Comicsgate Hangers-On and Drama Whores - A thread about some guy who's mad about Star Wars and the neckbeards obsessively stalking him

[Comicsgeist]

I mean, if we're doing comparisons, we should pick the right counterpoints.

The difference with Kurt Eichenwald is you can explain his motives. He actually receives attention and earns money for being a clown. If this didn't pay, he'd be onto something else.

There is NO similar explanation for the thing we call Mike. He crowdfunds campaigns he never completes for fewer and fewer dollars each instance. He devotes a massive amount of time to broadcasting on a YouTube channel that generate no advertising revenue. His audience is insignificantly small and remains stagnant, he does not benefit from the recognition and attention that comes from being a YouTuber. He invests time and effort in setting up merchandize stores that generate no revenue. He conspicuously spends most of the day every day trolling people he doesn't like. The content of his videos is incredibly suspicious.

It's the opposite of Eichenwald, we're seeing action without motive. A high level of devotion and effort resulting in no reward.

A better comparison would be Lauren Cooper.

She puts out the same level of effort as the person we see on the Blacklist Universe videos. We strongly suspect she's paid to do this by Weber-Shanwick as part of an effort to influence public opinion about the media. She engages in online confrontations that are just as charged as anything we're seeing from Blacklist Universe. She coordinates her efforts with others and operates in a network where she exercises some social control.

My question for you: why is it so hard to imagine that, at some point, someone started paying the real-life Mike S. Miller to act as a counterbalance to the social justice types? A steady paycheck could explain why those Blacklist Universe videos exist. Because I can't find a single reason to justify the level of effort that goes into the Mike S. Miller project.

And if money isn't what motivates him, if the person we see in those videos is legitimately acting out of a sense of principle - why isn't this performance art? Like, even if it's just really bad performance art, what about this idea seems so crazy? Because I've listened to those videos on Blacklist Universe, the themes they focus on and the language used. Someone is trying really hard to prove a point and they could be interpreted as nuanced expression brought out through character studies. There's moments it's like I'm listening to characters out of a Tennessee Williams play, the dialog - especially with Doug Tenapel - seems very scripted.

Jesus Christ, put down the blunt man!

If Mike has one defining personality trait, it's staggeringly myopic short-term thinking.
If there's a fast buck to be made on a trend, be it in crypto or comics, Mike will leap on it with enthusiasm and then live to regret it at leisure later. He's the type that's first in and last out of every obvious pyramid scheme because he's stupid and greedy.
Mike has 7 projects because Mike's leaping on every fast buck possible and he's wildly overbooked himself while eating tomorrow's bread today, so 'the artist is unavailable'.
'The artist' will soon be underwater as a failure to deliver in a timely manner dents people's confidence and he starts to bleed what few backers he has retained.
I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a guy with a 'get rich quick' mentality like Mike had taken a look at that pot of money sitting in an Indiegogo account and thought, 'that could be resting in by Bitcoin account making me money while I spend months finishing the books!', and now 'The Artist' is waiting for Bitcoin to recover enough for him to be able to afford to fulfil his campaigns.

 

[Rupin]

I mean, if we're doing comparisons, we should pick the right counterpoints.

The difference with Kurt Eichenwald is you can explain his motives. He actually receives attention and earns money for being a clown. If this didn't pay, he'd be onto something else.

There is NO similar explanation for the thing we call Mike. He crowdfunds campaigns he never completes for fewer and fewer dollars each instance. He devotes a massive amount of time to broadcasting on a YouTube channel that generate no advertising revenue. His audience is insignificantly small and remains stagnant, he does not benefit from the recognition and attention that comes from being a YouTuber. He invests time and effort in setting up merchandize stores that generate no revenue. He conspicuously spends most of the day every day trolling people he doesn't like. The content of his videos is incredibly suspicious.

It's the opposite of Eichenwald, we're seeing action without motive. A high level of devotion and effort resulting in no reward.

A better comparison would be Lauren Cooper.

She puts out the same level of effort as the person we see on the Blacklist Universe videos. We strongly suspect she's paid to do this by Weber-Shanwick as part of an effort to influence public opinion about the media. She engages in online confrontations that are just as charged as anything we're seeing from Blacklist Universe. She coordinates her efforts with others and operates in a network where she exercises some social control.

My question for you: why is it so hard to imagine that, at some point, someone started paying the real-life Mike S. Miller to act as a counterbalance to the social justice types? A steady paycheck could explain why those Blacklist Universe videos exist. Because I can't find a single reason to justify the level of effort that goes into the Mike S. Miller project.

And if money isn't what motivates him, if the person we see in those videos is legitimately acting out of a sense of principle - why isn't this performance art? Like, even if it's just really bad performance art, what about this idea seems so crazy? Because I've listened to those videos on Blacklist Universe, the themes they focus on and the language used. Someone is trying really hard to prove a point and they could be interpreted as nuanced expression brought out through character studies. There's moments it's like I'm listening to characters out of a Tennessee Williams play, the dialog - especially with Doug Tenapel - seems very scripted.

i think that you are looking too deep into it. Mike is a troll, but he’s not one on a genius level like Ethan or Doug is. He’ll do some mean spirited shit that will get him short term gains, but in the long run he will fuck himself over. That’s not a performance artist, that’s just a moron who doesn’t what he is doing. He strayed away from CG and tried to repeat what Doug did, only he doesn’t have a mega popular IP and a history of running very successful crowdfunding campaigns on his lonesome like Doug.

These bizarre videos that we are seeing are a product of that and the reality of following Doug into constant failure and debt is sinking in. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Wait til Maganificient 7 comes out. I (generously) predict that campaign will only hit 30,000 dollars at best and most of that will be because of Dean Cain’s autograph and his friends paying him to draw their faces into the book.

 

[instythot]

I mean, if we're doing comparisons, we should pick the right counterpoints.

The difference with Kurt Eichenwald is you can explain his motives. He actually receives attention and earns money for being a clown. If this didn't pay, he'd be onto something else.

There is NO similar explanation for the thing we call Mike. He crowdfunds campaigns he never completes for fewer and fewer dollars each instance. He devotes a massive amount of time to broadcasting on a YouTube channel that generate no advertising revenue. His audience is insignificantly small and remains stagnant, he does not benefit from the recognition and attention that comes from being a YouTuber. He invests time and effort in setting up merchandize stores that generate no revenue. He conspicuously spends most of the day every day trolling people he doesn't like. The content of his videos is incredibly suspicious.

It's the opposite of Eichenwald, we're seeing action without motive. A high level of devotion and effort resulting in no reward.

A better comparison would be Lauren Cooper.

She puts out the same level of effort as the person we see on the Blacklist Universe videos. We strongly suspect she's paid to do this by Weber-Shanwick as part of an effort to influence public opinion about the media. She engages in online confrontations that are just as charged as anything we're seeing from Blacklist Universe. She coordinates her efforts with others and operates in a network where she exercises some social control.

My question for you: why is it so hard to imagine that, at some point, someone started paying the real-life Mike S. Miller to act as a counterbalance to the social justice types? A steady paycheck could explain why those Blacklist Universe videos exist. Because I can't find a single reason to justify the level of effort that goes into the Mike S. Miller project.

And if money isn't what motivates him, if the person we see in those videos is legitimately acting out of a sense of principle - why isn't this performance art? Like, even if it's just really bad performance art, what about this idea seems so crazy? Because I've listened to those videos on Blacklist Universe, the themes they focus on and the language used. Someone is trying really hard to prove a point and they could be interpreted as nuanced expression brought out through character studies. There's moments it's like I'm listening to characters out of a Tennessee Williams play, the dialog - especially with Doug Tenapel - seems very scripted.

Eichenwald has lost employment and associations with news orgs over his lunacy. And yet he persists

What about what you describe re: Miller sounds crazy? All of it, frankly.

This entire site is a catalog of people who act in bizarre ways, only one of which was a high profile hoax. For some reason, this particular set of inexplicable (to you) behaviors means it's not exactly what it appears to be, it's performance art

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Jesus Christ, put down the blunt man!

If Mike has one defining personality trait, it's staggeringly myopic short-term thinking.
If there's a fast buck to be made on a trend, be it in crypto or comics, Mike will leap on it with enthusiasm and then live to regret it at leisure later. He's the type that's first in and last out of every obvious pyramid scheme because he's stupid and greedy.
Mike has 7 projects because Mike's leaping on every fast buck possible and he's wildly overbooked himself while eating tomorrow's bread today, so 'the artist is unavailable'.
'The artist' will soon be underwater as a failure to deliver in a timely manner dents people's confidence and he starts to bleed what few backers he has retained.
I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a guy with a 'get rich quick' mentality like Mike had taken a look at that pot of money sitting in an Indiegogo account and thought, 'that could be resting in by Bitcoin account making me money while I spend months finishing the books!', and now 'The Artist' is waiting for Bitcoin to recover enough for him to be able to afford to fulfil his campaigns.

Surface level details only go so far in explaining someone. When they contradict other things we know to be fact, people ask questions.

In 2014, if you asked me about Elizabeth Holmes, I would have told you she's a self-made Billionaire. No reason to think otherwise, she had a corporate HQ in Mountain View, hundreds of people working for her, and all the marketing materials characteristic of a company that size. People started asking questions when the failed tests started piling up, which revealed tests were being done on legacy equipment. Eventually it was her investors - her backers - that revealed the truth about the Theranos scam.

People who invest ask questions because they have an interest in it being delivered. This is human behavior, it occurs organically. All I heard on this forum for six months was "Where's my Frog Book?" Where are the backers asking for their Lonestar 2 alternate covers and Monster Hunt?

There hasn't been a peep.

When investors don't ask questions, that's called a tell. It is hard for me to believe this thing called Mike connected with an audience who magically never ask for their books or complain about failed delivery. And that it happened 7 times in a row. It makes no sense.

Seriously, if the surface level details presented about Mike S. Miller contradict everything that's going on around him, why believe that's the truth about the person? That seems crazier than saying we're watching a schill or an actor.

i think that you are looking too deep into it. Mike is a troll, but he’s not one on a genius level like Ethan or Doug is. He’ll do some mean spirited shit that will get him short term gains, but in the long run he will fuck himself over. That’s not a performance artist, that’s just a moron who doesn’t what he is doing. He strayed away from CG and tried to repeat what Doug did, only he doesn’t have a mega popular IP and a history of running very successful crowdfunding campaigns on his lonesome like Doug.

These bizarre videos that we are seeing are a product of that and the reality of following Doug into constant failure and debt is sinking in. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Wait til Maganificient 7 comes out. I (generously) predict that campaign will only hit 30,000 dollars at best and most of that will be because of Dean Cain’s autograph and his friends paying him to draw their faces into the book.

It's fun to just dismiss someone as a moron.

But hasn't his affinity for Bitcoin always seemed a little conspicuous? He continues to wear Bitcoin shirts on his channel, even though (if the rumors are correct) it cost him money.

Who do you know that gets hurt by a product and continues to hawk it? Like if you bought a golf club and the shaft snapped on rough turf, are you going to tell people you care about that they should really get that club? The whole Bitcoin thing always felt more like a way to connect with the youth than a way of making money.

The return on bitcoin is negative if you invested in Nov 2018 and held onto it until today. Most of the people I know who lost money converted the remains to cash and put it into CDs. Anyone who did so would have been whole by Dec 2019.

If the person we see in those videos is authentic and looking to double the money earned off campaigns, what are the odds of betting black at a Roulette table? 48%? When it's la partage, you don't even need to risk your entire pot on a single spin, you get combined odds. There are a lot of boats within a 1 hour drive from his house where he could have done that with less risk than a cryptocurrency.

The person we've seen in videos would like you to believe it just does stupid shit like this. You really, really need to believe this man is an idiot and consistently, 100% of the time acts in direct opposition to self-interest. And also that lots of people give him money for comic books he never delivers, and he lets all this other stuff happen to him for no money and no attention.

Doesn't that seem like a lot to accept? There's so much about this thing that can't be explained, it's easier to say this is a person pretending to be a fool. No one notices because we're used to crazy people on the Internet.

Eichenwald has lost employment and associations with news orgs over his lunacy. And yet he persists

What about what you describe re: Miller sounds crazy? All of it, frankly.

This entire site is a catalog of people who act in bizarre ways, only one of which was a high profile hoax. For some reason, this particular set of inexplicable (to you) behaviors means it's not exactly what it appears to be, it's performance art

Eichenwald was always a freelancer, even with Vanity Fair. He continues to publish and do interviews in the mainstream media to this day.

It's not entirely accurate to say all the cows we focus on are on the level. Lauren Cooper - she's exceptional. It's pretty clear she's also a paid schill carrying out an extended hoax. She used to work in politics screaming about gays, now she talks about media screaming about the people who scream about gays. It's an artificial personality.

It's not a big leap to say the thing we call Mike S. Miller is doing the same thing with a different script. I find a lot of reasons to suggest that may be what's happening.

Respectfully - I completely see why you'd be saying this sounds crazy. All I'm really saying is there are reasons to believe it's not all as it appears.

Look at the art. This is a Mike S. Miller drawing from his time at DC.

There's fluidity of motion, there's precise linework, it's a very clean drawing. More importantly, notice the anatomy and perspective. Other than the cowl, it's all believable.

This is a drawing from the Blacklist Universe channel, supposedly by the same artist. It's from the video where Edwin is giving the thing we call Mike S. Miller instruction on how to use Photoshop.

It looks like a drawing in the style of Mike S. Miller, but there are so many imperfections. Notice the torso? What is this guy, 6'7 with a 4 foot chest? The perspective on the belt makes you think the body was cut at the waist and the belt was inserted to give him height. The rib cage appears to float above it. Notice the hands? The fist on the right hand is lacking perspective, the pinky above the knife is the size of a thumb. Notice the shading - no crosshatches. This wasn't properly inked, this is digitally enhanced. And the coloring - what kind of professional does work at this level? Not someone who was in the business for 20 years, the light seems to be coming from all over.

I could see how the styles of a different inker and colorist could influence the final rendering, but Mike S. Miller's style was clean, precise, anatomically-correct linework. It was part of his brand as an artist. Either this Lonestar is someone trying to draw in the style of Mike S. Miller or this is a draft.

Why would Mike S. Miller be making videos trying to pass off a draft as finished work? Let's say he is bankrupt, spent all the backer money on Bitcoin and is waiting for the market to come back. Why would he take the single thing he still controls - his artwork - and showcase sub-standard rush jobs to his fans?

The simplest explanation is that Mike S. Miller did not draw this piece, it's just something meant to look like a Mike S. Miller drawing. Why is the person in that video showcasing a counterfeit and claiming it as his own? And, if that's not Mike S. Miller, who is it?

 

[Rupin]

Surface level details only go so far in explaining someone. When they contradict other things we know to be fact, people ask questions.

In 2014, if you asked me about Elizabeth Holmes, I would have told you she's a self-made Billionaire. No reason to think otherwise, she had a corporate HQ in Mountain View, hundreds of people working for her, and all the marketing materials characteristic of a company that size. People started asking questions when the failed tests started piling up, which revealed tests were being done on legacy equipment. Eventually it was her investors - her backers - that revealed the truth about the Theranos scam.

People who invest ask questions because they have an interest in it being delivered. This is human behavior, it occurs organically. All I heard on this forum for six months was "Where's my Frog Book?" Where are the backers asking for their Lonestar 2 alternate covers and Monster Hunt?

There hasn't been a peep.

When investors don't ask questions, that's called a tell. It is hard for me to believe this thing called Mike connected with an audience who magically never ask for their books or complain about failed delivery. And that it happened 7 times in a row. It makes no sense.

Seriously, if the surface level details presented about Mike S. Miller contradict everything that's going on around him, why believe that's the truth about the person? That seems crazier than saying we're watching a schill or an actor.


It's fun to just dismiss someone as a moron.

But hasn't his affinity for Bitcoin always seemed a little conspicuous? He continues to wear Bitcoin shirts on his channel, even though (if the rumors are correct) it cost him money.

Who do you know that gets hurt by a product and continues to hawk it? The whole Bitcoin thing always felt more like a way to connect with the youth than a way of making money.

The return on bitcoin is negative if you invested in Nov 2018 and held onto it until today. Most of the people I know who lost money converted the remains to cash and put it into CDs. Anyone who did so would have been whole by Dec 2019.

If the person we see in those videos is authentic and looking to double the money earned off campaigns, what are the odds of betting black at a Roulette table? 48%? When it's la partage, you don't even need to risk your entire pot on a single spin, you get combined odds. There are a lot of boats within a 1 hour drive from his house where he could have done that with less risk than a cryptocurrency.

The person we've seen in videos would like you to believe it just does stupid shit like this. You really, really need to believe this man is an idiot and consistently, 100% of the time acts in direct opposition to self-interest. And also that lots of people give him money for comic books he never delivers, and he lets all this other stuff happen to him for no money and no attention.

Doesn't that seem like a lot to accept? There's so much about this thing that can't be explained, it's easier to say this is a person pretending to be a fool. No one notices because we're used to crazy people on the Internet.


Eichenwald was always a freelancer, even with Vanity Fair. He continues to publish and do interviews in the mainstream media to this day.

It's not entirely accurate to say all the cows we focus on are on the level. Lauren Cooper - she's exceptional. It's pretty clear she's also a paid schill carrying out an extended hoax. She used to work in politics screaming about gays, now she talks about media screaming about the people who scream about gays. It's an artificial personality.

It's not a big leap to say the thing we call Mike S. Miller is doing the same thing with a different script. I find a lot of reasons to suggest that may be what's happening.

Respectfully - I completely see why you'd be saying this sounds crazy. All I'm really saying is there are reasons to believe it's not all as it appears.

Look at the art. This is a Mike S. Miller drawing from his time at DC.

Ver archivo adjunto 1182848

There's fluidity of motion, there's precise linework, it's a very clean drawing. More importantly, notice the anatomy and perspective. Other than the cowl, it's all believable.

This is a drawing from the Blacklist Universe channel, supposedly by the same artist. It's from the video where Edwin is giving the thing we call Mike S. Miller instruction on how to use Photoshop.

Ver archivo adjunto 1182849

It looks like a drawing in the style of Mike S. Miller, but there are so many imperfections. Notice the torso? What is this guy, 6'7 with a 4 foot chest? The perspective on the belt makes you think the body was cut at the waist and the belt was inserted to give him height. The rib cage appears to float above it. Notice the hands? The fist on the right hand is lacking perspective, the pinky above the knife is the size of a thumb. Notice the shading - no crosshatches. This wasn't properly inked, this is digitally enhanced. And the coloring - what kind of professional does work at this level? Not someone who was in the business for 20 years, the light seems to be coming from all over.

I could see how the styles of a different inker and colorist could influence the final rendering, but Mike S. Miller's style was clean, precise, anatomically-correct linework. It was part of his brand as an artist. Either this Lonestar is someone trying to draw in the style of Mike S. Miller or this is a draft.

Why would Mike S. Miller be making videos trying to pass off a draft as finished work? Let's say he is bankrupt, spent all the backer money on Bitcoin and is waiting for the market to come back. Why would he take the single thing he still controls - his artwork - and showcase sub-standard rush jobs to his fans?

The simplest explanation is that Mike S. Miller did not draw this piece, it's just something meant to look like a Mike S. Miller drawing. Why is the person in that video showcasing a counterfeit and claiming it as his own? And, if that's not Mike S. Miller, who is it?

Bitcoin is down to 7800 so he lost money on that deal. He keeps getting burned by bitcoin, so yeah he’s an idiot.

Second, Mike did not draw that Lonestar drawing. Kevhulk73 did. Mike only colored It.

Kevhulk73 is a fan and often does drawings of other people’s characters

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Bitcoin is down to 7800 so he lost money on that deal. He keeps getting burned by bitcoin, so yeah he’s an idiot.

Second, Mike did not draw that Lonestar drawing. Kevhulk73 did. Mike only colored It.

Kevhulk73 is a fan and often does drawings of other people’s characters

Help me understand that better. This is the video that drawing comes from.

The Great Controversy! SJW Click Bait! Blah!

Back BLESS THIS MESS! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/underdogmike/bless-this-mess-the-comic-strip Back Lonestar! http://lonestarcomic.com Get some LOOT...

www.youtube.com

I didn't hear anyone say the artist was someone else. Completely possible I missed it, but how do you know the true artist for the piece? Why is the thing we call Mike coloring it on his channel?

Also, the first 30 minutes of the video are Edwin giving technical support. Isn't he supposed to be a construction contractor? How did he learn about color correction and advanced Photoshop techniques?

It's all very baffling.

 

[instythot]

Surface level details only go so far in explaining someone. When they contradict other things we know to be fact, people ask questions.

In 2014, if you asked me about Elizabeth Holmes, I would have told you she's a self-made Billionaire. No reason to think otherwise, she had a corporate HQ in Mountain View, hundreds of people working for her, and all the marketing materials characteristic of a company that size. People started asking questions when the failed tests started piling up, which revealed tests were being done on legacy equipment. Eventually it was her investors - her backers - that revealed the truth about the Theranos scam.

People who invest ask questions because they have an interest in it being delivered. This is human behavior, it occurs organically. All I heard on this forum for six months was "Where's my Frog Book?" Where are the backers asking for their Lonestar 2 alternate covers and Monster Hunt?

There hasn't been a peep.

When investors don't ask questions, that's called a tell. It is hard for me to believe this thing called Mike connected with an audience who magically never ask for their books or complain about failed delivery. And that it happened 7 times in a row. It makes no sense.

Seriously, if the surface level details presented about Mike S. Miller contradict everything that's going on around him, why believe that's the truth about the person? That seems crazier than saying we're watching a schill or an actor.


It's fun to just dismiss someone as a moron.

But hasn't his affinity for Bitcoin always seemed a little conspicuous? He continues to wear Bitcoin shirts on his channel, even though (if the rumors are correct) it cost him money.

Who do you know that gets hurt by a product and continues to hawk it? Like if you bought a golf club and the shaft snapped on rough turf, are you going to tell people you care about that they should really get that club? The whole Bitcoin thing always felt more like a way to connect with the youth than a way of making money.

The return on bitcoin is negative if you invested in Nov 2018 and held onto it until today. Most of the people I know who lost money converted the remains to cash and put it into CDs. Anyone who did so would have been whole by Dec 2019.

If the person we see in those videos is authentic and looking to double the money earned off campaigns, what are the odds of betting black at a Roulette table? 48%? When it's la partage, you don't even need to risk your entire pot on a single spin, you get combined odds. There are a lot of boats within a 1 hour drive from his house where he could have done that with less risk than a cryptocurrency.

The person we've seen in videos would like you to believe it just does stupid shit like this. You really, really need to believe this man is an idiot and consistently, 100% of the time acts in direct opposition to self-interest. And also that lots of people give him money for comic books he never delivers, and he lets all this other stuff happen to him for no money and no attention.

Doesn't that seem like a lot to accept? There's so much about this thing that can't be explained, it's easier to say this is a person pretending to be a fool. No one notices because we're used to crazy people on the Internet.


Eichenwald was always a freelancer, even with Vanity Fair. He continues to publish and do interviews in the mainstream media to this day.

It's not entirely accurate to say all the cows we focus on are on the level. Lauren Cooper - she's exceptional. It's pretty clear she's also a paid schill carrying out an extended hoax. She used to work in politics screaming about gays, now she talks about media screaming about the people who scream about gays. It's an artificial personality.

It's not a big leap to say the thing we call Mike S. Miller is doing the same thing with a different script. I find a lot of reasons to suggest that may be what's happening.

Respectfully - I completely see why you'd be saying this sounds crazy. All I'm really saying is there are reasons to believe it's not all as it appears.

Look at the art. This is a Mike S. Miller drawing from his time at DC.

Ver archivo adjunto 1182848

There's fluidity of motion, there's precise linework, it's a very clean drawing. More importantly, notice the anatomy and perspective. Other than the cowl, it's all believable.

This is a drawing from the Blacklist Universe channel, supposedly by the same artist. It's from the video where Edwin is giving the thing we call Mike S. Miller instruction on how to use Photoshop.

Ver archivo adjunto 1182849

It looks like a drawing in the style of Mike S. Miller, but there are so many imperfections. Notice the torso? What is this guy, 6'7 with a 4 foot chest? The perspective on the belt makes you think the body was cut at the waist and the belt was inserted to give him height. The rib cage appears to float above it. Notice the hands? The fist on the right hand is lacking perspective, the pinky above the knife is the size of a thumb. Notice the shading - no crosshatches. This wasn't properly inked, this is digitally enhanced. And the coloring - what kind of professional does work at this level? Not someone who was in the business for 20 years, the light seems to be coming from all over.

I could see how the styles of a different inker and colorist could influence the final rendering, but Mike S. Miller's style was clean, precise, anatomically-correct linework. It was part of his brand as an artist. Either this Lonestar is someone trying to draw in the style of Mike S. Miller or this is a draft.

Why would Mike S. Miller be making videos trying to pass off a draft as finished work? Let's say he is bankrupt, spent all the backer money on Bitcoin and is waiting for the market to come back. Why would he take the single thing he still controls - his artwork - and showcase sub-standard rush jobs to his fans?

The simplest explanation is that Mike S. Miller did not draw this piece, it's just something meant to look like a Mike S. Miller drawing. Why is the person in that video showcasing a counterfeit and claiming it as his own? And, if that's not Mike S. Miller, who is it?

When "the thing called mike s Miller" worked at DC, he had people to answer to re: sloppy work. Now he has paypigs who aren't uttering an oink at sloppy work. Which fits in with laziness and a poor attention span re: delivering product and the general artistic temperament. That's your simplest explanation

 

[Rupin]

Help me understand that better. This is the video that drawing comes from.

The Great Controversy! SJW Click Bait! Blah!

Back BLESS THIS MESS! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/underdogmike/bless-this-mess-the-comic-strip Back Lonestar! http://lonestarcomic.com Get some LOOT...

www.youtube.com

I didn't hear anyone say the artist was someone else. Completely possible I missed it, but how do you know the true artist for the piece? Why is the thing we call Mike coloring it on his channel?

Also, the first 30 minutes of the video are Edwin giving technical support. Isn't he supposed to be a construction contractor? How did he learn about color correction and advanced Photoshop techniques?

It's all very baffling.

Edwin doesn’t know anything about Photoshop. He was reading Mike tips from the chat.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Ver archivo adjunto 1182927

Edwin doesn’t know anything about Photoshop. He was reading Mike tips from the chat.

It's like we're watching 2 different movies.

You see that video and say you're watching an idiot. I see that video and say it's a phoney struggling to color a counterfeit with technical assistance from a construction worker.

The fact we know the identity of the counterfeiter doesn't make this easier to understand. It makes the performance art hypothesis easier to accept.

 

[Rupin]

It's like we're watching 2 different movies.

You see that video and say you're watching an idiot. I see that video and say it's a phoney struggling to color a counterfeit with technical assistance from a construction worker.

The fact we know the identity of the counterfeiter doesn't make this easier to understand. It makes the performance art hypothesis easier to accept.

Counterfeit would be if he tried to sell the piece and claim it was done by Mike. He never did that. It’s fanart, bro. Fanart that he did for free and then the artist cosigned it by coloring the piece himself. That sounds pretty legit to me.

Also, Mike uses Photoshop to draw, he is not a colorist as evidenced by the last two pieces he colored. They look flat as fuck. Believe it or not being a colorist is a totally different skillset than being an illustrator.

 

[instythot]

Counterfeit would be if he tried to sell the piece and claim it was done by Mike. He never did that. It’s fanart, bro. Fanart that he did for free and then the artist cosigned it by coloring the piece himself. That sounds pretty legit to me.

Also, Mike uses Photoshop to draw, he is not a colorist as evidenced by the last two pieces he colored. They look flat as fuck. Believe it or not being a colorist is a totally different skillset than being an illustrator.

Maybe, just maybe, that's why comic books traditionally have separate credits for drawing, color and sometimes even ink. But then which one is the thing we call Mike Miller?

This rabbit hole has no end in sight

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Counterfeit would be if he tried to sell the piece and claim it was done by Mike. He never did that. It’s fanart, bro. Fanart that he did for free and then the artist cosigned it by coloring the piece himself. That sounds pretty legit to me.

Also, Mike uses Photoshop to draw, he is not a colorist as evidenced by the last two pieces he colored. They look flat as fuck. Believe it or not being a colorist is a totally different skillset than being an illustrator.

Counterfeit means something not genuine that's intended to deceive.

I wasn't following his Twitter and there is nothing in that video explaining he's drawing someone else's art.

It's a fascinating question, when does something become real and genuine? We have something that's clearly not genuine except in the context of being fan art. If no one tell you it's not, what does that make it?

He did this video after we started asking questions about who the person in the videos is. It's a very clever response.

Maybe, just maybe, that's why comic books traditionally have separate credits for drawing, color and sometimes even ink. But then which one is the thing we call Mike Miller?

This rabbit hole has no end in sight

Yeah... again, why would someone who is not a colorist be coloring art of someone duplicating art in his style?

Nothing about this makes any sense, but maybe that's the point. It's post-structuralist in the literal interpretation while being post-authoritarian in the inferred meaning. Layers of meaning that contradict one another while supporting both hypothesis, it reminds me of a Thomas Pynchon novel.

@Congrats FROG, at least we know you're real. Tell Holiday we said honk.

 

[instythot]

Yeah... again, why would someone who is not a colorist be coloring art of someone duplicating art in his style?

Nothing about this makes any sense, but maybe that's the point. It's post-structuralist in the literal interpretation while being post-authoritarian in the inferred meaning. Layers of meaning that contradict one another while supporting both hypothesis, it reminds me of a Thomas Pynchon novel.

@Congrats FROG, at least we know you're real. Tell Holiday we said honk.

Because he's having fun with a fan on stream. Jesus Christ.

 

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Didn't see this mentioned elsewhere. Quite the opportunity to sit at the feet of a true master, I guess. Wonder how much it costs? (No, I don't, actually.)

DC’s ‘Birds of Prey’ writer Gail Simone launches Comic School, a 5-day online course on how to create comics

http://archive.is/0wmKE

DC’s ‘Birds of Prey’ writer Gail Simone launches Comic School, a 5-day online course on how to create comics
Simone said, “I don't care what your politics are, or your talent level or background. Everyone is welcome provided they are open to learn and won't be critical of others participating"
By Pathikrit Sanyal
Published on : 13:00 PST, Mar 13, 2020

Gail Simone (Getty Images)

Comic books writer Gail Simone, who has been a writer on ‘Deadpool’ for Marvel, and ‘Birds of Prey’ for DC, announced on Twitter on Friday, March 13, that she would be teaching people online lessons on how to make comics.

Calling the experiment “Comic School”, Simone wrote on Twitter, “I don't care what your politics are, or your talent level or background. Everyone is welcome provided they are open to learn and won't be critical of others participating. (If you are CG or whatever and want to participate, have someone ask to unblock you, and please behave).”

She further said, “So I ask a couple [of] things in return. 1) Come in blank, with no prepared ideas, ready to start from scratch. 2) Be open-minded, and understand that everyone does this a little differently.”
Talking further about this experiment, that she said would last five days, Simone wrote, “This is going to be incredibly exciting. And even people who have done this a bit may find some useful information. It's not going to be a one-way street, I'm not a professor. But I have some tools that can help. What you get out of it is up to you.”


She added that this experiment “should give you access to some useful skills and knowledge in an interesting, creative way,” and asked people to “come in open-minded, don't critique or judge others unless specifically requested to, don't devolve the process into arguments”. She said, “At the end, you will have something to be proud of and some new practical knowledge.”

She asked participants to not tell her their ideas, and said that they don't have to know her work or even like her work to participate: “Just have a little faith that writing 600+ comics has taught me some information that might help you, deal?”

She promised participants that the lessons would be “bite-sized chunks”, and that there would be “a couple of surprise twists. But you will learn some things, I promise”. She, however, set some ground rules, at the same time: “If you're rude to others, it's just an insta-block, please understand that in advance. That's the only actual behavior request.”

For participating in the five-day-course, people would need, aside from a computer, a pen or pencil, a notepad or notebook, and a small basket or box. The event, per Simone, is scheduled to start at 1:00 pm PST, 4:00 pm EST on Friday.

Rather bizarre attempt at rapprochement to CG buried in there, too. Is something going on that I'm missing?

 

[Rupin]

Counterfeit means something not genuine that's intended to deceive.

I wasn't following his Twitter and there is nothing in that video explaining he's drawing someone else's art.

It's a fascinating question, when does something become real and genuine? We have something that's clearly not genuine except in the context of being fan art. If no one tell you it's not, what does that make it?

He did this video after we started asking questions about who the person in the videos is. It's a very clever response.


Yeah... again, why would someone who is not a colorist be coloring art of someone duplicating art in his style?

Nothing about this makes any sense, but maybe that's the point. It's post-structuralist in the literal interpretation while being post-authoritarian in the inferred meaning. Layers of meaning that contradict one another while supporting both hypothesis, it reminds me of a Thomas Pynchon novel.

@Congrats FROG, at least we know you're real. Tell Holiday we said honk.

Why don’t you tweet Mike and ask him? He’s actually pretty personable. Though, I’d give him a couple days because I think he is going into shock over how well Rekt Planet is doing.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Why don’t you tweet Mike and ask him? He’s actually pretty personable. Though, I’d give him a couple because I think he is going into shock over how well Rekt Planet is doing.

Don't pozload my neghole.

I don't interact with these cows and encourage you to avoid them too.

 

[Rupin]

Don't pozload my neghole.

I don't interact with these cows and encourage you to avoid them too.

there’s a huge difference between Mike and Chris though. One is an autist that is protected by orbiters and white knights and the other is a dumby that enjoys counting the pockets of people more successful than him. You actually have a legit question and you are asking it here. We tell you the answer and you don’t believe us, so just go to the source and learn the answer for yourself. Plus, there will be no need to tell us about it if shit goes left.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

there’s a huge difference between Mike and Chris though. One is an autist that is protected by orbiters and white knights and the other is a dumby and enjoys counting the pockets of people more successful than him. You actually have a legit question and you are asking it here. We tell you the answer and you don’t believe us, so just go to the source and learn the answer for yourself. Plus, there will be no need to tell us about it if shit goes left.

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison with Chris. Mike is up to something profound, Chris is a mistake no one seems to want to sort.

100 years ago, our culture knew how to dole out mercy, what questions not to ask and what stories to accept. The fact Chris is permitted to suffer speaks to our collective weakness. But we've always known how to celebrate great art, whether it's art or artifice doesn't matter so much as what it reveals.

I'm not interested in being a participant in Mike's performance so much as a spectator. I think you and @instythot put a lot of effort into explaining Mike S. Miller represented through common phenotypes without thinking critically about what you might be experiencing. I get your skepticism, but put that on hold for a minute and consider this other interpretation of what happened in that video.

- The artist colored a copy of his own work. That's a pretty big hint we're dealing with the theme of what's genuine and true in this world.

- The artist took the time to explain what he was doing, but only on this other platform. If you primarily read short, pithy sentences, you are in on what's happening. If you are visual and more into videos, you are not. He's questioning the validity of our perceptions, whether any message can be trusted. This is neo-British empiricism translated to a digital format.

- The artist did not know how to use the tools he had. It wasn't just Photoshop, he could not operate the Cintiq and had to receive technical support from a construction worker. Setting the symbolism / talk about what did and did not come from the chat aside for a moment, why would a professional create a video to put his lack of skill on display? What is the value of incompetence here? We're seeing a deconstruction of what a professional is, he's saying everyone in the comic book industry is inept. The symbolism of a construction worker telling him what to do is significant, he's saying comic book artists need to learn how to build again instead of destroy (deconstruct.) This is where he's going back to the structuralist themes, the idea we can't live outside a system / hierarchy.

- The drawing is imperfect, it's a departure from the work of Mike S. Miller. If you knew this is fan art, you will see that differently from someone who is just watching the video. Are you supposed to be watching this as fan interaction or are you supposed to be looking at it as an elaborate deception? That question isn't really answered and the ambiguity is left hanging there with the tease. The artist takes 30 minutes before he starts working on the colors, and the colors look the same when the video is done. The artist never actually colored the piece, how can we call it fan interaction? The artist never really colored his own work, how can it be called a deception? This is where the artist really screws with your perceptions, you are being asked (as a viewer) how can you even name what is going on.

- There is no scripture at the end. Interpreting the presence of scripture symbolically as an expression of irony in all the other Blacklist Universe videos, what are we to make of its absence in this one? Is the artist trying to say, once we strip off all the labels, when we try to stop being professionals, when we give up expertise in our tools and get actual professionals to tell us what to do, when we stop lying to ourselves - is this the true religion? Has religious experience become an act of transcending one's job as a pursuit that stands in the way of spiritual expression?

I'm still processing all I saw in that video, my Miller watch group is trying to slow down the number we watch each week so we can try to get a better sense of the big picture.

It's really hard to explain this as casual interaction, fan appreciation, or entrepreneurial activity. It's fine if you really want to believe that's what's happening, we don't get a lot of reasons to believe what's happening one way or the other watching these videos.

But try to understand not everyone sees it the same way you do. There is no a real person named Mike S. Miller, there used to be and he was a comic book artist. Sometime around 2016, that person took a very different course in life and is no longer there. Whether that was an inner transformation to becoming an artist, or an elaborate attempt to influence public opinion, or an ARG, or whatever - I'm seeking the truth.

Again, there is more evidence to support the idea that Mike S. Miller is an invented personality than there is to support the idea he's an actual human being. It's easier to explain the pursuits and motivations of the person this way than to pretend the thing we see in the videos is real and has a soul. It doesn't, that much is clear.

 

[instythot]

Don't pozload my neghole.

I don't interact with these cows and encourage you to avoid them too.

Agreed. I will say no further on "the thing we call Mike S. Miller"

 

[KingofNothing]

I'm not sure I agree with the comparison with Chris. Mike is up to something profound, Chris is a mistake no one seems to want to sort.

100 years ago, our culture knew how to dole out mercy, what questions not to ask and what stories to accept. The fact Chris is permitted to suffer speaks to our collective weakness. But we've always known how to celebrate great art, whether it's art or artifice doesn't matter so much as what it reveals.

I'm not interested in being a participant in Mike's performance so much as a spectator. I think you and @instythot put a lot of effort into explaining Mike S. Miller represented through common phenotypes without thinking critically about what you might be experiencing. I get your skepticism, but put that on hold for a minute and consider this other interpretation of what happened in that video.

- The artist colored a copy of his own work. That's a pretty big hint we're dealing with the theme of what's genuine and true in this world.

- The artist took the time to explain what he was doing, but only on this other platform. If you primarily read short, pithy sentences, you are in on what's happening. If you are visual and more into videos, you are not. He's questioning the validity of our perceptions, whether any message can be trusted. This is neo-British empiricism translated to a digital format.

- The artist did not know how to use the tools he had. It wasn't just Photoshop, he could not operate the Cintiq and had to receive technical support from a construction worker. Setting the symbolism / talk about what did and did not come from the chat aside for a moment, why would a professional create a video to put his lack of skill on display? What is the value of incompetence here? We're seeing a deconstruction of what a professional is, he's saying everyone in the comic book industry is inept. The symbolism of a construction worker telling him what to do is significant, he's saying comic book artists need to learn how to build again instead of destroy (deconstruct.) This is where he's going back to the structuralist themes, the idea we can't live outside a system / hierarchy.

- The drawing is imperfect, it's a departure from the work of Mike S. Miller. If you knew this is fan art, you will see that differently from someone who is just watching the video. Are you supposed to be watching this as fan interaction or are you supposed to be looking at it as an elaborate deception? That question isn't really answered and the ambiguity is left hanging there with the tease. The artist takes 30 minutes before he starts working on the colors, and the colors look the same when the video is done. The artist never actually colored the piece, how can we call it fan interaction? The artist never really colored his own work, how can it be called a deception? This is where the artist really screws with your perceptions, you are being asked (as a viewer) how can you even name what is going on.

- There is no scripture at the end. Interpreting the presence of scripture symbolically as an expression of irony in all the other Blacklist Universe videos, what are we to make of its absence in this one? Is the artist trying to say, once we strip off all the labels, when we try to stop being professionals, when we give up expertise in our tools and get actual professionals to tell us what to do, when we stop lying to ourselves - is this the true religion? Has religious experience become an act of transcending one's job as a pursuit that stands in the way of spiritual expression?

I'm still processing all I saw in that video, my Miller watch group is trying to slow down the number we watch each week so we can try to get a better sense of the big picture.

It's really hard to explain this as casual interaction, fan appreciation, or entrepreneurial activity. It's fine if you really want to believe that's what's happening, we don't get a lot of reasons to believe what's happening one way or the other watching these videos.

But try to understand not everyone sees it the same way you do. There is no a real person named Mike S. Miller, there used to be and he was a comic book artist. Sometime around 2016, that person took a very different course in life and is no longer there. Whether that was an inner transformation to becoming an artist, or an elaborate attempt to influence public opinion, or an ARG, or whatever - I'm seeking the truth.

Again, there is more evidence to support the idea that Mike S. Miller is an invented personality than there is to support the idea he's an actual human being. It's easier to explain the pursuits and motivations of the person this way than to pretend the thing we see in the videos is real and has a soul. It doesn't, that much is clear.

I'll give you this, you're really committed to this bit.