Gatsby77

Hmm...if true - smart move by Warner Brothers. I am a huge David Ayer fan (esp. for Training Day), but man did he mess the bed with Suicide Squad.

$250 .

There have been a few articles posted since the trailer speculating as to whether the figure appearing before Alfred at the end is Superman or Hal Jordan. I think we'll see both in this film -- and it goes back to my speculation surrounding that early Aquaman poster -- "Unite the Seven." Sure -- that could just mean the 7 seas, but that doesn't really make sense in the context of what we know of the movie so far. They later changed the tagline to "Unite the League" and the trailer even pokes fun at our general knowledge of the 7 core members with the "How many of you are there?" "Enough" bit.

I'm sure it doesn't make sense for _Mile High_ to exhibit at SDCC anymore, but my understanding is he doesn't have the type of vintage Golden Age or good decent Silver Age stock that would justify the table expenses. And didn't he just primarily stock trade paperbacks the last few years anyway? Just saying ... the loss of Chuck to me isn't dispositive.

It's not like the general public knew who the characters in half the Marvel movies (or Suicide Squad) even. Won't matter. It's all in the -script. Make a solid well-written movie. Then intro Black Adam in the sequel. See what Nolan did with his Batman trilogy -- origin story in the first, holding back the Joker until the second one.

I actually support this. Build up to it organically. Build audience familiarity with Shazam - have them root for him. Then wow them with Black Adam in the sequel. aka be like Marvel - don't rush things unnecessarily.

Nah. Heroes was the superhero game changer for network television. This looks like it belongs on the Sci-Fi channel.

I encourage y'all to look up Whedon's Wonder Woman -script, which is online. Not a train wreck, but not _nearly_ as good as what we saw on screen this year. In the end, I think we _all_ benefited from not seeing a Whedon WW back in 2008.

Yeah - not bad considering Guardians 2 grossed 40% more its opening weekend. But WW was the better movie to me. In fact, best I've seen this year, edging out Get Out by a nose (WW's more re-watchable). That said, I expect Dunkirk will top both of them for me.

Still looks like weak sauce. Not Valiant "Ninjak vs." web series bad, but close... Makes me long for Heroes Season 1 instead

I like Channing Tatum, but in what world is he supposed to make a better Van Helsing than Hugh Jackman?

Agree with you 100% on FF. I actually think the property is one of the most difficult -- if not impossible -- to translate to the screen, because it's _so_ 1960s cheesy. Probably The Incredibles is the closest we'll ever see to it done well -- and that worked because it was a) animated and b) embraced the cheese. 100% disagree with you on Spidey. 1) What "mixed word of mouth?" It's at 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes with a 91% audience score. That's a win, clearly ranking as second-best among critics. Compare to: Spider-Man 2: 94% Spider-Man: 89% Amazing Spider-Man: 72% Spider-Man 3: 63% Amazing Spider-Man 2: 52% I've been surprised by some of the negative reviews on this board, but they mostly seem to be from 35-45 year-olds who don't like that this Spidey is a legit teenager here. 2) And yes - Holland has the charisma to pull off Spidey, as did Garfield. To me, Garfield's best work is still his break-out role in The Social Network, where he stole every seen he was in, but he has shown far more range and charisma in a very short career than has Tobey Maguire -- who has never really evolved beyond his "aw shucks" wide-eyed Peter Parker schtick. That could be okay, but (for instance) Maguire was woefully miscast in the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby, just by virtue of being friends with Leonardo DiCaprio. Ugh. Compare to Garfield in The Social Network, 99 Homes, and even Silence...his career has arguably already out-stripped Maguire's and he's been in the game 1/3 as long. I stand by Homecoming being the second-best Spidey film after Spider-Man 2 -- because I believed Holland in the role _and_ it was better written than any of the films save that one.

Not sure why folks are already calling this a financial failure. 12 days into its run it's already surpassed the inflation-adjusted domestic total of Amazing Spider-Man 2. And if you don't adjust for inflation (which is stupid, but Forbes and the Hollywood trade pubs sometimes don't), it's running less than $13 million behind where 2002's Spider-Man was after 12 days. I agree that it may not hit $300 million domestic, but if anything it's not due to lack of quality -- rather, I think that would stem more from potential audience disinterest after three mediocre Spidey films in a row. Spider-Man 3 grossed nearly $900 million worldwide based mostly on audience goodwill and expectation after the two prior films. We've got the opposite scenario here -- where the two prior films -- and arguably, Spider-Man 3 itself -- were let-downs, therefore dampening general audience interest in this one, Iron Man or not. It's the same reason another FF film -- even one totally under Disney control, with all of the Avengers, etc. -- would likely do middling box office at best -- the well's already been poisoned by three mediocre films.

Granted, I never saw Punisher War Zone, so I'd be okay with a new TV version of Jigsaw. Sure, I know War Zone is technically MCU canon, but it *is* their lowest grossing theatrical release.

Didn't Marvel do exactly this with the ASM 300 Chromium variant? Released in 1996 and even near mint raws sell for $400-$600. Spawn B+W # 1 is another example. I can't vouch for this, but Recalled Comics says Spawn B+W # 1 was a 1:50 incentive tied to orders of Spawn # 65.

Yeah - I think here it's the first modern *version* of Clayface. Similar to how Detective 474 could be considered the first *modern* Deadshot. It's the same character, but only his second appearance (after Batman # 59) and the first appearance of his signature armor. And Batman 234 has always been an outlier because Two-Face never actually appeared in the Silver Age. Believe 234 is actually his fifth appearance overall.

I'm glad Beauty & the Beast did well, as Emma Watson dropped out of La La Land to do it. Must have stung to see Emma Stone go on to win the Oscar for the role.

I actually really liked the MCU tie-ins this time. Aside from (perhaps) Tony Stark, they seemed organic rather than gratuitous -- like unexpected Easter Eggs and treats rather than the obvious say...Coulson or Nick Fury appearances in Phase 1 that were so beating us over the head with the coming Avengers initiative. Also, this was the first Spidey film where I could stomach the multiple villains. Really well done -- didn't feel forced, like they did in (esp.) Spider-Man 3. Last superhero film to do that well was probably Dark Knight Rises (w/ Catwoman + Bane).

Maybe - but most issues of Valiant since the relaunch have limited variants as well. So some of those current $30-$40 books could reach $200 or so a few years hence. Me - I don't understand why you'd design your company with so many limited variants that it's impossible for *anyone* to be a completionist, let alone your niche collector base.

I've said it before, but I felt the same way after Civil War. And I was wrong. Homecoming is easily the 2nd best Spidey film (after Spider-Man 2). It deserves to be doing better at the domestic box office than it is, but after the mediocrity of the prior three films, I don't blame the public at large for yawning and taking a pass on this one.

Saw it last night and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. _Really_ fun, and second only to Spider-Man 2 for me among the six films. Also: - I agree that the Sekovia Accords don't yet apply to Spider-Man, because his actions are still mostly local -- rather than international -- in scope. And also, supervision by Stark may count. And thought it was cool that Peter et. al. were learning about the Accords in civics class. - Impressed that even though I'm a hardcore comics fan, I went into this movie not knowing about - and as a testament to how well-written this was -- it's a _hell_ of a lot harder to make The Vulture a compelling villain compared to Doc Ock, esp. when you don't have the love-for-Mary Jane (or Gwen Stacy) as a crutch of a sub-plot. Sort of like how it's really hard to write a good Superman comic, because he's basically a god. That they managed to make me root for The freakin' Vulture blew my mind. - Still trying to wrap my head around this being co-written by John Francis Daley (i.e., Sam from Freaks and Geeks). Had no idea he also wrote Horrible Bosses 1 & 2. - Also -- yes -- Bendis is a far better writer than Stan Lee. Sure, the hate is justified for the abomination that is "One More Day," but his run on Daredevil alone is _by far_ the best treatment that character's ever had. Just like it's okay to acknowledge that Frank Miller's art on Daredevil trumped that of Everett's or even Romita's, I'm perfectly comfortable in choosing Bendis over Lee. Yes - they were writing for different times and different audiences -- and Bendis had the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants, but the level of plotting and sophistication brings Bendis to bear vs. Lee is almost laughable.

I saw Homecoming last night and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it -- probably my second-favorite Spidey movie after 2. But for me it's not an instant classic like Wonder Woman. Reminds me of 2012, when I actually saw Amazing Spider-Man and Dark Knight Rises back-to-back, and I remember virtually nothing of the prior film because of how epic Batman was by comparison. Like - I'd even forgotten that Emma Stone was in it.

Also, I'd have more faith in these projects if more Valiant books were able to crack the list of top comics sold each month. For January-May, Valiant has had precisely two issues rank in the top 150 comics sold each month. In January-February, zero issues reached even the top 200. If we stuck to the top 100 list that Diamond used to print in the back of Previews, there's exactly one book that would have made the list in the last five months combined.

The _only_ silver lining I see in the four films listed is that two have scripts by Heisserer. But I'm still skeptical - IMDB doesn't list anything Valiant-related on his page.

It's not exactly under the radar, as Moore has been quite vocal about having been cut out of the rights by Kirkman and sued him over it. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/walking-dead-robert-kirkman-lawsuit-373667 http://entertainment.time.com/2012/10/10/the-walking-dead-behind-the-scenes-battle-that-almost-doubled-the-zombie-count/