Gatsby77

I'm intrigued. Hpoing the other symbiotes are in this, though...

How does Marvel not own Man-Thing? The 2005 movie was produced by Avi Arad, Kevin Feige & Stan Lee and was distributed by Lionsgate in the same Artisan Entertainment deal that gave Lionsgate the rights to the two Punisher movies. if Punisher's now owned by Marvel, Man-Thing (and thus - Foolkilller!) should be as well.

Actually (as I and others have shown in this thread), BoxOfficeMojo's calculations aren't really based on the normal rate of inflation in the U.S., but rather the actual inflation rate of movie ticket prices. And this rate of change in movie ticket prices does price in things like the expansion of 3-D and IMAX screens. Still, it's far from precise -- especially for movies from the 1970s-1990s, when record-keeping on exact weekly takes was less precise (ironically, films released from the 1930s-1950s had more precise accounting than those of the 1980s-1990s). And, as BoxOfficeMojo itself notes, their calculations can't be used to compare relative popularity, as it could be thrown off by externalities: "Since these figures are based on average ticket prices they cannot take into effect other factors that may affect a movie's overall popularity and success. Such factors include but are not limited to: increases or decreases in the population, the total number of movies in the marketplace at a given time, economic conditions that may help or hurt the entertainment industry as a whole (e.g., war), the relative price of a movie ticket to other commodities in a given year, competition with other related medium such as the invention and advancements of Television, VHS, DVD, the Internet, etc… Still, this method best compares "apples to apples" when examining the history of box office earnings." Here's why I trust the rankings: 1) It's the best (and most widely-used) data I've seen comparing relative movie performance over time. Given that the industry itself uses real-time data reported to BoxOfficeMojo, it stands to reason that the inflation-adjusted rankings would also be trusted. 2) To the extent that it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate across-the-board. Think of a scale that's off by two pounds. It's still useful in comparing your weight gain or weight loss over a year, because all of the measurements would be equally off.

And by this time next week it will have surpassed The Dark Knight on the inflation-adjusted domestic list. Think about that -- as superb as The Dark Knight was, more people will ultimately have seen Black Panther.

Apologies if this has been discussed earlier, but I'm wondering about print runs for Darker Image # 1. Specifically, the relative print runs of: # 1 (regular) # 1 (regular, newsstand) # 1 (gold) # 1 (black and white/platinum) # 1 (ashcan) Any details regarding distribution or allocations would help too. Was # 1 gold a 1:50? 1:100? In part, I'm asking because I suspect that today # 1 gold is actually harder to find than # 1 (B+W), but that doesn't make sense to me. (And similar to how I think Supreme # 1 -- newsstand, without the foil -- is much harder to find than Supreme # 1 Gold.)

Isn't the solo Joker movie still a go? As in...even three weeks ago there were multiple articles about it: directed by Todd Phillips, produced by Scorsese, possibly with Joaquin Phoenix or Leo in the role? Out of all of this, I feel bad for Ezra Miller. He's a phenomenal actor (see We Need to Talk About Kevin) but his Peter-Parker-style characterization of The Flash in Justice League just rubbed me the wrong way. Wasn't his fault, mind you -- he did what was called for by the directors and -script, but... He could have been well on his way to headlining an amazing Flash 2 by now. Instead, we're left waiting to see if he'll still be around when they make a solo Flash film. Or maybe Gambit will come out first...

I'll admit...I didn't see this coming.

Good insights. Here's the thing, though. Everybody I knew bought New Mutants 98 (and 99, and 100) off the shelf -- with most of us buying more than one. Cable was the hottest thing going and that was coming right after his two-parter with Wolverine (my first issue off the rack), then X-Tinction Agenda (which was a must for anyone collecting Uncanny at the time). And by then we were hooked. New Mutants 98-100 were orders of magnitude more common than say...86-89, and we all loved them. Then again, nobody cared about Deadpool -- he was fun, but NM 98 was important because it was the first appearance of Domino. Same thing -- I hate myself because I bought five copies of NM 100 at a show this month for $4 apiece. I'd previously bought three off the rack -- _everybody_ bought in to that book since it was known as the first appearance of X-Force. Just strikes me as funny -- nobody speculated on X-Men 266, but in my area folks speculated on New Mutants 93-100 and Amazing Spider-man 361-363.

So the # 5 movie in America yesterday will be available on-demand in just three weeks? That's impressive. Back in the day you had to wait at least four months for a film to hit VHS.

Yeah - I hadn't looked up prices for Faust in about a decade and was shocked that raw 9.0s now go for less than $20 on eBay. I just assumed that # 1 first prints would have kept pace with increases of what I consider similar books -- like Crow 1 and Cry for Dawn 1. Also, wondering how much earlier your Chuck newsletters go. Asking because I'd be curious to see what he recommends for Nov. 1988 (Wolverine # 1 and Punisher War Journal # 1) and how much he hyped PWJ # 6 prior to release (as I remember his in-comic ads offering it it for $.99 (limit 5). My first issue of Comic Buyer's Guide came in spring 1989, and it noted that, after months, neither PWJ # 1 nor Wolverine # 1 were available for re-orders; and that PWJ # 1 had the highest print run of any modern book (before it was de-throned by Legends of the Dark Knight # 1 a year later). Just curious to read contemporaneous confirmation of those facts.

I started collecting the summer of 1989, so this resonates with me. Kills me how much the market's changed since. I went to a convention in DC last weekend and passed on Nick Fury vs. Shield # 1 and # 2 at $1 apiece, as well as copies of the Excalibur Trade (1st appearance) for $2. One book I did buy was Faust # 1 (first printing) signed by Tim Vigil -- for a whopping $8. Good times...

Put another way, Box Office Mojo calculates that while the general CPI hasn't doubled in the past 21 years, average movie ticket prices literally have...from $4.59 in 1997 to $9.18 today. I can believe that.

I disagree -- think you should see the movie before reading the book. Because there are enough changes that you'll be frustrated by what's left out in the movie if you have just read the book -- whereas if you see the movie first, you'll appreciate it on its merits, and then be pleasantly surprised by the greater depth given some scenes (and theatricial omissions) in the book.

They may never be scarce, but they do sell. I'm at Awesome Con in DC this weekend. It's 25 years after the comic bust of 1993. And Superman 75 is an easy sale at $10. Spawn 1 moves at $8-10. I hated myself on Friday when I paid $5 for a Youngblood # 1. This was the first mass-speculated book I ever saw -- to the extent that the day it was released, my LCS (which had ordered literally 1,000 copies) had signs out that said "Youngblood # 1 - Limit 5 per customer." Why did I buy it? It's now a $90 book in CGC 9.8. Even New Mutants # 100 is selling at $10. I don't know anyone collecting comic books that month who didn't buy at least two copies. So will they ever be strict "scarce?" (25-50 copies known?) No. Of course not. But it continually amazes me that -- eBay and all -- 25 years later some of the highest-printed books ever are legitimately selling for what they do.

I had fairly low expectations for this but really enjoyed the film. I think it improved on the book a _lot_, and it ways that make it both a stronger story and more accessible to non-geeks. Spielberg also (clearly) had a fun time making it. Worth seeing.

This. Also - Neal Adams is at Awesome Con in DC this weekend. He's charging $30 for a photo and $50 for a signature. It's cheaper to buy these types of books on the open market than to actually replicate them by getting them signed yourself.

The "Don't buy Batman" post is particularly funny to because I started buying Batman in 1989 -- mid-way through Year 3 with # 437. Granted, he was right about Death in the Family -- by the time the Batman movie hit prices peaked at: Batman 426 - $45 Batman 427 - $35 Batman 428 - $35 Batman 429 - $12 But, if you weren't buying Batman off the rack in 1989-1990, you missed out on A Lonely Place of Dying (increases in Batman 442 and New Teen Titans 60-61) and (in 1990) Robin # 1, which quickly went from $1 to $12. As everyone knows, Tim Burton's movie was a monster hit that also lifted _all_ Batman back issues (but esp. Joker covers going back to the Golden Age) and buoyed comic collecting as a whole.

Makes me very nervous for The New Mutants. The trailer had me really excited - I was more jazzed to see it than Dark Phoenix, Deadpool or Ant-Man & the Wasp. But now to push it back a full year?? Not a good sign.

Three days to go... I'm shocked by how little buzz this film seems to be getting (not just here on the boards but generally)...

While we're on the topic, here's the published breakdown of Guardians of the Galaxy's budget from the same source: $195.9 million (noted as "$30 million over its original budget"). http://deadline.com/2015/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-profit-box-office-2014-1201391217/ https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/mm_guardians Might be time to revise your chart...

Interesting. Thanks for posting that.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure it was the profitable movie last year; my post was mainly whether it qualifed as a blockbuster -- which some could limit to "studio tentpole" or "film that cost $100 million+ designed to make $300 million+ domestic." Profitablity =/= blockbuster, else the dozen or so low-budget horror movies (Blumhouse or not) would all be *blockbusters.* Example: Don't Breathe (2016). Reportely cost <$10 million. Grossed $89 million domestic, $157 million WW. Profitable. Not a blockbuster.

Then the next obvious choice would be -- voice of the Silver Surfer. (And would explain his late addition to the cast.) I'd be okay with that, although I liked Lawrence Fishburn voicing the Surfer back in FF 2.

Those may all be well and good. But I'd wager without lookinig at the list that Get Out was the most profitable blockbuster last year. $176 million domestic gross on a reported $4.5 million budget. Oh - and it one an Oscar for Best Screenplay and nominations for Best Director, Actor, and Picture. And for those who claim "it wasn't a blockbuster," recall that $176 million domestic is more than 75% of Justice League's $229 million domestic total.

1) Given his pivotal role in Infinity Gauntlet, I'd kill to see Silver Surfer in this movie. 2) With Peter Dinklage cast in an unidentified role (presumably Pip), what's the over/under that we'll see Warlock? I'm thinking it'll end a la Infinity Gauntlet # 4, our heroes defeated, and then the Celestials (possibly modified to include Silver Surfer, Captain Marvel & Warlock) show up. Roll credits.