CBR: Permanent Damage - May 7, 2010

[CBR News]

Steven Grant surveys the L.A. Convention Center's pitch for Comic-Con International and has a few words to say in the interest of keeping the show where it's had it's roots for four decades. Plus: "Iron Man 2!"


Full article here.

[Perry Holley]

Having a non-Downey Iron Man in the Avengers film would be incredibly foolish.

Which means that's probably exactly what they'll wind up doing.

[The Patent Dragon]

Having a non-Downey Iron Man in the Avengers film would be incredibly foolish.

Which means that's probably exactly what they'll wind up doing.

I'm getting the feeling that Rhodey will be on the team as War Machine, then "special advisor" Stark will be forced to intervene as Iron Man at a suitable critical and stirring moment.

[Charles RB]

a big chunk in the middle of the film is devoted to Tony Stark basically doing nothing. By Hollywood standards, this is an extreme gaffe, something that should never be done – but it turns out that watching Downey basically doing nothing is pretty entertaining

That's a pretty good summary, really. You could cut half the action scenes and it'd still be a blast - Downey's one of the few actors that could've pulled off the first Expo scene.

[Ricky B]

For what it's worth, I disagree with you about Los Angeles being a poor fit with Comic-Con. In fact, some of your arguments sound bizarre.

The Los Angeles Comic Book and Science Fiction Convention is a monthly comic convention near the downtown area at the Shrine Auditorium that has been been ongoing since 1977, according to its website at http://www.comicbookscifi.com/. Sure it's small, but the point is that it's survived on a monthly schedule at the Shrine for many years.

Also, if the area is so bad, why has the E3 Expo been held at the Los Angeles Convention Center for so many years? Yes, they held it in Santa Monica one year, but returned to the LA Convention Center for the next. No, it's not as large as Comic-Con, but most of the arguments against LA do not say that Comic-Con is too big for LA. The reason other cities are being considered is that Comic-Con has become too big for San Diego. To say LA is not big enough is absurd.

While it may be true that some Hollywood types like going down to San Diego to get away from it all, my impression over the years is that there are a greater number from the film community who would be very happy not to have to make the long drive, much of which is in heavy traffic. As for the parties, what, no one can put on a party in LA? The downtown area is an especially good place for giant parties.

As a general comment, I'm not sure what the Comic-Con board might think of some of your arguments which imply that if they made the decision to move to Los Angeles, the main reason would be that they don't know what they are doing.

As a convention goer, my main concerns are:

1. Would it be easier to walk the convention floor in LA?
2. Would there be fewer shutout panels?
3. Would we have to stand in line for hours in the sun to get in Hall H type events?

As Los Angeles natives, we would not have to deal with expensive, hard to get hotel rooms, but for others, if the hotel room rates are just as outlandish as they are in many cases in San Diego, then what's the point of moving?

In any case, even though I've been hoping for years that Comic-Con would move to Los Angeles, I think it's unlikely. David Glanzer said that there are pluses and minuses for each location. But the main reason Comic-Con will not move in 2013 is that people don't like and are often afraid of change and the unknown.

[popculturegeek]

What people fail to realize is that Comic-Con International is no longer just a comic convention. "Comic-Con" is a misnomer at this point, even though comics are still at the heart of it. Nothing wrong with that, even if some are frustrated by the strong Hollywood focus that's risen to power over the years. It is not the LA Comic Book Sci-Fi show, which is great for its size and the selection of vendors selling all sorts of collectibles. It's not even E3. At one point E3 was like Comic-Con, but with video games only. In 2006, it was hectic and bloated (I've been going since 2005) with well over 100,000 attendees that were all supposedly media and "industry-only". That got cut away considerably as the organizers felt it lost its focus. They got rid of the monster Expo feel that we currently have in San Diego. Then they realized that nobody was interested in going to or showcasing anything at a glorified C-SPAN style press conference. Last year they moved back to the LACC with a considerably stripped back attendance policy even though they brought back the big Expo feel. It's not even half as packed. It's easy to get around. And it was actually fun. But an E3 crowd is NOT a Comic-Con crowd. Who goes to (or is supposed to go to) E3? Media, industry types like programmers and marketers, some Hollywood types, and a ton of foreign industry representatives, particularly from Japan, Korea, and Europe. Everyone is an adult, many with company expense accounts, wearing suits and ties.

What is a Comic-Con crowd? Nerds. Families. Nerdy families. Many in costumes. Everyone from toddlers in strollers to Stan the Man with handlers to fight off his starry-eyed devotees (of which I am one). If there was madness in E3 2006 with a mostly adult professional crowd, what would 150,000 look like of all ages, sizes, and interests swarming everywhere? I say 150,000 because if the point of moving is to make more room for more people to go to Comic-Con, then they're going to have to make a noticeable leap over the current 126,000 (officially, but likely much higher) limit in San Diego.

And the other difference between E3 (or any comparable show) and Comic-Con at LACC? When E3 closes its doors each day, the show's over. The execs go back to their hotels by shuttle or cab or they go to an exclusive corporate party in LA or Hollywood, off the grounds of the convention center. Comic-Con doesn't end when the exhbition hall closes each day. There are panels and screenings and parties that go on throughout the night, of all sizes for all sorts of people. Would LACC be willing to keep their doors open for people to come and go at all hours? What about those who feel they must line up all night for the big "Hall H" Hollywood-centric panels? Would they allow people to sleep on the sidewalks in that part of the city overnight each night? Would they legally allow people to even sleep in the big main south hall lobby? Do they allow that kind of situation for any other type of convention they host? Does the car show or the adult show or tattoo show or home and garden show have thousands of people in line to get in 18 hours in advance of the doors opening? And if they did allow it, would you feel safe sleeping on the streets of LA just to see the Twilight or Avengers panel the next morning? At least the line up for Hall H in San Diego is separate from the city, in a well lit and open area, easily defensible should someone want to stir up trouble. There are so many dark nooks and crannies at LACC where people would likely have to line up, that I don't see how security would be able to watch it all without positioning security every few yards. Don't get me wrong. I love LACC for E3 at its current size (as I did for the Star Wars Celebration IV they hosted), but Comic-Con is an entirely different animal. The big points:

1. Moving to a bigger place to allow more crowds doesn't fix the issue many people have with overcrowding. It just makes a big crowd bigger simply because we can. The long lines just get longer. The clustering around the movie studio booths gets crazier. The panels will still fill up and people will still get shut out. Don't tell me that moving somewhere else will somehow relieve all this tension.

2. I live in LA and I wouldn't relish the idea of driving to the convention center each morning to park. I've done that during the crazy E3 years. Hours in line looped around the building only to find the lot filled up by the time you get there. The Metro is an option, you say? No. I've done it. But it's not a place I want to be carrying lots of cash in the morning or lots of swag at night. Last time I tried it, I almost got beat up by a thug at only 10pm for not answering a question the way he liked. Imagine the fun conversations people will have with the locals at 2am on a Saturday night going to and from downtown on the blue line. I just don't think LA has enough police to ride the rails or watch the platforms to make us feel safe. I've used the Metro many times and I have yet to see police or security anywhere when I traveled, especially at the rather dismal blue/green connection. Outside of the gleaming new Nokia crown jewel, downtown LA is not so fun on foot. Give me the accessibility of the San Diego Gaslamp District any day with a safe walk to my hotel (or a clean, well-lit trolley ride).

3. As much as I LOVE seeing the studios show off their stars and their exclusive footage, there is no one's convenience I care less about than a 7 figure executive or celebrity who might be frustrated by having to choose between sitting in a limo on the 5 south during rush hour or having their private plane jockey for position on the Burbank tarmac for the 30 minute flight to San Diego. There are two types of celebrities and Hollywood execs who go to Comic-Con: ones who want to come and the ones who must. As it's been said, Comic-Con is a fairly new Hollywood retreat with fewer parka'd Park City snobs, less Canne'd tans, and lots more robed and pasty lightsaber-wielding geeks who love robots, vampires, capes, and babes in tiny outfits. No not every celeb at Comic-Con is a millionaire. But the ones that aren't still know the need to get out there and push your product, whether they like it or not. If they don't want to make the trip, that's fine. But moving CCI to LA or Anaheim shouldn't make a difference in their minds when it comes to making an appearance. As it's been said, it would probably make the whole thing a lot less special. In San Diego, studios get to show off their wares to a crowd of 126,000+ who are EXCITED about what they have to show us and will talk about it to everyone they know. Some WANT to show up and show off and are excited that we are excited about the creative stuff they do. Others MUST come because the studio requires them put in their time to answer inane questions from the audience if they want to help make their movie or tv show a hit (positive results not guaranteed). Honestly, the studios compete with each other to make the biggest splash, not for our benefit, but rather to show up their competitors down in Culver, up in Burbank, or over on Pico and Sepulveda, fighting for the biggest buzz of the show to justify their paychecks. Make no mistake, if it becomes no longer profitable, they'll stop coming to Comic-Con. And that will leave only those who WANT to be there, regardless of where it's held. And while many claim to hope for that day to come, there are many more who don't... like the vendors who know they'll get thousands of people potentially buying their stuff, or that indie comic creator hoping for his property to get picked up by Hollywood, or even the comic book artist/writer who feels that Hollywood has overshadowed the comics part of the show, even though they've sat behind their folding table at other shows that don't have the star spangled spectacle of SDCC and spent the entire time reading their own comics, eating crappy convention center food, and hoping that maybe a handful of the maybe 500 attendees will buy at least one copy of their work to help cover the cost of the table and hopefully break even.

Like I said, I love LACC for shows with around 60-70,000 or less with a professional atmosphere and atttendees. The layout is roomy and convenient and it has Nokia across the street with lots of great restaurants (mostly all outside my price range and the price range of the average Comic-Con attendee who is in a hurry to get to at least one of the half dozen different big things he or she is trying to do at once). But no matter how great Nokia is (and it is, as I've been to each of the venues), it's addition will not help make up for LACC's unfortunate location. By the way, regardless of how many 4 star hotels you put directly next to the convention center, we know that they'll be the first ones booked up by Comic-Con staff and Hollywood industry folks simply because the former must and the latter can, leaving the tens of thousands of attendees to find lodging on the outskirts of town, leading to the biggest traffic jam the city has ever seen. Unless downtown LA can become more non-exec-only friendly in the next 3 years should the show move there, I have a feeling everyone will be in for a rude awakening when Comic-Con would likely lock up the city's infrastructure for one whole week in July.

Last question... why did this suddenly turn into an Iron Man 2 review half way through? Is this some sort of SEO trick I'm not aware of?

[hysang]

I'm getting the feeling that Rhodey will be on the team as War Machine, then "special advisor" Stark will be forced to intervene as Iron Man at a suitable critical and stirring moment.

That's exactly what I thought.

I also thought (a week ago, before I even saw the movie) when someone mentioned this, that Nick Fury was really pulling reverse psychology on Tony. He knows Tony's ego won't allow him to be left out of something cool, so he's doing this to *make certain* Iron Man will be a member. There's no way in hell Marvel is dumb enough to NOT have RDJ suit up in "Avengers." I would argue that they can survive without Ed Norton (just have the Hulk be CGI for most of it and throw in a quick cameo by Banner), but they can't survive without RDJ.

[badMike]

I went to a Fangoria convention last year at the L.A. Convention Center, although I'm not sure if I was in an old building or one of the new ones.

The Convention area is only remote in the sense that nobody in L.A. wants to walk two blocks to get anywhere. I will say it does SEEM to be in a remote area, although it actually isn't. And by the time Comic Con could get there, it will probably be less remote as the area's being built up.

That said, the area around the center seems kind of depressing, unlike the nice, fun atmosphere of where the San Diego convention center is. Seriously, I think it would seem like a drag to go there for a media convention. It's an odd perceptual thing. I mean, it's not the beach, it's downtown. Yes, I like downtown L.A. and it's getting nicer, but it's not San Diego.

[eShonborn]

While once in awhile replacing a lead actor in a recurring role works out (e.g. James Bond) more commonly it drives viewers away (e.g. Robocop).

I'm pretty sure it was the awfulness of the sequels that tanked the Robocop franchise, not the recasting of the lead.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Wow Steven, I think we saw different Iron Man 2 films.

I saw a film with a bunch of unrelated subplots, with a tie in to a non existent larger franchise that did it's best to smother any joy in the film.

Downey was the one saving grace of the film, and even he struggled as his character wasn't doing anything.

That's a pretty good summary, really. You could cut half the action scenes and it'd still be a blast - Downey's one of the few actors that could've pulled off the first Expo scene.

But then there would be one action scene.

[babydave]

Since "Iron Man" is basically a suit and special effects, they could get away with using Robert Downey Jr. for voiceover and paying him accordingly.

I currently have no interest in an Avengers film and don't care if it gets made or using which characters, but I do care that if they're gonna use characters already put to film that they use the same actors for those roles. But I would prefer it if they just didn't make the movie at all.

[dancj]

I'm pretty sure it was the awfulness of the sequels that tanked the Robocop franchise, not the recasting of the lead.

I did enjoy both sequels, but each was notably worse than the film before.

I was under the impression that Robocop 3 was basically a pilot for the telly series.

[Neeb]

The thing about the LA pitch, as a future home to Comic Con, is that it's delivered by a guy that everyone who has ever lived in Los Angeles, knows.
Not personally, of course, but if you've ever lived in Los Angeles, then you know the one guy (it's always a guy) that talks quick, knows everybody and everything, and can deliver the world.
And everybody also knows that if the police don't show up- you got lucky.
I'm sure LA Inc can deliver on their pitch- but if I were the CCI comittee, I'd go over the contracts and paperwork with an army of lawyers.
Just to juice the prize a bit more- how long would it take WIZARD to show up with an offer for a comic convention in Summer 2013 in San Diego if CCI leaves? My guess is less than a month.

[kementari]

Excellently written article, Steven - I hadn't had the pleasure of encountering your column on CBR before today, but this is getting bookmarked.

You're absolutely right about LA. Moving SDCC there would be a complete train-wreck, and would certainly herald the end of my attendance. I'm speaking here as a Los Angelina who's attended San Diego Comic-Con for ten years and various other conventions at the LACC (including E3) for the same span of time:

LACC is a nightmare. The area around it is a nightmare. Right now, CCI is a place parents take their young children, and where gaggles of scantily clad, costumed girls saunter around until all hours, partaking of the awesome San Diego nightlife without a care in the world. The area around LACC is a place that I don't like driving through in the middle of the day. If I had children, I'd be absolutely terrified to expose them to downtown LA, on a day when the locals know "there's a cartoons festival in town".

Add to that the terrible layout of downtown (very few walking-distance hotels or restaurants, and by "very few" I mean "can count on one hand"), the imposing dullness of the convention center itself, and the very true point you made about Hollywood's interest in Comic-Con having to do with SDCC's status as an industry party on the beach, and you have a recipe for disaster if CCI moves to LA.


I'm also against the idea of a move to Vegas for similar reasons, but that's looking less likely by the day. I would be thrilled with a move to Anaheim, and content if they decide to stay just where they are in San Diego.

Again, extremely well-written and well-argued points, Steven. I'm glad I clicked. :)

[Steven Grant]

I live in Las Vegas, attend shows at the Convention Center regularly, but Las Vegas and the Convention Center here are completely wrong fits for Comic-Con International. Lots of reasons, but two big ones: it isn't exactly a kid-friendly environment (the Strip area, I mean), and anyone who'd think putting a show here in late July, when the daytime temperatures have been known to hit 123 degrees (but it's a dry heat!) is out of their minds.

Two problems with Anaheim: no matter what you are, you're competing with Disneyland for attention and resources, and in Anaheim Disneyland always wins. Plus while Anaheim is theoretically a match for hotel/motel rooms, the vast majority of them are ghastly little crackerboxes from hell in the skeevy horde of motels that ring Disneyland. There are so many of them and they are so dirty and smelly that I half think Disneyland pays them to be that way so that no one will want to leave the park to go back to their rooms until it's absolutely necessary.

Hotel rooms in San Diego are at least generally pleasant.

And these are nowhere near all the problems with either location.

- Grant