Gatsby77

Mitch - due respect, but you're mistaking quantity for quality here. I'd be far more concerned if Chuck's major competitors like Lone Star or Metropolis dumped their books. We know they have quality. We also know they have enough quantity to run at least half a dozen auctions a year, each. Because inventory turns matter. If Chuck were truly concerned about cash flow or inventory turns, he would do the same - run periodic auctions for working capital. But he doesn't. Why? My guess is he doesn't have the goods. As cool as they are, 40 copies of say, Strikeforce Morituri # 1 & 10 (1st Portacio art, son!) don't really pay the bills.

11.5-12 million issues of is still .. What's he going to do? Crash the vg/f Bronze market or the 1989-2000 market? Boo Hoo.

So, if some of those rumors are to be believed -- that Reynolds doesn't want Kyle Chandler as Cable -- I'm wondering who he does want or who we may see in the role. I love Chandler -- he would bring necessary gravitas to the role that someone like Jon Hamm would not -- and his casting would be against type.

Don't think I ever had any Grimjack or Scout, but I picked up more than 40 copies of Jon Sable # 1 out of the dollar boxes of a local convention 3 or so years ago. Fond memories of that book from when I was a teenager.

Does it not? I don't really remember the ending of Predators, but I seem to recall both Arnold and Danny Glover spending the last 20 minutes or so going "toe to toe" as the last man standing.

While I have more faith in a Shane Black Predator than I would nearly anyone else... Boyd Holbrook as the lead? The skinny drifter from Gone Girl? I suspended enough disbelief to think of Adrien Brody as a soldier in Predators (and he frankly pulled it off) but...the skinny drifter from Gone Girl? That's a far cry from a Benecio Del Toro, let alone Schwarzenegger...

The number of copies will effect the overall collectable market, and he does have the power to break the comic books market by selling 1,000,000 issues at 10 cents a piece and then still having at least 10.4 million comic books left..do not under estimate chuck...11.4 million books is a remarkable achievement but that is power...plain and simple...he can control the market especially 1965 marvels and up as well any recent comic bookks...He is buying competitors out left and right, he is taking over the market share of available comic books for sale, he is coming on strong now...buying agressivly. I dont think chuck would do that BUT if the mile high collection was dumped on the market...there will be no market after the flood of comic books overwhelming the comic book market..buyer beware Mitch - I think you're just flat out wrong here. Because the books that have the most collector value (say, 1965-1975 Marvel/DC superhero) probably take up a very small percentage of Chuck's stock. And again, I seriously doubt than any decent proportion of those is actually 9.0/9.2 or better. So what's the worst case scenario? He dumps hundreds of thousands of books that are either commons in mid-high grades or a few thousand key books in mid-grades. Neither would move the market much. Let's say he dumps 300 copies each of the 1968 Marvel # 1s on the market (Iron Man # 1, Sub-Mariner # 1, Cap 100, etc.) all in the same month. I still maintain those books would average out to ~7.0, not even 8.5-9.0. Would this affect short-term values? Sure -- but the market would absorb these and within two years (max) prices would reset. Add in say: 500 copies of Peter Parker # 1 in 8.5-9.2; 300 copies of Shazam # 1 in 9.0 50 sets of X-Men # 100-143 in avg. 8.5 80 sets of Miller Daredevil in avg. 9.4 50 sets of New Teen Titans 1-20 in 9.4 And then a bunch of random Silver Age issues like say: 300 copies of Avengers # 24 in avg. 7.0 250 copies of Hulk # 108 in avg. 7.0 etc. None of these books would have an appreciable effect on the market, primarily because the comic community at large already knows these types of books are common. Do you really believe Chuck's sitting on 200 copies of Marvel Spotlight 5 in 8.0 or higher? Even 30 copies of ASM 129 (in any grade)? More than 10 copies of Werewolf by Night 32 (again, in any grade)? I maintain he's already sold the bulk of these most liquid keys esp. when he "needed the money." The closet thing I've seen to dumping was a decade ago when Showcase New England sold around 40 mid-grade copies of Ghost Rider # 1 (1950) on eBay all at once. The copies ranged from 5.0 to 8.5 and all sold at about 40-60% of market value at the time. Guess what? The market's rebounded. There was no lasting damage. And a key point here is that stash was still preciously devoid of high-grade copies. There are now 95 unrestored copies on the CGC Census - which is probably a lot for a minor key from 1950. But only 7 of them are in true 9.2 or higher.

Exactly. I have zero faith that the majority of Chuck's stash is high-grade Silver-Bronze, even 9.2 or better. And if the bulk of his 1965-1980 books are more like avg. 7.0, then it just reflects the market anyway. Common books are common books - his dumping all of them at once wouldn't affect the market at all. Who cares if there are 55 raw copies of say...X-Men # 124 or Thor # 170 on the open market in 7.0-8.5 shape vs. 96 copies? Now, if it were an additional 40 or so copies in strict 9.6 that's a different story...

Well, while the reductions on his website may be a small step in the right direction, it's also worth noting that his BIN prices on eBay nearly always beat even the best codeword price. It's weird - if I see a comic I want on the Mile High website, I go check eBay and can usually find Mile High selling it there more cheaply; if I see a LoneStar comic on eBay, I go to their website to pick it up and save on the fees.

I'm not feeling it. On the one hand, I like that they went for a more subdued, world-weary, adult vibe. On the other, it made me think of "History of Violence" more than anything else. That was a great movie, in addition to a great comic book movie. But it's not what I want (or expect) from a Wolverine movie. I'll see this, but will probably have to have my "elseworlds" hat on, with diminished expectations. Have a feeling it won't come close to X2 (which was, for good or ill, the best Wolverine flick we've seen thus far). And I can tell already it will be hard to recommend to my friends who are no more than casual comic book movie fans -- in trying _so_ hard to avoid the look and feel of a traditional superhero movie, it comes across as pretentious -- wonderful if you're a diehard fan and understand this is a new chapter for Wolverine; confusing and dull-looking for non-comics readers who don't recognize who most of those characters are.

Go Robin Sparkles! Looking forward to this next weekend as the first one was surprisingly good, despite the massive character differences from the books.

I prefer to binge watch also. I just went through all 5 Seasons of Homeland. I couldn't stop watching & really didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. Poor Quinn. They have him credited for another Season, so I'm anxious to see what happens next. Was disappointed that Season 6 has skipped over to 2017. So...I haven't actually watched Season 5 yet. But - wasn't really a spoiler since we have indeed seen that he returns for Season 6. And, if y'all haven't yet seen it, Homeland Seasons 1-4 are now streaming via Hulu.

Agreed - I like the option of binging, but even then have to ration myself. Daredevil - I took in about 2 episodes at a time, rationing it out a long week. Homeland, however, would kill my weekend. I don't have Showtime, so I'd buy the DVDs by the season -- I never lasted more than 3 days to finish it. To the extent that I'd actually hold off on buying another season until I was sure I could waste 2-3 days in a row on it.

I've said it before, but I think this is going to kill near-term prospects for an X-O Manowar movie.

I'm excited for this - esp. the pairing of Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe. As others have said, Cruise has had an amazing run recently with: Edge of Tomorrow Jack Reacher even Mission Impossible: 5. And Minority Report's one of my favorite films since 2000. It's a sci-fi classic and becoming more important as some of the tech displayed in it is coming closer to reality.

Yeah - but it's the scale. Check out the size of the statue vs. the size of the white ship.

This.

Sigh... Don't know where you (and others) continue to manufacture this "Marvel vs. DC" hate or chips. I have zero stake in a DC vs. Marvel vendetta except as a diehard comics fan -- and as a diehard comics fan I have a very big stake in _all_ of the TV and movie products being high-quality (DC, Disney, Sony, Netflix, CW, etc.) so that we can ride this golden age of Hollywood comic book adaptations as long as possible. For me, it's never been a DC thing -- I think The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie ever produced and Dark Knight Rises is in my top 5. They were good movies. Period. Batman v. Superman wasn't and neither was Suicide Squad. As such, they both presented _huge_ missed opportunities -- with a few small tweaks in the writing each could have been made drastically better -- and thus been better received by critics and audiences alike. Instead, the DCEU has painted itself into a corner where it _needs_ a win with Wonder Woman and reportedly has made drastic changes to Justice League in a course correction from BvS. It shouldn't have been like that. BvS should easily have been able to best all of the Nolan films at the box office -- leading Wonder Woman to be gravy in the highly-anticipated build-up to Justice League -- with nothing more riding on Wonder Woman than Disney had riding on Ant-Man. And Suicide Squad could have been a masterpiece. Instead, we got a mediocre and boring movie punctuated by maybe three brilliant scenes. Again - it's not a DC v. Marvel thing -- I still hold up Thor 2 as the worst Marvel film, and the only film, comic-based or otherwise, where I've fallen asleep in the theater in the last decade. Ditto, Spider-Man 3's nearly $900 million worldwide gross a decade ago does nothing to excuse the fact that it was an abomination. That film's greatest sin was its misuse of Venom such that we're unlikely to see him again, let alone done right, anytime soon. Its second greatest sin - ditto with Hobgoblin (turning both Franco & later Dane DeHaan into Green Goblin II rather than Hobgoblin's likely killed near-term prospects of ever seeing him on screen.)

I'm sorry - what are we celebrating? Oh right -- a mess movie that couldn't even catch what the c-list Guardians of the Galaxy did two years ago, despite featuring more A-list actors, a Batman cameo, and the first big-screen appearance of one of top comic book characters of the last 30 years? Yup. Time to pop the bubbly!!

Yeah -- looks like it belongs on the Sci-Fi channel, a la their Swamp Thing film a few years back. Still - excited to see characters like Armstrong & Bloodshot on screen at all. But I remain skeptical of this whole digital-only notion as a way to "test" the market for the characters. If The Transporter: Refueled could manage a theatrical release, why not hold for the same for something like this?

As good as Casino Royale was, I thought Skyfall was a top 5 Bond film, and possibly the best since Goldfinger. While there were problems with the last 20 minutes (mainly that much of it was ripped from "Home Alone"), it was a bravura film that hit all of the Bond highlights. After the disappointments of Quantum and SPECTRE, though, I'm not sure where they go from here without rebooting with someone else.

Fine. Call me when Netlix (or even Amazon) unveils a Valiant-based show. YouTube is orders-of-magnitude different from those. Yes - I get that the Deadpool "test footage" that was released on YouTube was instrumental in getting the solo movie made, but I seriously doubt these will have anywhere near the production value of that (or the "Dirty Laundry" Punisher short). Further, Deadpool had a huge built-in fanbase with the geeks. Valiant? Not so much. The best-selling Valiant title last month (Faith # 1) couldn't break the Top 100 list of comics, and sold less than what Rai # 3 did back in the day -- when it was touted as the rarest regular Pre-Unity book. Again, that the Valiant characters are unknown to the public (and frankly, most comic fans) isn't a total deal-breaker. But YouTube shorts aren't the way to go for their critical first impression.

I agree about Civil War but it probably did as well as it could because it was more of the same --- it didn't have the "Wow" factor of Avengers or even The Dark Knight. But all things being equal maybe we _shouldn't_ be surprised that both Deadpool and Suicide Squad were blockbusters, given how popular Deadpool and Harley Quinn are as cult characters. While I don't think there are enough comic book fans to move the needle on their own, their probably are enough combined comics / fantasy / cosplay fans for the first "appropriate" treatment of those two massively popular characters.

Wait, what? A far simpler explanation than some sort of widespread Disney-Marvel conspiracy to villify the recent DCU movies is: They just Weren't. That. Good. I liked Man of Steel a lot (for instance, it was far better than Superman III, IV or Returns). But his killing Zod at the end was antithetical to _everything_ the characters' stood for since at least the mid-50s. (Even accounting for Bosco & others' explanation of innocence lost in the evolution of the character. He still shouldn't murder. Ever.) That was a much bigger afront than what IM3 did to the Mandarin. And again, those same critics lauded The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight -- maybe because, unlike BvS, SS, and the Ghostbusters reboot, the films were (gasp!) _good_. This isn't rocket surgery. And no one's out to get the Wonder Woman movie. Yeesh...

Maybe. I'm excited for those based on what we've seen. But recall that the first trailer for Suicide Squad was _amazing_ -- only for the final product to be mess. I really hope we don't have the same situation with Wonder Woman.