>>27761
Well that's another thing. An official subscription service could easily have sorting options to sort by release date and to sort by reading order, along with filtering options to only show issues that include certain characters or storylines or whatever. Or it could just have user-created shareable lists, and they could let random people make these lists. If they were all on the service, it would be easy, compared to now, when you need to look it all up on your own (though it's not hard since there is one massive site for it, but of course normalfags won't know that). Also, this isn't even really an issue until the '80s, but yeah, that's still long enough ago to make it quite a significant issue.
>>27765
Hey. You don't need to put every sentence on its own line. Why would you do that? It's not a greentext, it's not a paragraph, what the hell is it? It should just be a paragraph.
>Honestly I don't know of where that money come from, physical mangas, Blu-ray or just merchandising in general.
It's all of the above.
>A streaming-like comic gallery it's not the best option, unless western consumers are more ok with that unlike nips that still buy everything in physical format.
It should be AN option, though, since it would be trivial to set up, requiring far less investment than having to host videos, for example. I prefer physical, but sometimes it is impractical to get a book physically. There is so much material that it's frequently hard to find the specific thing you want physically, and there is so much that I can see how it would be impractical for the company to keep it in print for that long. There are so many books I want that are out of print, and used copies are rare and expensive, but I also understand that few people care as much about Jonah Hex or whatever, and there are other things to prioritize. I'm surprised they reprinted it at all. And this goes triple for all sorts of weird obscure single issue specials or whatever. Of course I want more physical reprints, but a digital service would work well when there is this much content involved.
>>27784
>Publishers trying to convince people to buy into multiple services would be even stupider,
The nature of the comic industry would mean there are only two companies anyone cares about. Yes, it's not ideal, but it's dumber than not having functional services at all. Also, one advantage comic companies would have is that the nature of their crossovers keeps people reading one more than the other. There's enough Spider-Man to keep you reading for a lifetime, and if you want to branch out, you'll probably branch out to characters that have met Spider-Man in stories you've read, so you won't get as mad about not having DC stuff. Again, not ideal, but it's dumber to not have this as an actual option. They have subscription services, but they suck. They're not functional.
>It's why Comixology took off like it did: readers don't want to use several sites and publishers/indie creators don't want to make their own storefronts.
Did it really take off though? Nobody reads comics, including on there. It would be good if you could actually just read as much as you want, but having to pay for individual issues and not even having access to all of them makes it a terrible service that won't actually allow you to read entire series, so it's stupid.
>>27785
>generic cape crap books are meaningless for mythology simply because they run on forever and have no end.
You're a retard. It would have been so easy for you to just say they're soulless corporate logos or whatever. Instead you harp on with the same autistic retardation you always do, except now it's even dumber because the argument you're using it for rests on the premise that classic mythology has endings, and that those endings are the reason anyone likes them. Yeah, sure, the ending of Greek Mythology is the reason anyone likes Zeus. Norse mythology has Ragnarok, at least, but even then, that's not why everyone finds it interesting. Actual mythologies, those that have endings (so very few) and those that don't, are barely connected, highly contradictory, strings of standalone stories. Much like capeshit, actually. If anything, the problem with capeshit is that it is more connected and has more continuity and consistency. That and being corporate marketing tools.
The specific stories you've listed are either just modern and not what most people would consider mythology, or they're only parts of mytthologies. But you can understand that you can separate Illiad/Odyssey/Aeneid from other aspects of the wider mythology and appreciate them not just as individual stories on their own, but also as a series of stories that benefit each other, even if you're ignoring other stories in the wider universe that don't mesh with them as much. But you're too stupid to do that for modern shit. Just say the modern shit is shit. That's fine. But instead you contradict yourself more than the stories you complain about.
The other thing is that you're interpreting your own meaning in things that are collections of disparate works. You can easily do the same for any large collections. It would be easy to do the same interpretation for something as trashy as the MCU. Now, that's not to say it has the same literary value, that's something to be discussed, but the differences are not in the format. The difference is in the skill with which they were created, and with how far the reader is willing to stretch for their interpretations. Some men can read War and Peace and come out thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the back of a candy wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe.
>Gone With the Wind
Has a sequel, by the way. So now you have to retroactively hate the original because of your autism.
>>27786
See this is a much more effective argument. Unfortunately, it's not the argument that was actually made in the post you're replying to. All that said, one could discuss how many mythologies were influenced both by economics, of their authors or performers doing it for money, and by politics, of politicians and whole governments reinforcing certain ones for various reasons. Of course, I don't think that takes away from the value very significantly. The Bible was mentioned, and it's ridiculous that it was mentioned as if it's one book and not a collection of many books, but the thing that made it closer to one book was literally the government picking and choosing which ones counted and which didn't. Does that make it of less literary value, for cutting out a bunch of things for reasons that may or may not be dubious and not for their literary value? Does it make it better, for editing that may help reinforce continuity (even though many continuity errors remained) and perhaps some themes and characterizations? Or maybe you can just read it and interpret it for yourself, for the literary value of the thing you're reading. And you can go and read the apocryphal works, that people used to believe until the government declared them non-canon, and you can judge them as well, both on their own and how they add to the canon. Because either condemning or praising for the way these books were both created and edited is going to anger a lot of people, and ultimately it's all beside the point, since you can read and interpret literary value regardless.