sfcityduck

To me the best part of the film was the three Spider-Man's. Otherwise, the film was a bit of a drag and the reboot at the end was super-annoying to me. (Reminded me of how they got out of the MJ marriage.) But the three Spider-Man's was pretty awesome. So for me, that meeting was not something to be overcome, it was something to be celebrated. To each their own.

The things you dislike were the central storyline of the last Spider-Man. It would not have been made without them.

Disagree. Stan Lee was a vocal supporter of civil rights. Some readers had your view back in the 1960s. One wrote a letter to complain about Marvel’s support for civil rights stating “I’m not a racist, just a concerned Marvelite who doesn’t want his favorite comic company to be ruined by something that doesn’t concern you as comic publishers.” Sounds exactly like your point. Stan Lee's response? This in a 1969 letters page: Stan didn't stop trying. Shortly before he died he posted a viedo stating: "Marvel has always been and always will be a reflection of the world right outside our window. That world may change and evolve, but the one thing that will never change is the way we tell our stories of heroism. Those stories have room for everyone, regardless of their race, gender or color of their skin. The only things we don’t have room for are hatred, intolerance and bigotry.” 'nuff said. Lots of very profitable and entertaining move and tv products also provided important social and political messages. And nothing in Marvel/Disney is "angry." Quite the opposite.

I hate time travel and multi-verse's when they are not done well (Avengers, Rip Hunter) but Loki is doing it very well. Latest Spiderman did it well. Miles Morales did a fantastic job. Wandavision didn't go down that road at all. Nor did Hawkeye. I dunno, the outrage seems selective since you guys seem to have loved Avengers and the many Spidermans. And the MC comic universe has been on this road for 40 years. So hard for Marvel to avoid it. Still, while I share your frustration with reboots and time travel and multiverse stories, I can still appreciate the creativity and entertainment value of Loki! Not sure how anyone could not. Disney went out on a limb with that one and I am glad they did.

The title of this thread is "The Top 5 M-SHE-U Failures." Your response is self-contradictory. I think this thread has everything to do with female characters. If it didn't you wouldn't be complaining about the MCU being "too female" and about "female dominance." I have no problem with strong female characters or movies about females. In the MCU, the vast majority of films to date have centered on males. It took the MCU until its 20th film to give a female a significant title lead. Since that time only 6 of 12 films (50%) have arguably been female centered. I have no problem giving women a chance for a while. Not sure why anyone would. Your complaint about "too female" and "female dominance" is more than bit overstated and shrill.

I always assumed the EC logo was a copy of the DC 1940s bullet, but I also thought that those logos were copied from railroads who used round logos because of the engines:

Is there a shortage of AF 15s? I'd wait for better page quality.

How? Face Facts: Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk were never great properties. Kudos to Disney for taking a creative risk. Disney did a great job with Wandavision, Loki, and Hawkeye post-retirement. I enjoyed them all immensely. Fans like fan service movies. But they are often creatively bankrupt. Disney has shown a willingness to take risks to freshen a stale MCU up. Fans here who think the solution to all storytelling problems is just to recast and tell the same stories from their childhood over and over again aren't living in a creative world. I prefer worlds where creatives are empowerd to take a creative risks. That's what leads to great comics and movies. The real cautionary tale for Marvel fans is the four FF failures that were created without Disney's involvement. The best FF films were the Incredibles movies made by Disney.

Real insightful answer. Here's the thing Disney bought Marvel in 2009 and the facts are that: Marvel invented the Invisible Girl in its very first SA superhero comic; Marvel invented female Ant-Man in 1963 (the Wasp); Marvel invented Jean Grey of X-Men in 1963; Marvel invented Scarlet Witch in 1963; Marvel invented Valkyrie (a She-Thor) in 1970; Marvel invented important femail Gaurdians of the Galaxy in the 1960s and 1970s; Marvel invented other important female X-Men in the 1970s and 1980s; Marvel invented Ms. Marvel Carol Danvers in 1977 (1st) and again with Sharon Ventura in 1985 (2nd); Marvel invented Spider-Woman in 1977; Marvel invented She-Hulk in 1979; and Marvel invented Capt. Marvel Monica Rambeau in 1982. All before Disney bought Marvel. I could go on. And yet you guys are fixated on blaming Disney for female superheroes? You should be grateful to Marvel for embracing diversity. Stan Lee and Marvel had the right values. I can't blame Disney for following the well-trod path Marvel forged and putting out movies like the Miles Morales Spiderman with Spider-Gwen etc. which as a total blast! That movie made the folks on this site who were freaking out that there could be Spider-folks who weren't Peter Parker look more than a little silly. I am pleased that Disney is willing to take risks. There are only so many times you can tell the same story over and over. Disney products like Star Wars Andor, Wandavision, and Loki have been brilliant additions to old stale universes. Shows like Daredevil (a non-cinematic but old stand-by character) haven't. Disney gets to call the shots and if some lose money (and I'm not sure that any have) so what? A show like Andor that isn't as popular as some others adds to the Star Wars legend. So too with Wandavision and Loki for the MCU. Brilliant stuff that broke molds. Not true for a lot of MCU tv and movies which aren't aging real well.

They still have work to do but they are on track. The documentary makers could not have dreamt up a better ending to that game. I have read the doc is making Rob and Ryan around the same $ they are losing on the team. No doubt that Season 2 will have a much larger viewership. And the profit/loss equation improves with promotion because income increases for the club and, ironically, costs likely go down.

What industry? The film industry is known for using independent contractors.

What are you guys complaining Disney did again? With all the whining I am not sure what outraged anyone.

“Per employee?” l’d agree if you were saying revenue matters less than profit. But who cares about the number of employees? They are just one element of cost.

Not quite original since he started Mad in 1963 but Sergio A. Still going strong.

Wow. What a long life. I hope he enjoyed it all. I certainly enjoyed mangling Mad Magazines to see the fold-in's!

It only takes two irrational bidders to lead to an irrational result. After all, comics have no value other than what someone is willing to pay on any given day. There is no fundamental or intrinsic value to a comic. So outliers are common. And the CGC 9.8 key market is full of irrationality.

Seems pretty obvious that prices have fallen considerably on a wide swath of books across the grades. So much so, that I think the title of this thread should be: "Are prices still falling or have they stiffened up a bit?" Sure some mega-keys are still moving upward with leaps and bounds, but those books are a price point where the only people who buy them are immune to general economic trends and have no need to make rational decisions, so they are not a good indicator at all. In contrast, a GS X-Men 1 in mid-grade is a pretty good indicator of what ordinary collectors might be willing to splurge on. And those prices are falling.

As was just stated the Bolsheviks reflected the ethnic make-up of their society. Trotsky was Jewish but Lenin and Stalin who won the power struggles were not. Kirby and Lee’s ancestors were Russian Jews but they were both born in the US. All of that is academic to zephyr’s argument because when CA 1 came out the USSR was still in bed with Hitler. That is why there were comics like this:

The USSR was first on team Hitler in WWII working with him in carving up Poland. Then the Nazi’s invaded.Russia AFTER CA 1 came out. So seems doubtful that Nazi sympathizers upset with the CA1 cover were upset due to anti-Communist sympathy. More likely they were just anti-Jewish bigots. Did not know that Jewish Jacob Kurtzberg born in the USA was the same ethnicity as non-Jewish Russian Lenin and Georgian Stalin. LoL! Again doubt that is why CA1 was attacked by Nazi sympathizing “America firsters’” who favored US isolation and abandoning England and France. FDR, history shows, got US entry into WWII right and so did Timely.

It doesn't. But Heritage says it is.

You've been saying it for quite a long time. I think you've spent more time on this thread than you have watching the show. Needless to say, many folks disagree. All shows have their fans and detractors.

As a practical matter, the highest grade an old collectible book from the 1930s could get is "Fine." See below grading scale. And, yes, I have some 1930s books with immaculate dust jackets.

Hey! I was born in 1966. Us old geezers can handle more than a just a run around a neighborhood a couple times a year. It's better for things of that vintage to run around a bit more frequently. Enjoy it!

Thanks for the answer. But I'm still mystified as to what the criteria for a "provenance status" is. To me, good marketing is based on factual claims, not pure puffery. I see so many false claims in the comic world it makes me wonder if this hobby is populated by suckers. So many false claims are made that have been thoroughly debunked on this site. An example: On March 26 Heritage sold this Action 61: The description?: Action Comics #61 (DC, 1943) CGC Conserved VG 4.0 Off-white pages. This classic Atomic radiation Superman cover is by Jack Burnley. Only one problem: That cover is from June 1943 (e.g., before the A-Bomb or radiation scares). That's an oil field fire cover not an atomic radiation cover. The background shows four oil drilling rigs in the background. The men are wearing classic oil fire firefighting gear. Superman is dropping down to plug a pipe going down into the earth that is clearly on fire (a chemical reaction) not emitting radiation. This "radiation cover" B.S. has been debunked on this site repeatedly and the error pointed out to Heritage, CGC, and OPG. I believe Clink even fixed its description once when this error was pointed out to them. And yet, dealers love to call this a "radiation cover" in the hopes that A-Bomb collectors (like me) will be suckered into buying it. To its credit, CGC does not call it a "radiation cover" or try to link to the A-Bomb. Heritage, to its shame does. That's not marketing. That misrepresenting. A different example: On March 19 Heritage sold this: The description? Four Color #386 Uncle Scrooge (Dell, 1952) CGC VF+ 8.5 Off-white to white pages. Uncle Scrooge in "Only a Poor Old Man", with a Carl Barks story, cover (Uncle Scrooge's fist cover appearance), and art. Only one problem: FC 386 is NOT Uncle Scrooge's first cover appearance. Not even close. More like his fifth. This one has also been debunked many times on this site. It is a monumentally dumb claim that's obviously false because seven issues before FC 386 this comic came Scrooge was on the cover of FC 379. FC 386 isn't even the first scrooge cover by Barks. Barks did the cover of FC 353 (33 issues before FC 386), a Duck Album, with Scrooge on the cover. And there were Scrooge covers before that. Yet this false claim is repeatedly made by Heritage and dealers even though CGC does not call FC 386 the first Scrooge cover. Not marketing just misrepresentation. I'm just tired of seeing false claims repeated so often that lazy folks begin to believe them. Describing this Fantast collection as one of the "greatest collections" ever is just plain dumb. We ought not let that kind of "puffery" pass unchallenged.

It's truer than you think if you read the volumes of Tolkien's notes and unfinished tales. Face facts, there are only a few pages about this time period published during Tolkien's own lifetime.