Gatsby77

Yeah, but c'mon, man. Spider-Man #7 had Ghost Rider in it! It deserved to have that print run, son!

It's been years since I won a great mis-titled book via eBay. Last two noteworthy scores were 8 years ago, with a 5.0 Brave & Bold 54 hidden among a "Brave & Bold comics" lot, and a full NM pre-Unity Valiant set (minus the Vintage Magnus books) for $65 shipped because they were spelled "Veliant." Still - love it when gems are found for below FMV.

Some infernal Bronze Age Magnus Robot Fighter. I need just # 33, 37, and 46 in CGC 9.4 to complete my 1-46 9.4 or better set.

I don't see this is as a good thing at all. JGL straight out says that he and New Line couldn't see eye-to-eye on what makes Sandman special. And whether that was spin or not, I think the production will have a hard time finding with the star power and (as I see it) fit of JGL for the project.

Not sure that Punisher's a good example to use as a proxy for eBay's change on the market because the character was out-of-favor overall for a few years in the late '90s. The three titles were cancelled, the Bernie Wrightson mini bombed & the character didn't get respect again until the Garth Ennis series. I know because I picked up a 9.0 copy of ASM 129 from my local comic shop in the late '90s for just $100. It had been a solid $200-$225 book at that same shop just a few years before. Ditto, Punisher War Journal 1 went from being a $20 book to $4 (or less) during that time period.

This. It's not like Deadpool is a new character. He's been around for 25 years, which means he has proven popularity spanning more than one generation. For perspective, he's only a year younger than Wolverine was when the first X-Men movie came out.

I don't think NM 98 pricing is anywhere near its long-term peak. Because the movie really is that popular, even by Marvel U. standards. Per Box Office Mojo, as of yesterday it has already outgrossed both Thor and both Captain America movies domestically on an _inflation-adjusted_ basis. That means that literally more people have gone to see Deadpool than any of those four movies, and it's probably got 1/3 of its domestic theatrical run left. Personally, I thought it was merely an ok movie, and nowhere near as good as say, The Winter Soldier. But at this point I think I'm no longer representative of Deadpool's fanbase. For him to be more popular than Thor or Cap among comic readers or cosplayers is one thing, but for the movie to be far more popular than even the 2nd Cap movie blows my mind.

Much as I love Hobgoblin (and much prefer him to Venom) I think the ship on him appearing in a Spidey movie has sailed. Basically, Sony punked out when they had Harry Osborne appear as Green Goblin 2 rather than Hobgoblin in Spider-Man 3. That was his shot & it came & went. We've now seen Green Goblin in 3 out of 5 Spider-Man movies -- my bet is they'll go with different characters (Kraven, Mysterio, Chameleon, Vulture, even Venom again) rather than back to a Green Goblin knock-off. Sort of like how all 4 Fantastic Four movies have had Dr. Doom. It's time to put him away for awhile.

To be fair, Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance and Punisher: War Zone didn't ignore the source material. They were just bad movies.

I think Trank wanted to make the FF as a horror movie - which makes sense in context as a reimagining and _could_ have worked if it had been a) better and b) tonally consistent. But can we PLEASE stop with the mythology of "faithful to the source material equals better" BS? Guardians of the Galaxy was a phenomenal movie that bore little resemblance to the comics I read in the 1990s, let alone the original team from the '70s. Blade 1 and 2 were far better than any treatment the character ever had in the comics - they took a bad Shaft rip-off and gave him far more gravitas. Heck, even the first two Spider-Man movies featured a far more serious Spidey than the fun-loving, motormouth wise-cracking one from the comics -- and it worked. That "true" comic book version of Spidey (sort of Deadpool-lite) didn't appear until The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and yet that alone couldn't save the film. Hell, even the Lord of the Rings trilogy made some ridiculous changes from the books, but the overall movies were so good that few people cared. Quality is quality, and far too many folks hide behind "it wasn't like the original comics," while ignoring that a) many comic books are really difficult to translate to the screen and b) the many superior film adaptations that (oops!) weren't totally faithful to their source.

I'll take that bet. I think they're going to have to go back to the drawing board to rework the Gambit -script to make it more R-Rated, while the two more likely candidates for the unannounced slots are X-Force & Deadpool 2. And then we'll see about Channing Tatum's availability.

I'd buy oil stock.

Correct -- for some reason in my head I keep thinking Lethal Weapon was 1984, not '87. But I do know he was just 22 years old when he sold the Lethal Weapon -script. Agreed on the films you listed. the Nice Guys red band trailer made me laugh out loud.

X-Tinction Agenda was one of my favorite early comic collecting stories, right up there with Batman: Year 3. I thought it fell apart at the very end but the lead-up, including the Wolverine/Cable fight in NM 93-94, was awesome.

Yeah -- just read they removed Gambit from the release schedule. I get that Deadpool was a smash hit & could see them fast-tracking X-Force because of it, but to kill / delay Gambit because of it smacks of weak sauce. That'd be like Marvel killing Ant Man because Guardians did so they well they want to fast track a solo Star Lord movie. Then again, Fox has had a rough year. They're probably deep in the red for the foreseeable future, even as Universal and Disney have been killing it on all fronts.

Interesting -- I knew Shane Black starred as Hawkins in the original Predator; I didn't know that he was also heavily involved in the original's screenplay. Makes sense though -- it was a few years after Lethal Weapon.

Why would anyone shill a book on Comiclink? They don't report their results to GPA, so vastly over-paying for something on Clink won't affect even the short-term price the way that shilling via eBay or Heritage would. Especially when there are multiple (and transparent) other options for buying such a comic book for less, it makes zero sense. As others have pointed out, though -- it in 3 minutes of searching eBay I found a white-paged 9.8 sitting unsold at a $1,600 Buy-It-Now.

Wow - there was a 2nd printing of this book? I did not know that. I remember the initial print run being ginormous. Maybe not by 1993 standards, but it was definitely the # 1 Diamond book of the month & my LCS ordered hundreds since we had Rick Leonardi there for a signing. The Philly-area is still littered with signed (pre-CGC) copies of the first print.

This is news to me. Multiple contemporary sources reported that X-Force # 1 was the second-best-selling comic of all time (with about a 5 million print run) way back in the early 1990s. Is the 7.5 million reported print run for X-Men # 1 also unconfirmed? Other stuff that was reported as gospel back then: Youngblood # 1 was the best-selling independent book of all time, before it was surpassed, in turn, by Spawn 1 & WildCATS 1. I'd also heard from multiple sources back then that Superman 75 had a 4 million or so issue print run for the first print, but why is that considered more confirmed that X-Force 1?

What's next? Folks praising Kirby's Topps Comics' from the early 1990s? Or Neal Adams' art on Continuity?

I'm with Jeffro. The vast majority of Kirby's 70s output was sub-par. Blocky, needlessly stylized, almost art deco . He was past his prime and, for DC, mostly phoning it in with his 4th World stuff, particularly relative to the work the new breed of 70s artists (including Smith, Adams,, Kaluta, Colan, & even latter Ploog & latter Steranko) were producing during the same time period. On the one hand, I get that "Kirby is Kirby" but to seriously compare his 70s DC work (as I've said, some Jimmy Olsen & Our Fighting Forces excepted) to his phenomenal output during the 1960s on titles like FF and Thor is just The worst of Smith's output on Conan or Colan's work on Tomb of Dracula, for example, ran circles around anything Kirby did in Kamandi, New Gods or Mister Miracle.

The Punisher's already on Netflix. Oh wait...that's the 2004 Travolta one. Never mind...

I trust McWeeny & he's definitely a comic book geek. Before founding HitFlix for years he was literally the only reviewer for Ain't It Cool News who could write _at all_ (low bar, but still...) He was "Moriarty."

This. This post x 1000. Everyone I knew who was collecting comics at the time bought New Mutants 93-100. (See RMA's statement that he bought 15x # 93-100. Pretty much everybody bought that run, & we were all pissed that we'd missed out on NM # 86-89.) Sure, most collectors (myself included) only bought _multiples_ of 93-94 (for the Wolverine v. Cable battle), 95-97 (for the X-Tinction Agenda storyline) & 100 (1st appearance of X-Force). But we _all_ bought 98 off the stands. A few of my friends bought a couple doubles of NM 98 when it went to $6-$8 a few months later but that was because it was the first appearance of Domino, a key member of X-Force. The Deadpool first appearance hype came much, much letter. BTW, we all started buying X-Factor in duplicates with the X-Tinction Agenda storyline as well. As with the latter Liefeld issues of New Mutants, this came in handy by accident a few months later when the early Portacio issues took off. 60-75 or so was an amazing run, but it went like this: 60-62 -- X-Tinction Agenda 63-64 -- 1st few Portacio issues (had value) 68 -- brief Wizard-fueled rumor re. Cable/baby X-Men 201 tie-in, so some value 71 -- new team