Author (Read 21872 times)

vmagic · « **Reply #50 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:16:40 PM »

Whatever happened to their Suicide Kings deck?

Evan · « **Reply #51 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:24:11 PM »

Quote from: vmagic on January 26, 2012, 07:16:40 PM

Whatever happened to their Suicide Kings deck?

I was actually wondering the same thing! I haven't seen anything about it recently.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #52 on:** January 27, 2012, 12:22:24 AM »

Quote from: MagicAddictz on January 26, 2012, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: vmagic on January 26, 2012, 07:16:40 PM
Whatever happened to their Suicide Kings deck?
I was actually wondering the same thing! I haven't seen anything about it recently.

I never caught the video - I'm always at work when I want to watch it. What was the story to start with? Weren't the Suicide Kings a promo deck made for a third party?

CBJ · « **Reply #53 on:** January 27, 2012, 05:23:17 AM »

The Suicide Kings is being done in conjunction with Bluff Magazine.

I'll shoot Owen an e-mail to find out the status of this deck.

CBJ

dmbaggs · « **Reply #54 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:29:58 PM »

Let us know what you hear from them! I'm more interested in this BBM deck than any other. I really like the style of art that they are using on this one. It's got an old rock&roll/tattoo type feel to it. It should make for a very nice looking deck!

chdmagicdude · « **Reply #55 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:59:44 PM »

i have never had a Karnival deck i hope this deck comes out so i can try to get it.

Kanped · « **Reply #56 on:** January 31, 2012, 01:15:52 PM »

Sadly, it looks like this deck is going to be censored before release. Now, if there is a reduction in sales, I think Bicycle is just going to take it as a public dislike of this kind of design rather than a protest against the censorship but I don't know. I had the following correspondence with the designer;

Quote

Subject: Inferno 'satanic' issues

Project name: Inferno
Website:

Message:
Hey, I've taken an interest in the issues with the Inferno deck. I'm just wondering if anyone's pointed out that these images aren't Satanic? I know they have that association these days but it's nonsense; everything that you've released are based on images that WAY pre-date Satanism (that movement didn't really start until the 60s). More than that, the pentacle and sabbatic goat are, arguably Christian images (or part of their mythology, anyway). That whole argument is ridiculous; it's no difference than those people who cry moral outrage at Slayer album covers and people giving the 'devil horns' at rock gigs. Only crazies think like that.

Thing is, is it USPCC or Bicycle that has the issue? If it's Bikes, I've been chatting around the forums and the people who like/love the deck design, myself included, couldn't give a toss about the Bicycle branding. IMO, the best thing to do would be take a big black marker to where it says 'Bicycle' on the box and leave it there, like a censored letter home from the war.

And got this response today;

Quote

Hi Chris,

Yes we have pointed out those details to Bicycle. It is totally nonsense ! They have censored all pentagrams on the deck (which are on all the cards and box!) + the image of the sabbatic 'goat' can't be used. It has been censored by the Bicycle Marketing team!

Crazy stuff !

Thanks for your support and interest.

Cheers

Sam

This blows...

AceGambit · « **Reply #57 on:** January 31, 2012, 01:52:13 PM »

Consider me officially disappointed.

NathanCanadas · « **Reply #58 on:** January 31, 2012, 02:34:24 PM »

Just like many more recent BBM decks, I am disappointed with the back of this deck. I won't buy it as long as the back design doesn't change.

Kanped · « **Reply #59 on:** January 31, 2012, 02:52:38 PM »

Where did you see the back design?

Don Boyer · « **Reply #60 on:** January 31, 2012, 11:29:14 PM »

It does suck that the deck is being censored.

It would be very nice indeed if there was an independent company out there for manufacturing playing cards that dealt specifically with small-batch and specialty designs like the ones we're always buying - and with a quality level that could meet (or even EXCEED) the quality offered by USPC. It's about time their monopolistic hold on the marketplace got challenged. Has this ever gone before the Justice Department? The closest thing they have to competition in the US is U.S. Games Systems and perhaps Paulson - but USGS deals almost exclusively in Tarot decks (and their quality of playing cards is meh) and Paulson deals largely with casinos.

It would need to be a company much like Dark Horse was when it first started publishing comics - a company where artists have near-total control and freedom over their work and retain the rights afterwards (except on licensed properties like Star Wars, Predator, etc.). You could get ANY deck printed, and the company would merely be a contractor working for you. No "you use my brand or pay more," no "you can't print that," no "that'll take two months...no, wait, three months...no, hold on, six months," no "oh, we did this for you without asking - it costs extra" - none of the crap that little companies with big aspirations and ideas have to deal with.

I think I need to talk with my fiancee about a new business model...

AceGambit · « **Reply #61 on:** February 01, 2012, 09:01:53 AM »

Yeah that's actually a super idea. Just run down to your local Wal-Mart pick up a few feed presses and the chemicals to make a custom finish that equates or out-performs Air-Cushion, you're in business.

Kanped · « **Reply #62 on:** February 01, 2012, 01:03:23 PM »

I've been increasingly impressed with Cartimundi recently. Got a Magic Castle deck yesterday. You can see dimples on it, but it feels exactly like a smooth finish. The handling reminds me a lot of my beloved Steamboats. Have any serious 'art' deck designers ever tried them? The only non-USPCC custom deck I can think of is the Death Heads and Fournier is USPCC owned, anyway.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #63 on:** February 01, 2012, 10:45:02 PM »

Quote from: Kanped on February 01, 2012, 01:03:23 PM

I've been increasingly impressed with Cartimundi recently. Got a Magic Castle deck yesterday. You can see dimples on it, but it feels exactly like a smooth finish. The handling reminds me a lot of my beloved Steamboats. Have any serious 'art' deck designers ever tried them? The only non-USPCC custom deck I can think of is the Death Heads and Fournier is USPCC owned, anyway.

In time, they're gonna feel like c.r.a.p. Cartamundi's quality can be inconsistent.

BTW: it has a hidden one-way.

I want to make this happen. I want to make a company that gives the smaller press-run designers a velvet glove approach.

joshzachmatt · « **Reply #64 on:** February 06, 2012, 07:47:06 PM »

The deck actually looks pretty cool. And the middle finger.... Wow.

CBJ · « **Reply #65 on:** February 10, 2012, 08:25:37 AM »

Well here's the revamped joker...

and here's the old one

What do you guys think??

CBJ

AceGambit · « **Reply #66 on:** February 10, 2012, 09:45:53 AM »

If I had seen the second one first, I might have liked it better, but knowing that it's a compromise makes it less inviting. All the same, I still like it. I wish they would swap the star at the bottom for the old one though. Getting rid of the middle finger, I can accept as a compromise, but the pentacles they should have kept. As well as whatever those lion looking things at the bottom of the old one were, I liked those.

I really like the new symbol at the top (they CBS symbol in a sun haha), but I'm not sure of its cultural meaning. I think that's what I liked most about the original one, it had so much religious and cultural symbolism. The new one seems like it's just aiming for theme without representation.

I don't know how I feel about the eyes on the new one. I think it might have looked better with just a silhouette; no eyes. I'd really like to see some of the other cards and the box.

Evan · « **Reply #67 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:17:33 PM »

Its definitely less satanic and I think the USPCC will definitely consider it now.

Gunshy1 · « **Reply #68 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:46:48 PM »

can someone explain why the CBS symbol inside of a sun?

dmbaggs · « **Reply #69 on:** February 10, 2012, 04:58:21 PM »

The CBS symbol is actual an all seeing eye. Here's a video that gives some more background on the CBS logo side of it and it'll probably help you understand what it stands for outside of television...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB63odkphhg

Don Boyer · « **Reply #70 on:** February 11, 2012, 12:15:42 AM »

Personally, I'm liking the new Joker. They had to compromise. It sucks. But, the one thing you need to remember is that making and selling playing cards is a business, and in business, compromises have to be made very often.

Imagine the film director or cinematographer capturing a heart-breakingly beautiful scene, only to discover in editing that it drags the film's pace down to a halt. They want to keep the gorgeous scene, but recognize that the film will be better without it - a good editor makes the cut, a good director approves it. Then it becomes a DVD extra...

The other art was nice, this piece was a compromise piece, but honestly, it's a better one in my opinion.

K · « **Reply #71 on:** February 11, 2012, 12:51:32 AM »

Wish they would keep the 'star' and the two goats below on the previous version.. the revamped one looks like it's missing something..

phantom1412 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 11, 2012, 01:11:27 AM »

I think the new joker is better. But the horn should be bigger or it would be like a shadow of a normal man than a satan.

Don Boyer · « **Reply #73 on:** February 11, 2012, 06:09:32 AM »

Hey, this reminds me of a story I heard...

Luc Besson is preparing to shoot "The Fifth Element". He wants to get Chris Tucker to agree to wear a particular costume, one that Luc knew Chris would almost certainly reject - remember, his "Ruby Rhod" character wore some very outlandish stuff in that film, stuff that would have all the drag queens envious!

So Luc talks to his costume designer and hatches a plan. He asks the designer to make another costume that's even more over the top than the one he wanted Chris to wear; just beyond bizarre. He then invites Chris in and gives him the "choice" of which costume would be best. Naturally, he chose the least outlandish of the two, which is the one the director wanted him to wear in the first place.

Look at the amount of time we've spent discussing this deck. Look at how in general that new joker seems to be well-liked. Who wants to wager that the second joker was their first choice all along and they put the worse one in front of USPC in order to soften them up enough to accept the second one without arguments?

dmbaggs · « **Reply #74 on:** February 11, 2012, 06:27:23 AM »

Quote from: Don Boyer on February 11, 2012, 06:09:32 AM

Hey, this reminds me of a story I heard...

Luc Besson is preparing to shoot "The Fifth Element". He wants to get Chris Tucker to agree to wear a particular costume, one that Luc knew Chris would almost certainly reject - remember, his "Ruby Rhod" character wore some very outlandish stuff in that film, stuff that would have all the drag queens envious!

So Luc talks to his costume designer and hatches a plan. He asks the designer to make another costume that's even more over the top than the one he wanted Chris to wear; just beyond bizarre. He then invites Chris in and gives him the "choice" of which costume would be best. Naturally, he chose the least outlandish of the two, which is the one the director wanted him to wear in the first place.

Look at the amount of time we've spent discussing this deck. Look at how in general that new joker seems to be well-liked. Who wants to wager that the second joker was their first choice all along and they put the worse one in front of USPC in order to soften them up enough to accept the second one without arguments?

The first joker seems more BBM though... you know what I mean? I could see that happening though. It's the classic "door in the face technique".