War and Thor: Ragnarok. On the DC front, we’ll probably get our first look at Aquaman and hear the official announcement for Wonder-Woman 2: Sword On Her Back Boogaloo.
So Hollywood suits are very experienced at making comic conventions work for them. But we only got to this current state of affairs through tremendous trial and error. When Warner Bros. released the first footage of their Superman movie at the 1978 Comic-Con, it was a complete disaster. Brian Lowry was there:
“There was a presentation for Superman, with Christopher Reeve, before the movie opened. And they didn’t have any footage to show, but everything they said sort of irritated the fans. They talked about the character in a way which created an impression that [the movie] was sort of a comedic, non-serious approach to Superman. It had people in the room groaning and hissing. Of course the movie ended up doing great, and I’m sure everybody in the room saw it, but at the time it was kind of a symbol that [the studios] didn’t know how to talk to [the fans].”
Not every movie had the same troubles. Alien was a huge hit at its Comic-Con presentation, according to Lowry, but the people running it were smart enough to bring along H.R. Giger’s artwork instead of just giggling about space penises on stage for an hour. So what did it take to yank the studios into working with Comic-Con’s audience? Somewhat unsurprisingly, it was the success of Demigod George Lucas, and actually listening to creators of comic books.
“Within a few years of [the Superman incident], you saw these companies basically hiring guys or developing guys who could really talk to the fans in a language they would understand and who really knew this stuff. That was a big threshold they had to cross, where they started presenting in a way that would actually build anticipation for them.”
According to Neal, a big part of the problem Hollywood had with translating early comics was the frequent onomatopoeia used in fights scenes, like “wham” and “blap.” Today we just see that stuff as what it is: a way to describe sounds in visual storytelling. But for some reason, generations of directors thought “biff” and “pow” were somehow critical to fans’ love of the genre. Here’s Neal:
“The problem is that Hollywood had to get over that Batman thing — biff, bam, pow, the silly, satirical approach. And it took them a long time to get past it, because it seemed to be what it was all about to people who weren’t comic fans. You would have to sit down with producers and directors and say, ‘OK, where it says bam? That’s a sound effect, like when Errol Flynn punches somebody and you hear a sound. That’s what that is, it’s just another form. We don’t want it to say BAM, that’s stupid. If you want to do stupid comic books, then keep doing the junk you’re doing, but if you want to do realistic comic books, then treat them like a storyboard for a movie.’ And it’s taken quite a bit of time, and the people who have become the most successful are the people who get it.”
And in the long, long years between the first Comic-Con and the birth of comic book movies as a respectable genre …
The Comic Book And Toy Dealers Were The Main Draw
For those of you reading this while waiting in line to get Chris Evans to autograph your homemade tights, the most shocking thing about the old Comic-Con is that it was about selling comics.
People bought the things they were interested in? Sounds fishy.
Brian reveals the shocking truth:
“Originally, this was a convention where you had comic dealers who would schlep down or across the country ostensibly to sell. There just weren’t that many things outside of [comics] to keep you occupied. Now there are panels all day long and events that go into the evening. You could easily go to Comic-Con and basically never venture into the dealers’ area. I have gone to the dealers’ floor a few times over the years and heard people grousing that [the organizers] aren’t doing enough to get people to come out and actually buy. And when all the emphasis is on panels and movie presentations — things that keep people out of the dealer areas — it doesn’t help them in terms of selling their stuff.”
It’s entirely possible that most modern Comic-Con attendees will leave San Diego without ever buying a comic. But Adams argues that the current state of the convention has still been good for them:
“Let’s say in New York you have a comic book convention in the Penta hotel [the Hotel Pennsylvania]. Well, you’re maybe going to get 3,000-5,000 people, and that’s a crowd. Well, right now we have a convention in the Javits [Center] that has 90,000 people. You certainly have enough people there to buy comic books from the guys who bring the long white boxes. You also have enough people who will buy signatures from actors and enough people who will go there and do cosplay.”
“You’ve got a much larger population of people who go to conventions, and if the people who are selling comic books want to sit and cry into their beers that every one of the cosplayers aren’t coming and buying comic books, they should be ashamed of themselves, because that’s ridiculous. They get enough people in. I’ve had conversations with guys as little as two weeks ago who will tell me, ‘Hey, we had a good weekend, we did $50,000.’ Well, you didn’t do $50,000 back in 1977, believe me. You did $1,000 if you were lucky, maybe $800. So people do tend to complain, but it just falls on deaf ears if you have any experience and a little bit of history.”
The other group of people who did big business then, as Adams recalls, were the toy vendors. A lot of their business was actually helped along by Adams, but the whole comics industry was so primitive that he didn’t make a dime:
“What the comic book fans would buy at the conventions would be toys, Batmobile toys from Mego and the various companies. The toy market was essentially licensing of toys, and DC Comics for the most part, when I started working for them, they would ‘borrow’ my drawings and send them to these licensors, and the licensors, seeing an upgrade of their favorite characters, would buy more licenses, and they would have toys, games, T-shirts, pajamas, and pillowcases. The licensing grew very quickly in the ’60s and ’70s, and my art appeared everywhere. And once in awhile I would go to them and go, ‘Shouldn’t I get a little money from this?’ [And they said], ‘Don’t you feel privileged that they’re using it on all their toys and stuff?’ [I said], ‘Yeah, but I gotta feed my family.'”
Yes, aside from the eternal problem of going broke due to various collectible-buying-related issues, it was truly a different era. And that’s especially true because …
Cosplay Was Not A Thing
Comic-Con 2017 will spawn the creation of enough pictures and videos to fill several Libraries of Alexandria. But it’s actually pretty hard to find good photos of some of the older cons. This collage from 1975 features a Stan Lee who is either about to sing in a seedy lounge or shout into a microphone beside Hulk Hogan:
You’ll notice absolutely no evidence of costumes. Check out that banquet on the bottom left. People are wearing suits. It turns out Comic-Con didn’t even add a costume competition until 1974, and Adams for one didn’t see a lot of cosplayers in the early days:
“It didn’t exist, who would do such a thing? You wouldn’t put on a Halloween mask to go to a comic convention; you go there to buy comic books. It kind of snuck in under the radar. You’d get somebody who’d come to a convention dressed as Dick Tracy, and you’d go ‘Huh, Dick Tracy, cool.’ Then you’d see somebody else as Betty Boop. It was kind of a by-the-way entertainment, but suddenly it just evolved.”
Even when you look at pictures from that first costume competition, it barely seems like people are dressed up compared to the crowds at a modern Comic-Con. Half of these people look like they’re about to stop you in a Los Angeles coffee shop to explain their new script:
Ten years after the competition began, a Japanese journalist gave cosplaying its name, and it took off into the hobby it is today. So when you see multiple people drop from heat stroke while waiting to get Stan Lee’s autograph, just know that it took a long time to get to such a grand place.
Ah, December birthdays. Between the holiday madness and New Year’s Eve preparations, December birthdays can get lost in the chaos. Never fear, though: We asked the HuffPost Parents community to share the ways that they make their family’s December birthdays special. Read on and add any ideas you have to the comments below.
Thought this was worth re-publishing as this blog’s Author has his birthday on December 15th and the author’s eldest son on December 16th, plus a good friend has his birthday on December 25th, which could be considered even worse. Here are some top-tips for anyone soon to have a December Birthday.
1. Use non-holiday wrapping paper for birthday gifts. It might seem like a no-brainer, but find wrapping paper that’s special (whether it’s Star Wars or Minions) so the birthday gifts feel unique.
2. Consider having a birthday party on their half birthday instead — or a few weeks later in January — when friends are more available to celebrate. If you move their birthday celebration, invite family members over for a party or dinner on the actual day to make it special.
3. Talk to them about holiday decorations beforehand. If you have an early December birthday, hold off putting up holiday decorations until your loved ones have celebrated their day. You could even get a Christmas tree and use it as a “birthday tree,” then decorate it for Christmas after the birthday has passed. If it’s a late December birthday, remove holiday decorations by then, so that all the focus is on the birthday.
4. Speaking of decorating: balloons, streamers and more are always festive for a birthday! Ditch the garlands and bows and go big with balloons.
5. Make the day special by letting them pick the breakfast, lunch, or dinner menu.
6. If you have a Christmas Eve or Christmas birthday in the family, give Santa a slice of cake instead of cookies.
7. Choosing separate themes for gifts — like clothes for his or her birthday, and toys for Christmas — can make each feel unique.