Gatsby77

Good point. Let's look at some older miniseries variants. Say...Star Wars Dark Empire Gold and Platinum. Does anyone care about any issues other than # 1? Or how about Marvel's The Dark Tower: Born sketch variants? Does anyone care about any issues other than # 1?

Also - that this Spider-Man is a "failure" for just now crossing $300 million domestic is bunk. By that measure, it's done better domestically than either of Andrew Garfield's Spidey films and cost less than either. And F is for Fake nails it -- this was a rebuilding film after three bad movies. Spider-Man 3's enormous box office was due to audience goodwill built from the first two good films. This film had the opposite to overcome, similar to what another take on Fantastic Four would face. And it did!

Huh...I disagree with your premise. Even the non-comic nerds I know didn't like Iron Fist. But they didn't like it in its totality, _after_ they watched it. Many watched it at first out of curiosity, especially that of seeing a practicing white Buddhist. People tuned into Iron Fist on the strength of Daredevil 1 & 2. Of _course_ they watched it in its first month. That doesn't mean they liked the overall product, or that they'll tune in for another season. Fool me twice, after all...

I thought it wasn't. Doesn't that honor go to Iron Fist # 14 ($.35 cent variant)?

I don't see the non-key variant comics ever taking off. I think the litmus test will be in another 10 years with the current Valiant Entertainment books. How much will folks be able to sell their full set of limited 1:10 X-O Manowar volume 2 # 1-20 editions when they're currently on volume 4? Or even with Marvel and the "Mile High Comics" Star Wars variants. Let's say you have a full set of what? 12 issues? 20? 10 years from now, who will care? And what's the delta over the cost of a 1-20 normal set?

The Phelps betrayal is what *made* Mission Impossible -- nobody saw that coming. The problem that movie had is that they killed off his team in the opening sequence, so the rest of the film was more a Tom Cruise movie than a true "Mission Impossible" one. That same issue is a large reason why 2 sucked as well. (Still, we all owe a great debt to Mission Impossible 2 for giving us Hugh Jackman as Wolverine rather than Dougray Scott). They fixed this going forward, though. Mission Impossible 3-5 are all legit team films. On Tom Cruise in general, it's worth resurrecting this piece from Scott Mendselson two years ago: Tom Cruise Hasn't Had a Real Flop in Nearly 30 Years. Since then he's had two movies under-perform (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back and The Mummy) but Mendelson has defended both of those as well (he notes that The Mummy has made well over 3x its production budget worldwide -- not great, but not anywhere near a flop. It's also one of the few films ever to gross more than $400 million worldwide while making less than $100 million U.S.).

Yeah - I think this is ultimately small potatoes. Because if you're using GPA as gospel for accurate pricing, you're doing it wrong. There's already a huge built-in skew with books under $100 because shipping costs can vary between $0 and $20. So one book "selling" for $60 (with $20 shipping) is the same as that same book selling for $80 (with free shipping) -- often within a few days of each other.

Watched only the first episode so far and wasn't impressed. For reference - I loved Daredevil 1+2, really liked Jessica Jones, thought Luke Cage was merely okay and _hated_ Iron Fist. I'm sure it will pick up but dang do they seem to be taking their sweet time putting the team together. Bright spot? Sigourney Weaver. Doubt she'll be able to match David Tennant but it'll be fun to see if she can...

I've been trying to build a solid NM (9.4 or better) set of the Gold Key Magnus Robot Fighter run for the last five years. About 15 months ago I basically finished, and now have # 1-46 in average 9.6, with only three books remaining below 9.4. Predictably, these are all drawn from the lesser collected 1970s reprints: # 33 (9.0) # 37 (9.2) # 46 (9.0) I posted this in the "Want to Buy" section yesterday but I wanted to highlight this here as well as a call to dealers and others who may have high-grade raws sitting in their boxes somewhere. I'm getting really frustrated with Magnus # 46 (the last issue). I've bought 4 copies of Magnus 46 and slabbed two -- nothing's yet broken the 9.0 threshhold. Despite what the CGC Census says, the highest graded copy is currently a 9.0 -- the 9.4 was a label mistake on one of my submissions that they never removed. I currently own three of the four highest-graded copies of this book (in CGC 9.0, 8.5, and 8.0). Please let me know if you have 9.4 potentials of any of these three books. Specifcally, here's what I'm willing to pay for Magnus # 46: Raw 9.2 -- $50 Raw 9.4 -- $80 If you have a high-grade copy & slab it yourself, even better. For that, I'll pay: CGC 9.2 -- $150 CGC 9.4 -- $250 CGC 9.6 -- $400

On The Walking Dead - Everything Lazyboy said. The Walking Dead wasn't even close to a hit in 2003 (or even 2005). And it didn't become a break-out bestseller until after the show debuted in 2010. Regardless, it's one title. And even Kirkman has been unable to duplicate his success so far -- which demonstrates exactly how he's not "the next Marvel" any more than was Dave Sim, with his landmark 300 issue run on Cerebus. Here's the list of the Top 300 comic book titles for May. https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/37771/top-300-comics-actual-may-2017 There are precisely three non-Marvel/DC books in the top 100. The Walking Dead (# 10) Seven to Eternity (# 79) Paper Girls (# 91) And Kirkman's other title, Outcast? Hanging out # 127 with well under 18,000 copies ordered. Yup -- certainly have a challenger to Marvel there. Yup...

Huh? What broader impact has it had on the comic book industry? It's a single title that has broken into the top 10 consistently, and spawned a popular TV show (for now). The comic industry still relies on superheroes and the comic book movie arms race between Marvel/Disney/Sony/WB would still have occurred if Walking Dead had never been printed. It has had nowhere near the cultural impact that TMNT did. Hell - Walking Dead hasn't even had a large impact on Image comics, whereas TMNT led to an entire B+W self-published indie explosion and subsequent crash. *Maybe* you could make the argument that Walking Dead's success helped lead Jim Lee to sell Wildstorm to DC, which has led to comicdom being gifted by tons of Jim Lee runs on Batman, Superman, All-Star, Justice League, etc. But even that's a huge stretch. Even Kirkman himself hasn't been able to duplicate his success -- Thief of Thieves was a hot hit by speculators for a few months and then flamed out and Haunt bombed, despite McFarlane's involvement. What, exactly, has The Walking Dead done for the industry at large?

You didn't miss anything with Spectre. Disappointing and utterly forgettable.

Again, y'all -- common and expensive are two very different things. AF 15s are common by early (pre-1966) Silver Age standards. Sure - not as common as Daredevil 1, but readily available if you have the cash. There are books out there from the same time period, that would take even connected dealers two weeks or more to locate in decent shape even if price were not an issue (say...offering 4x current FMV). That's the difference.

I don't count Kirkman as a new "Marvel Comics" because he's mostly a one-hit-wonder (along with Invincible) Walking Dead is a monster hit, but so was TMNT -- and no one claimed that Mirage Studios was "another Marvel." And I'd dispute that The Walking Dead "changed comics." I've seen very little of its influence of on mainstream books. And that's okay. It's original. Like TMNT before it, it's its own thing.

So you're cherry-picking the 5 years out of 40 that Star Trek popularity trumped that of Star Wars? Yeah - I was there in 1984-87 as well. Picked up my first few Power of the Force figures for $.99 each out of a bin at Kiddie City because Kenner had pulled the license. And The Next Generation was a game-changer that resurrected Trek for a few years, leading to a few more TV series. Doesn't change that Star Wars has toasted Star Trek from the moment of its inception (compare Star Wars to Star Trek: The Motion Picture alone) through to today. Hey look - here's the inflation-adjusted domestic grosses of every Star Trek film. Only one has broken $300 million and that's the 2009 Star Trek film. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm&adjust_yr=2017&p=.htm Even the worst Star Wars film (Attack of the Clones by box office) made over $450 million (adjusted for inflation).

Yeah - but Shadroch's point is still spot-on. Star Trek was a failed TV show that morphed into a mediocre film series. Sure, it got a _lot_ better once The Next Generation came out in 1987, but the movies never took took off with consistency. Even today the overall Star Trek franchise pales relative to Star Wars. The most successful of the latest trilogy (Into Darkness) made $50 million+ less _worldwide_ than Rogue One did domestically. And the domestic grosses of all three Star Trek films put together was far less than The Force Awakens domestic take. That's not "both ending up winners at the finish line." The two aren't comparable except that they're both space-based sci fi.

I missed Aparo in the '70s but he was the definitive Batman artist of my childhood (late '80s-early '90s). His run on Batman in the 400s was a classic, with a string of memorable stories including 10 Nights of the Beast, Death in the Family, Lonely Place of Dying, Knightfall, and more. When I picture Batman, it's always his version.

Best news about this is the Russo Brothers...who got their start directing Arrested Development.

That's helpful, thanks. I've got a 7/10 mst received. Went to "graded" on 8/14.

But that's the point - you _can't_ take Disney out of the equation to support the argument is "Hollywood is failing because it only does reboots and sequels." That'd be like taking Marvel out of the equation to support the argument "people don't like superhero movies." Also, it was just two years ago that two studios dominated the blockbusters, not just one. In 2015 Disney had the # 1, 3 and 4 films, but Universal had # 2, 5, and 6. More than that, Universal not only topped $1 billion in yearly revenue faster than any studio in history that year, it became the first studio ever to top $1 billion each worldwide for three separate movies. I'm pretty sure that year, RedDwarf would have said "you can't count Disney or Universal." And (going with the theme) 5 of the top 6 films of 2015 were reboots or sequels. Hell, 11 of the top 12 films were reboots or sequels. Inside Out (# 4) was the only original film. Then you had to go down to The Revenant at # 13. It boils down to this: judging "summer movie releases" means nothing anymore because (for the third time) studios now release some of their heaviest hitters (from Fast & the Furious to Star Wars to Blade Runner to Thor) well outside of summer. f people really wanted to see strong alternative fare like Atomic Blonde, it would have made more than $50 million in its first three weeks of release.

No one ever said relative to COMIC BOOKS AS A WHOLE. Valiantman said "More times than I can count, I have seen it said on this board that books like Amazing Fantasy #15 are "plentiful" and "available every day of the week." He also set up that it's unfair to compare it to Golden Age books, so I posted some comparable (albeit minor) Silver Age keys. And what he said is true. You could easily buy a copy of AF 15 every day for a year without breaking a sweat. There are _many_ other Silver Age books for which that is not true. So, AF 15 is indeed "plentiful" -- it's just expensive. And nice straw man on the "I don't see AF 15s in any comic book stores around me so it's not common." mess, son, I haven't seen _any_ comic store with decent pre-1975 back issues since 2004. That's irrelevant because the whole back issue market has long since moved online -- to ebay and the usual auction houses. You might as well say, "I can't watch that movie because the video rental place doesn't carry it." mess - Heritage even has a CGC 4.0 Incredible Hulk # 1 in its Sunday auction this week -- a far rarer book than AF 15 and yet it doesn't even rate waiting until its next Signature auction. Just another Sunday on a random weekend in August...

Sigh... I count 18 slabbed unrestored slabbed copies graded at least 1.0 available via ebay alone. Right now. That, in comic book terms, is common. You know what's less common? Detective Comics # 233 (1st Batwoman). 5 copies (slabbed or raw) available via ebay right now. _That_ is what we're talking about. You know what's 5x harder to find in Fine (slabbed or raw) or above than AF 15? Superboy 68 (first Bizarro). 14 copies (slabbed and raw) total on ebay right now. Precisely zero (slabbed or raw) in Fine or better. _That_ is what we're talking about. Even among other Silver Age superhero books, AF 15 is common. "Valuable" and "common" are different things; both however, are relative.

Huh. Benson's a better writer than Fleming and arguably a better plotter than Gardner. But I wish they'd gone with the first of the "Union trilogy" rather than the third. The first in that series, which introduces The Union and their blind leader Le Gerrant, was probably my favorite James Bond story ever. It'd make for a decent film because, like Casino Royale, it's a quieter story. After the first two action set pieces, the bulk of the story takes place during an ascent of (basically) K2 to retrieve the macguffin. It's essentially a psychological drama among three British intelligence agents during the climb -- featuring Bond, another officer, and a female doctor who sleeps with both of them. Check it out. It'll give you the background on the Union and Le Gerrant as well.

So you're literally exempting all Disney films (which captures Marvel/Star Wars/Beauty & the Beast) from your calculus? That's idiotic. Disney produced 4 of the top 5 of last year. And guess what? Every one of them was a reboot or a sequel. They were: Rogue One (# 1) Finding Dory (# 2) Captain America: Civil War (# 3) The Jungle Book (# 5) But back to this year. 15 of the top 20 films of 2017 so far by worldwide gross were (all of which grossed more than $300 million+) were reboots or sequels. Let's go deeper. Of the 11 films so far that have grossed more than $500 million worldwide, 10 have been reboots or sequels. The literal lone exception among those 11 films is Wonder Woman. So, as far as Hollywood is concerned, the formula works. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. Hollywood overwhelmingly produces reboots and sequels so they end up on top), but the reality is even original blockbusters like The Boss Baby and Dunkirk haven't come close to reaching the current top 10 films of the year. And at # 19, War for the Planet of the Apes (a sequel) was not only a better film but also made money, unlike vs. # 18, Matt Damon's folly of an original film, The Great Wall. The data simply don't support what you're saying.

This. Exactly this. The reboots and sequels _do_ work, but the issue is that formerly "summer tentpole" releases come out literally every week or two now. The market can't support them all, so the bad ones crash and a few good ones (Planet of the Apes 3) get overlooked. And I had to be very careful in my "summer movie" analysis earlier because it's hard to argue that Fate of the Furious was a summer movie when it came out in mid-April. But it arguably kicked off the "summer tentpole" season. And for the record -- Beauty & the Beast is indeed a reboot. And explaining away the Marvel superhero films as "exceptions" doesn't help. It's there in black and white - 4 of the top 5 biggest movies of the year so far are reboots and sequels -- Wonder Woman stands alone. So Hollywood has literally _every_ incentive to continuing producing them. More interesting is that the # 1 movie of the year will likely (again) be a Star Wars sequel, yet released in December. As Jaybuck notes, that is as much as "summer movie" as Blade Runner or Fate of the Furious.