StoreGuy

Name: Brendan DePalma

Bio:


Reviews
StoreGuy's Recent Comments
July 14, 2012 2:02 pm Brave choice, Marvel. I wouldn't have thought evoking the design of assless chaps would be how Disney would want you to go, but embrace the weird.
May 21, 2012 3:40 pm We've found that much of the "target audience" was not well suited to a 14 month wait between installments. Of the (very) few children who even come in the store, none seemed to really recall the initial book until their parent prodded them incessantly. "You remember that book? Right? You know the one. Look there it is! You don't remember it? You sure? We read it. Well there's a new one!" In one chuckle inducing incident, a kid of about 7 or 8 batted his father's hand away declaring the book "Baby dootie." That said, Marvel appears to be shooting themselves in the foot by not having it online. But then, Marvel's been making mountainous problems out of the meager molehills with digital for a long time. Not surprised, really. But then again, did the initial book really do that well? There's never been a firm comment either way and it never really moved on our shelves. (I think two books from our initial order still grace our shelves.)
April 19, 2012 7:43 pm YUUUUUUUUP! Big, big complaint about this. 100 pages of original story, 36 pages of a story that only features one of the characters featured in the first story. So basically, that's .25 cents A PAGE! That's like buying 10 single issues. Except here you barely get 5 issues worth of story. It's bad business. I know the FF one had a more logical page count, but I didn't hear as many comments about that one.
April 19, 2012 7:31 pm In general my customers have been saying it's not as good as first class. (One customer went so far as to say "Hopeless is more than just the name of the writer.") More or less, the jist is "The art is great!" What's really interesting is that hot on the heels of this book, Marvel is rereleasing John Byrne's The Hidden Years. Doesn't exactly send a clear message "Here's Season 1, a totally new standalone story. Oh, and here's a trade featuring the same time, kinda, but... uhh... well, set in the 70s and is designed to bridge a whole bunch of continuity." Can a new reader be blamed for being confused with these two things being out within a month of each other?
February 24, 2012 1:06 am I fail to see how dissembling proves your point here. It's your choice to cosplay how you see fit, just as it's your choice to be as nerdy as you wish and not feel like someone is judging you because of your gender. Telling people to cosplay to a body type is much the same thing, it's sectioning off people based on some outward appearance. Just because you're a certain height does not mean you can't cosplay teenager - that's totally your choice and no one can tell you to do it or not. That type of rule establishment serves no purpose and defeats the point of cosPLAY. So you'll have to excuse me for taking issue with the inconsistent opinion you offered in that article and the opinion on equality you're offering here. The fact that you're maintaining that opinion in your response to me and not offering "Cosplay's for everyone, end of story" makes me question why "cred questioning" isn't permissible and "body typing" is.
February 23, 2012 8:14 pm If this is what passes for a "conversation starter" about Gender fairness than it's doing a bad job of it. A rant about how someone flippantly saying "You really know your stuff" which can be something said to anyone is poor way to start. And not for nothing, but this entire article is hard to swallow from someone who once on this very same site wrote an article that bluntly stated only people with the "right body type" should cosplay.
November 21, 2011 8:37 pm My problem is that he contradicts himself when critiquing the books. Apparently using the same hue for the fore and back images is a "no-no" (Says who?) but it's okay for Red and Green to be displayed together even though his art school teachers told him not to. But it's okay, because we've couched it inside a disparaging term about art teachers not getting work as artists? WTH? It's all so vague and arbitrary and individual that I really can't put stock in what he says. And if you're going to critique an artist, that's one thing, "doing" the cover over again is another. And doing it in such a half-assed, low-rent manner is demeaning to the other artists. If you're gonna play this game, rebuild the cover from ground up. I don't care that it's not your job.
November 17, 2011 4:28 pm I imagine Avengers Academy is not long for this world with Dark Avengers coming up. It's funny, but it's either the biggest coincidence in the world or.... Marvel is scared shitless of DC's New 52. 2.5 months on top and Marvel books are dropping like flies. You also forgot to mention All-Winners Squad being "reduced" from an 8 issue mini to a 5 issue mini.
November 9, 2011 5:42 pm Absolute crap. There's really not much to say. Glad I didn't have to pay for this, as we read the books to discuss them with customers on Wednesdays and make suggestions, but I feel bad for my boss because there's a ton of stock that just isn't going to move with these. Especially once reviews come out for it.
November 7, 2011 12:19 pm It's not nitpicky to point out the many and varied logical problems of the show. Things work when they need to and don't when they don't. People are defending the "realism" of the well scene and then telling people they're being too nitpicky over the fact that Herschel can apparently see through Carl's body (Pasty as the kid is.)