Gatsby77

They did that. It was called Chronicle. Yes - still had a $12 million budget, but that's *extremely* low-budget & indy even by non-sci fi standards.

Damn. This is gonna' push the cost of Motion Picture Funnies Weekly through the roof!

So you vehemently object to Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Will Smith as Deadshot, Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, Keanu Reeves as Constantine? Or that the Battlestar Galactica reboot had the audacity to make Starbuck a woman?

wildly_fanciful_statement. How many times is Charlize Theron referred to as African-American in mainstream press articles? Just because she is one doesn't mean the phrase carries the same cultural nuance when applied to her. Black Panther needs to be portrayed by a black actor; however, Superman or Flash (or Nick Fury) do not need to be portrayed by white actors. Similarly, Danny Rand needs to be white; were he portrayed by a Chinese actor, the character loses a fundamental aspect of his character.

Here's the difference: Being African (not even African-American, but straight-up African) is integral to T'Challa's character in a way that Johhny Storm's being black is not. Johnny's Storm's defining characteristic is being a hot-head. He could be black, white, Asian, or Native American - as long as he's impulsive, the character still works. Just like it didn't matter that Sue Storm was played by a mixed-race Jessica Alba or Nick Fury by an African-American - or that Death in the forthcoming Sandman show won't be shown primarily as a pasty white goth girl - for some characters, race matters; others not. Thunderbird played by a non-Native American or Sunfire played by a white American? No, Would be insulting to the very fabric of these characters. But Deathstroke played by a black man? Perfectly fine. Ditto Batman - there's nothing in Bruce's origin - or character - that dictates he needs to be played by a white man. Man? yes - but can absolutely be race-blind. Not so with Black Lightning, Black Panther, or Static. And - regardless of what the executive supposedly said about race, the story was stronger without Dr. Strange's appearance. Wanda didn't need anyone else in her coming to terms with her power - and overcoming Agatha in the process. The story was about her arc. Full stop. No other heroes needed.

Granted, but I also think this is a fairly new release - as with Jupiter's Legacy (which was # 1 for at least 3 days upon release), it makes sense that folks would flock to it initially, especially that first Friday-Saturday. If anything, Jupiter's Legacy quick plummet *out* of the top 10 list - and subsequent cancellation - shows that there's likely some veracity to the list.

Netflix is saying this is # 2 in the U.S. today, behind only Lucifer.

On the one hand, I get it - if Preacher can get four seasons, surely Sandman can get at least 2-3. But it's hard to overstate how much the failure of Jupiter's Legacy has hurt Netflix. They literally spent $200 million on the season. After spending millions to sign Mark Millar himself to a first-look production agreement, all with the aim of building a connected Millarverse of superhero properties. And their first introductory effort failed. They're stuck. I've noted before that I've enjoyed more film adaptations based on Mark Millar-written properties than I have even film adaptations based on Frank Miller-written properties. His success over the last 15 years is astounding, given that he created or wrote the original storylines for: Kick- Kingsman: The Secret Service Wanted Logan Captain America: Civil War The point? There are no absolutes - even with a high-profile Sandman project.

1) I don't know why they'd go in order - or even necessarily adapt every issue / storyline. And if Neil already confirmed an adaption of # 18, then they're likely going out-of-order. 2) What makes you think this is confirmed for a second season? As shown by Netflix's recent debacle with - and cancellation of - Jupiter's Legacy (which they reportedly spent $200 million on), we have no guarantees this will hit a Season 2.

No. Your synopsis ignores the core plot of the film - whether the Avengers submit to government control via the Sokovia Accords, or not. The impetus for this was the botched Avengers mission in the opening scene - wherein the Scarlet Witch blows up a hospital killing civilians -- which leads to the Sokovia Accords that splits the Avengers team, each lining up behind ideological opposites -- Iron Man leading one side and Captain America leading the other. That's why they fight at the airport. Yes - it's ostensibly over capturing Bucky - but the only reason Iron Man's team is after Bucky in the first place is they've been ordered to bring him in by the feds - i.e., Col. Ross etc. Bucky is just the MacGuffin for larger issue of government oversight vs. continued independence. He's just the first mission, but the *actual* conflict is whether the Avengers itself will submit to government control vs. not. It could just as easily have been Iron Man: Civil War, just replace "Bucky goes rogue" with "Rhodey goes rogue under government orders." The subplot didn't matter nearly as much as the primary conflict of the film: Avengers vs. Avengers at the Airport - which continues with the Tony v. Steve conflict throughout. Hence why Marvel itself emphasizing it's an Avengers film.

I didn't realize that Rose Walker was being played by Hailee Steinfeld. Cool!

I remember some coverage on this collection when it first was discovered and came-to-market. Consensus was, while an interesting origin story, it was so heavily weighted towards the modern books (vs. Golden / Silver Age) that it was actually underwhelming.

Again, I've not read the -script. I don't even know the plot of this film. Just judging from the trailers, that's how *I'd* write it: Step one: big reveal is that mom (Rachel Weisz) is actually Taskmaster Step two: ultimately, Yelena (Florence Pugh) proves herself worthy of the Black Widow title / steps out of her big sister's shadow by...killing mom in the final act Thus, she's finally "ready" - primed to take on the mantle of a Black Widow, yet goes into hiding as the credits role (as this is a prequel). Bam - Natasha's dead? Doesn't matter - as the MCU (and Avengers) can move forward with Yelena as the new Black Widow...Kamala Khan Captain Marvel-style.

Maybe...unless the "Black Widow" referred to in the title is actually Yelena - and sets her up to take the mantle going forward. My only question is whether Natasha or Yelena ultimately kills their mom (Taskmaster).

Are you high? As noted above, the Fast and the Furious films have *at least* as big an audience & devoted following. Stating it right here - Fast and the Furious 9 will outdo Black Widow in the worldwide box office. More than that, it'll outperform it by $200 million+ Or...is this why you qualified your statement with "after July 4," because you know Fast 9 comes out in June?

No - you're talking about one scene - the climax of the film at Zemo's lair. Which ignores, oh i dunno...the entire plot of the film up until that point. Marvel itself structured, marketed and continues to market this as an Avengers film.

Okay - how about this - this is literally the official plot synopsis Marvel itself released for the movie in late 2015 (pre-release). Ironically, it mirrors the comic storyline summary exactly. Literally no mention of Bucky, or (Avengers villain) Zemo - but four mentions of the Avengers. Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” finds Steve Rogers leading the newly formed team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. But after another incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability, headed by a governing body to oversee and direct the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers, resulting in two camps—one led by Steve Rogers and his desire for the Avengers to remain free to defend humanity without government interference, and the other following Tony Stark’s surprising decision to support government oversight and accountability

And there's been a massive shift in the definition of "keys" now weighted almost exclusively to first appearances. Artist books, key storyline runs, origin issues and battle issues have been (with few exceptions) largely forgotten. Example: Daredevil 158 (1st Miller) vs. Daredevil 168 (1st Elektra). 2003: 158, CGC 9.6 in GPA: $360 2021: 158, CGC 9.6 in GPA: $363 vs. 2003: 168, CGC 9.6 in GPA: $616 2021: 168, 9.6 in GPA: $900 Flat (artist book) vs. + 46% (1st appearance book - and this includes that both books were really hot in 2003 due to the Daredevil movie, vs. no imminent movie hype today).

Weird how Iron Man is featured first in that image - and that Civil War is highlighted in the text, with "Captain America" minimized.

Umm...yeah. I'm well aware of the differences between the film and the comic. But my point stands - yes - the Russo Bros. chose to tell this story from Captain America's POV - but it could *just as easily* have been a straight-up Iron Man or Avengers story. You know that Baron Zemo was originally an Avengers villain, yes? Whatever...I'm done. If you can't accept the blatant reality that the film was structured - and marketed - as an "Avengers 2.5" - to the extent that they negotiated a Sony-owned Spider-Man appearance because Spidey was pivotal in the original comic storyline, whatever. I deal in reality, not wishful thinking that willfully ignores it.

Bro - Did you even read the Civil War comics? It was a universe-wide hero vs. hero mega crossover (a la Secret Wars and the Infinity Gauntlet before it) but the two teams were led by Captain America and Iron Man. As in the film, virtually every hero lined up behind one or the other. While the Civil War film was (necessarily) different, it retained the heart of the Captain America v Iron Man conflict. It could just as easily have been titled Iron Man: Civil War or Avengers: Civil War.

While # 38 was the first one I read off the shelves (and I continued through to the end), # 5 has a special place in my heart because it was the first expensive Sandman back issue I bought - with my first real summer job paycheck when I was 18. Think it was $12, and I bought it from a cool little LCS in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Was astonished to see Martian Manhunter in it, as up to that point I thought Sandman was basically disconnected from the rest of the DC universe. I also only figured out later that it was Sam Kieth art - I only knew who he was from his work in Marvel Comics Presents, and (later) Maxx.

Oooh...forgot about the Sandman Special, that was Orpheus & Eurydice. Although I remember at the time thinking the $3.50 cover price was extortionate. I need to reread 1-5. For multi-issue storylines, I think Season of the Mists was the high point, although Garth Ennis's Dangerous Habits storyline in Hellblazer just a few months later covered much of the same ground, but did it better.

Agreed that Civil War was less a Captain America film (at all) than it was Avengers 2.5 (and - given the storyline, rightfully so). But Ragnarok was overtly a Thor/Hulk film - it literally adapted one of the most famous / well-regarded Hulk storylines of the last 20 years - which drove the entire reason Thor was even on-planet. BTW - Silvermane is wrong about a great many things, particularly as regards Captain Marvel, but he's not wrong that it was a buddy team-up film between Carol Danvers and Nick Fury.

100% false. It was overtly a buddy team-up movie between Hulk and Thor (or, at least Banner and Thor) - and an ingenious way to give us large aspects of the Planet Hulk storyline without having to do a solo (live action) Planet Hulk movie. And yes - by the end they're an entire team, including the (then-unlikely) Loki team-up and Valkyrie as well. If you think it was another solo Thor movie (a la Thor or The Dark World), you need to re-watch all three...