Gatsby77

It’s literally permanent only until Spider-Man: No Way Home comes out. Will it be an official MCU movie? Yes. Will it be overseen by Kevin Feige? Yes? Will it feature multiple Peter Parkers played by multiple actors? (Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland)? Yes. After this one film - all recasting bets are off, even (ahem - especially) RDJ’s.

You're wrong about this too. Part of the genius of the MCU movies so far is that they understand the men and women beneath the costumes - and focused on true characterization of them as people - so they're not infinitely fungible. People cared about Tony Stark, not just whoever was wearing the Iron Man suit. They cared about Steve Rogers - not just whoever wore the Captain America costume. Proof of this came with the absolute vitriol leveled at John Walker's character on Twitter the moment he was introduced wearing Cap's suit. Critically, this was among general (non comic book audience) fans who didn't yet know the arc of Walker in the comics. Rather, it was just an allergic reaction to seeing *anyone* other than Steve Rogers in the suit. (Note: I said Steve Rogers, not Chris Evans.) Ditto - people care about T'Challa. If say...M'baku took up the mantle of the next Black Panther (which, given his character's arc, wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility), he could indeed make it his own, but he doesn't (yet) have the backstory or earned emotional resonance that audiences have with T'Challa - even if T'Challa were recast with a different actor. Put another way, Bruce Wayne is just as important as Batman. And in many ways, is the harder role to play. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale were excellent Bruce Waynes. George Clooney was a good Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman. In contrast, Ben Affleck was a great Batman but a weak Bruce Wayne. (Granted, most of this was the writer's fault - but it still made his overall portrayal 2nd rate vs. Keaton's or Bale's). The point? The character behind the mask matters - even if it's only the masked version that sells toys.

Ditto non-key average Silver Age. For instance, Hulk 3-6 look like bargains right now.

How about non-key, average golden age? I was tracking about 60 books in the first round of C-link auctions last week. Ended up winning just one, a mid-grade early Batman issue for normal GPA FMV (after taxes and fees). It's not sexy, but it's a blue chip, not part of the speculative MCU / Disney+ or modern Star Wars hype, and and easily liquid. Today, tomorrow, and 10 years from now. And I felt a lot more comfortable parking my $500 there than in a worse copy of Special Marvel Edition 15, or in Dogecoin or Ethereum.

Can confirm re. Gold Key / Random House FCs. For Magnus and Doctor Solar, at least, the FCs are nearly all 9.0-9.4. Rather, the best pedigrees for those titles (for 9.6/9.8 books) are Pacific Coast, Twin Cities, White Mountain and Boston.

Hmm...yeah. It's a 9.2 (shown on p. 11 in this thread). Question is whether it was just pulled from this auction or already sold privately? BTW - that 1.5 sold for *stupid* money. I don't get it.

You're also forgetting a very real business reason for Marvel to re-cast. Specifically so they, not the individual actors, hold the power. RDJ didn't quit because he was tired of playing Iron Man - it was a combination of that AND his costing too much money. There's already rumors of his (limited) return in some form following the abject bomb that was Dr. Doolittle. Think about it - why replace RDJ's Iron Man with War Machine's Don Cheadle? They're the same age (56 years old). Cheadle's not going to want to play Rhodey for another decade either. Feige and Marvel ensured the actors know they're expendable - and not only avoided making the same "gross points" mistake with RDJ with any other actor - but also didn't hesitate to replace the actors playing Rhodey or Banner -- even once the MCU had officially kicked off.

Again - you're acting like audiences haven't seen 6 actors portray James Bond, 3 actors portray Superman, 3 actors portray Peter Parker, 3 actors portray Bruce Banner, 2 actors play Rhodey (within your precious MCU) and 5 actors play Bruce Wayne (with a 6th in the wings). Or like audiences were somehow confused to see Ryan Reynolds play Deadpool after already playing Green Lantern and Hannibal King. Or seeing Chris Evans go from playing Johnny Storm to playing Steve Rogers. Audiences get it. Actors are expendable - yes -- even Robert Downey, Jr. It's the characters who matter. Period.

Found one! There's currently a copy of Daredevil # 183 on eBay signed by Frank Miller, Klaus Jansen, Charlie Cox, Jon Bernthal, and Dolph Lundgren. I could not, however, find any Ben Affleck Sig Series Daredevil books.

This is such a dumb take I can't tell if you're just intentionally trolling. Again, Marvel - under Feige's leadership - has demonstrated an amazing willingness to recast actors already. And with the coming multiverse literally all bets are off. Between the next Doctor Strange movie and Spider-Man movie alone, we'll see multiple actors portraying the same superheroes, albeit likely from different dimensions, as a way to introduce general audiences to the idea - within the MCU (since that seems to matter so much to you).

One edit: They've already announced West Coast Avengers (too).

I've said it before, but - having just watched the last Black Widow trailer for the first time, it's worth repeating. I think Taskmasker is her mom (Rachel Weisz).

Great book! And a mad early appearance - I believe it pre-dates Ghost Rider # 3.

Da Fuq? Did you miss that Col. Ross and Tony Stark appear in the post-credits scene of Incredible Hulk? It's definitely in continuity... Man...this reminds me of how bad I feel for all those folks who got Thomas Jane to sign their key Punisher books. Hey @valiantman- any way to do a quick search on whether there are any Dolph Lundgren Signature Series Punisher books?

1) Umm...surely mean "From The Avengers on," given that the actors who played both Jim Rhodes and Bruce Banner were replaced after Iron Man. 2) Chris Evans is absolutely replaceable as Steve Rogers. Just as Michael Keaton was infinitely replaceable as Bruce Wayne and we've already seen three different actors play Bruce Banner. Do you *really* think it's going to be another decade before we see a live-action Wolverine again? It may not be Hugh Jackman, but to think we're going to see only X-23 or Dakken or whomever for the foreseeable future because eventually Hugh Jackman will retire is just crazy.

Good choice - I loved him in The Big Short.

No. As with my Thor example - It's explicit in the first Silver Age appearances of both that their can be multiple people who can take up the mantle. But 1) This itself was a huge diversion from the identity and mythos of the original Green Lantern, Alan Scott; and 2) People who grew up with Hal Jordan didn't respond positively to Kyle RAYNER taking up the mantle and Hal Jordan's becoming first Parallax, then The Spectre; and It's incredibly likely that the next TV/film version of Green Lantern will see will be John Stewart, not Hal Jordan, anyway. Similarly, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier made it clear that Captain America is a title, not Steve Rogers. In contrast, long-time Bond films know that while 007 is a title, James Bond is an actual, singular person - something made explicitly clear (again) in Skyfall.

It's also explicit in Journey into Mystery # 83 that multiple people can embody Thor ("He who wields this hammer..."). So it makes perfect sense that Thor would take on slightly different attributes depending on who was wielding the hammer. But why wouldn't Thor look differently if the hammer's being wielded by Beta Ray Bill, Erik Masterson or Jane Foster rather than by Donald Blake? All of them have been Thor at one point, and all presented differently. Just because it was set up from the jump doesn't make the switch jarring - or necessarily embraced by longtime fans.

? I don't follow your logic. Just because it was announced early on that there could be multiple Green Lanterns doesn't make it any less jarring to Hal Jordan fans when the switch happened. Same thing - we now know Robin is a title rather than a distinct character. But one generation grew up with Grayson; another with Tim Drake. Each served for decades and each is perfectly valid. Why not the same for Captain America?

Again, I see where you're coming from, but this is literally not true. Rather, people generally resonate with the version of the character they're exposed to first, regardless of whether it was the original. Like when you hear a song you love by a band and later learn it's a cover - but discover you like it more than the original. So once-a-generation changes can (and often are) valid. My Green Lantern is and always will be Hal Jordan (because my first exposure to him was via Super Friends). I didn't even know Alan Scott - or Guy Gardner - or John Stewart - existed until much later. 90s kids may have Kyle Radnor as their Green Lantern. And depending on the choices Warner Brothers chooses to make (and almost did, in Justice League: Mortal and the Snyder cut), it's likely that John Stewart will be the primary (film and TV) Green Lantern for the next decade. That doesn't make Alan Scott or Hal Jordan less valid - or their replacements just a cynical money play by the comics companies. Ditto The Flash. My Flash is Wally West - full stop - because he was headlining the book in the 80s and 90s when I was reading it. Doesn't matter that he was the third version of the character. I don't care about Jay Garrick at all, and Barry Allen died before I learned how to read. Perfect (modern) examples: Nick Fury. To modern fandom and the general public, he's black and has the attitude of Samuel L. Jackson. And that's perfectly legit. Miles Morales is also more popular with Millennials and Gen Z than Peter Parker.

I’ve been thinking about this lately. I made mad cash pre-ordering 20 copies of Superman 75 for $2 per and selling them to kids in my middle school for $12 per. And today - nearly 30 years later, the book can be found on eBay, in bulk, for $15 per shipped - less than it cost 48 hours post-release.

While I've never knowingly bought a restored Silver Age book, I don't have the issue with it that I would have had 10 years ago. Hell - I wouldn't turn up my nose at slightly restored / color touch copies of Cerebus 1 or TMNT 1 these days either. That said, I'd chew glass before buying a restored version of a super common book like ASM 40 or 129.

I see your point, but disagree. Partly because this isn't a new phenomenon. How many Flashes are there? How many Green Lanterns are there? And was John Stewart's introduction nearly 50 years ago "insulting?" When I was a kid I was confused because I knew Marvel's Captain Marvel was a guy, but there was a female version in West Coast Avengers. I had no idea that Carol Danvers might count (or ever had counted) as another female version, but I was legit confused by the one I saw in West Coast Avengers. And never forget that multiple Supermans in the early 90s gave rise to one of the *actual* worse comic book films of all time - Shaquille O'Neal's Steel. But, as importantly, the reboots and alternate versions aren't always bad - by a long shot. Most of the best Batman stories of the 80s involve Jason Todd. And Gaiman's reboot of Kirby's Sandman gave rise to one of the best comic series of the 90s.

Another one: As reported in a coffee table "History of Comics" book I had that came out in 1990, somebody jacked an entire truckload of Shazam # 1, that effectively accomplished two things at once: 1) extremely limited initial distribution in parts of the mid-west and west; and 2) two brothers who effectively sat on 30%+ of the entire print run of that book for years, such was it seen as a "sure thing."

I'll admit I was wrong about this one. I saw Starship Troopers in the theater when I was in college and thought it was horrible. Even when my buddy explained to me why it was genius, I didn't get it. Because I didn't understand it was a comedy. Largely because Heinlein's book wasn't satire, and so I didn't expect this to be. If viewed as an adaption of Heinlein's book, it's an abomination. But Verhoeven basically flipped the novel on its head and made a mockery of its (legitimate, not tongue-in-cheek) fascist themes. Much like Top Gun, once you start viewing it as a comedy, the whole thing shifts. Today, I view it as one of the best films of its era. I suspect most critics were in the same boat at the time, so it makes sense that it's viewed much more positively today.