Gatsby77

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.

Has a network bought it yet?

The problem here with book # 2s can be seen with select Golden Age books. That at a higher price point they have a much thinner market (people able & wiilling to afford them) -- so the prices actually become more volatile simply because they don't trade as frequently. If a book # 2 only trades once every two years or so in a given grade , and yet bidders still use "last sale" prices on GPA as a price anchor, the book can miss out on normal expected price increases simply because of lack of sales volume to establish a price. This is especially true if 1-2 prospective bidders drop out. Silver Age Marvels, by comparison -- are very easy to value because there's enough trading volume to set an accurate price -- they are more liquid than some older -- and far rarer -- counterparts. Example: All-American Comics # 17, CGC 6.0. Second appearance of the Green Lantern - decent Golden Age book. GPA shows the _exact same copy_ sold in Feb. 2007 for $3,650, then again in Dec. 2016 for $5,000. That's a mere 37% increase over more than 9.5 years. That's about 3.5% per year. With more sales volume (say, 1-2 copies sold per year) I argue the book would have had much greater appreciation and a far more established, "stable" price.

But that logic doesn't hold when some sequels and reboots did well. Three of the year's top five films are sequels: Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Despicable Me 3. And the biggest movie of the year so far -- Beauty and the Best -- was a reboot. Four of those five were released this summer. In contrast, Baby Driver's barely broken $100 million and Atomic Blonde *might* end its run at $60 million domestic. I don't blame Hollywood for trying to reduce risk by going with proven properties -- it's more an issue of too many studios releasing too many $100 million box office films. We've reached a point where the summer movie season begins in April (this year, with Fate of the Furious) and there's literally a wannabe blockbuster released every weekend. So you roll the dice. If anything I think we're seeing more quality low-to-mid-budget films than in prior years (Baby Driver, Split, last year's Hell or High Water) alongside every Transformers or Fast & The Furious sequel.

But books like IH 181, ASM 129, even Daredevil 1 _are_ ridiculously common. And -- this is a separate point -- I'm not sure any of them are destined to continue to rise in value. Hell - I only started collecting in 1989 but that means I've been in this hobby long enough to see ASM 129 precipitously decline in value twice. Maybe not in Overstreet's, but in real market terms when the character was cold. And anyone who doubts the market fluctuation of ASM 300 needs only look at the thread on this here boards that asked a year and a half ago whether someone would prefer ASM 300, Batman Adventures 12 or New Mutants 98. Check the relative values of those three books and the conventional wisdom then (i.e., page 1) vs. now. What I see is what Lizards pointed out -- value being driven primarily by momentum shifts among dealers/flippers, etc. As new movies are announced the momentum (and market value) goes to the latest speculative property. And then cools when the movie (or TV show) passes. Also "common" is a relative term, but I see eBay + auction houses as a good proxy. If I can find more than 3-4 copies of a book for sale at any given time in less than 10 minutes, it's common. Might be expensive, but common nonetheless. Example of common? ASM 1, AF 15, Hulk 181. Not so common? Marvel $.30 or $.35 variants; DC Silver Age Romance titles, etc. TL:DR -- Don't conflate "expensive" with "uncommon" -- they are two separate things.

This is the natural evolution of things, because the best writing today is being done for TV, not film. Last week Disney announced that it was releasing its own streaming service (so...pulling its films from Netflix, cable, etc.). And today Shonda Rhimes announced an exclusive deal with Netflix. With that level of quality available at the push of a button, it takes something truly special to get people off the couch and willing to drive to a theater, (potentially) pay for parking, then shell out $14 or more for a ticket.

Great book and great buy!

I was going to let this go but...I can't. Watchmen was adapted to film *several times*? Prove it. Of course Civil War and Logan aren't Millarworld properties. The significance is that...out of the _hundreds_ of Wolverine stories, Fox chose to adapt one of Millar's original storylines for a major movie. And it's an apt comparison, because the previous Wolverine movie was a loose adaptation of Frank Miller's Wolverine mini. With the same director and same star, Millar's Logan story housed The Wolverine at the box office. That doesn't mean anything except -- more people saw the latter film. Ditto with Civil War -- it's not just that Disney chose _that_ story out of the hundreds of Cap stories to adapt -- it's that, when it came time for Marvel to construct their once-a-decade full company crossover, they selected Mark Millar to write it in the first place. Just as they selected him (and Bendis) to launch the entire Ultimate Universe. And who cares that few people know who Mark Millar is -- few people _ever_ know who the writer is. That doesn't mean they're not influential through the stories they tell. For anyone under the age of 40 who isn't a comic book geek (i.e. 98% of the population), Millar has shaped their understanding of superheroes more than has Frank Miller.

Sigh... I'd challenge your stat about Watchmen. Yes - the comic is ground-breaking and arguably one of the best comic book stories ever to hit the medium. Nothing Millar has written has come close. It boils down to this: Hollywood success trumps comic book success. Period. And today, among non-comic collectors, _far_ more people are familiar with Civil War due to the film's worldwide success. It made more than $1.1 billion worldwide. Even adjusting for inflation that smokes Watchmen's less than $200 million worldwide gross in 2009. So (on screen) it is _by far_ the bigger property than Watchmen. Hell - Logan's domestic gross alone was bigger than Watchmen's worldwide take (again, not a fair comparison since it doesn't adjust for inflation but still...) Even Wanted - a nearly unknown comic book property -- grossed nearly double worldwide than did the Watchmen movie -- and that is a fair comparison, since it came out 9 months earlier. I'm not saying Millar's movies *should* be more successful than Miller's. (I actually don't believe that). I'm simply saying that they *are*. And it's no accident that Netflix has chosen to move into even more comic book adaptions by licensing *Mark Millar's* IP rather than *Frank Miller's.* Their comparative box office receipts aren't close to comparable, even when you factor in The Dark Knight Returns' influence on Nolan's trilogy. Miller's screenplays killed the Robocop franchise, which killed his Hollywood career for nearly 20 years. Miller himself then killed his directing career with The Spirit. By comparison, Millar's sitting on two active film franchises (Wanted and Kingsman) and sas a Netflix development deal. he then moonlights by having Fox and Disney pick _his_ stories for their major Wolverine, Captain America and FF films.

I don't disagree with you with regard to comic books. As a comic book scribe, Millar never struck me as anything more than decent, with some good ideas and reliably good execution -- hell, I even prefer Bendis. But in terms of real pop culture influence, he has now surpassed Alan Moore, Gaiman, and Miller. On the strength of his movies. And he's done it with multiple comic book film franchises. The sad fact is comic books themselves are dying a slow death, even as comic book-based movies are nearing their apex. And in that realm, Millar (esp. now with his Netflix deal) reigns supreme. The only other creator who surpasses him is David Goyer - but I don't count him because he started as a screenwriter rather than a comic book scribe. Still - he is the primary force to be reckoned with in terms of layperson public understanding of superheroes (Blade Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Man of Steel, Ghost Rider 2, forthcoming Green Lantern Corps., etc.).

Nah - I agree with Paul747 here. Kirkman's a one-hit-wonder. Nothing wrong with that, as Eastman and Laird were also a one-hit-wonder, but one TMNT or The Walking Dead does not a "Marvel Comics" make. And I actually agree that Millar is poised to have the biggest single influence on pop culture as a whole. What he's done is remarkable -- and something that Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman and other far better regarded comic book writers have attempted but failed -- built a universe of major films out of his stories. Level one: gotten movies made of his original properties (Wanted, Kick-, Kingsman). Difficult, but doable -- fairly unremarkable relative to the above list. But then there's Level two: Out of 40-60 years of Marvel comics stories, he's quietly had several arcs that he wrote selected for major movie adaptations (Civil War, Logan, arguably the last FF movie). And that's not even included animated series and films like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimate Avengers. Frank Miller wishes he could have matched that level of Hollywood success.

Yeah - it's a December 2008 Marvel Studios production, although distributed by Lionsgate. Same situation as Incredible Hulk, which was also a 2008 Marvel Studios production, although distributed by Universal. Fun fact: It grossed less than Howard the Duck.

Exactly. Here's another example - who is the Punisher's archvillain? I actually don't know. I figure some people will say Kingpin, others will pull from Garth Ennis's various runs on the character. But for me (who grew up reading Punisher in the early '90s, l there's no contest -- it's Jigsaw). Quick - what's his first appearance? That's right - nobody cares. But it's ASM # 162, a book broken out for the early Punisher & Nightcrawler appearance but not for being Jigsaw's first appearance. Definitely key. Not valuable. But definitely key.