TheLiamSturgess

I still remember that Phase 3 announcement way back in 2014

They honestly just need to put the right people in charge. Ryan Reynolds, Tim Miller and James Mangold are examples of those people. Josh Trank was not.

This most recent episode wasn't my favourite, but I remain optimistic for the rest of the series. Clearly there's still some mysteries left unsolved.

Well, I'm slightly paranoid about not being invited back to set so I want to tread lightly... All I'll say is this: 1) Reggie is probably the most vile character on the show, but it's probably just on the surface. 2) I have two pictures on my phone from the finale, because we were asked to take them "in-character" for a key moment. Obviously, these will stay on my phone.

This bodes well!

Yep, completely different. What I respect a lot is that they pay homage to a lot of much smaller elements of the Archie universe - I can't go into detail, but later in the season they incorporate a couple characters and other things that essentially amount to easter eggs that proves they dug deep into the source material. I'm not a fan of Ms. Grundy or Jughead's more toned-down eccentricity, but I like Archie, Betty and Veronica A LOT.

Still waiting on mine

Just got called for more extra work this Thursday

I've just begun with a local Background Agent and I just got called in to be an extra for Riverdale as a high school student this upcoming Tuesday. Will report back

Very excited to attend for the first time

The amount of detail he dives into gives me hope - let's see what happens.

Same. :shrug:

With due respect, Mark, that is only half the story on why threads get deleted around here. Yes, some critical threads don't get deleted. Many get stopped, but stay around. Others go poof for reasons other than violating the board standards. While I'm not asking for a response to every example, that would be better served from the mods who appear to not be involved in a public fashion in any meaningful manner nowadays. I would point to one example in particular. This community continued to post examples of puddling in old cases and, later on, in new cases. In both instances, numerous posts with photographic evidence of the puddling were deleted without explanation. It culminated in a post now stickied, which is IMHO quite funny: I didn't participate in the thread you referenced and didn't care much about who the specific presser of choice might be, but the insinuation that the only reason threads go poof is because they violate the board standards is baloney. I'd also welcome a response to this post in the CCS announcement thread: Don'y worry, Michael should be around soon enough with an answer.

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis. Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask? Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances. These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards. I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation. Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless. I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored. Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic? You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort? There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input. Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration. After you'd posted the first thread, you had multiple people pointing out that your thread most likely wouldn't last because of all the Voldemort references. You chose to ignore that advice and repost the exact same thing after the first thread was yanked. And, hey, surprise!, that thread disappeared too. But, sure, you have absolutely no idea why this happened That makes absolutely no sense. My agreement with Brittany was such that I was allowed to share every element of my findings with the boards and my fellow collectors, and the only way to do that fairly was to publicly acknowledge my affiliations and business with both CGC and Voldemort. Are you suggesting I shouldn't have? Please, explain to me in what way I was promoting Voldemort over CGC. Did I at any point suggest that collectors should use Voldemort over CGC? No, because that was entirely not the point of my post. Are you telling me that every thread in which "Voldemort" is mentioned gets yanked, with no explanation? I guess we've sunk this ship now, too. I hate to state the obvious, but correlation does not equal causation. I'm glad you have a theory, Michael.

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis. Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask? Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances. These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards. I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation. Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless. I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored. Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic? You mean the threads where you went to great lengths to talk about your affiliation with Voldemort? There was much more to it than that and you know it, but thanks for the input. Also, "to great lengths" is a hilarious exaggeration.

With all due respect, you are assuming facts you know nothing about and postulating a theory that has no basis. Yes, that thread has been deleted. Why you ask? Not because of some grandiose scheme of CGC to ensure only positive messages are written about it, or to demonstrate it will exercise absolute control and substance over these boards, but because Mr. Carbonara, not CGC, specifically requested that it be deleted and I agreed that it was appropriate under the circumstances. These message boards have tons of critical comments about CGC, and we welcome it. That's how we learn and grow. In fact, there are years worth of comments I have personally posted calling into question CGC methods and process. What CGC will not tolerate, however, are libelous or inappropriate comments, or threads that violate the posted standards of these boards. I am not about to enter into a debate over every single thread that may have been deleted or frozen (in fact, these decisions are often made by the moderators of the boards and not CGC personnel), but I do want to at least respond in the context of this litigation. Mark, do you understand why there are some of us that see a pattern in which threads CGC decides to delete? Mods, staff members, regardless. I still never received an explanation of any kind, on or off the record, as to why my thread about my free submissions in the new cases that arrived with immense Newton rings and some warping was deleted numerous times and my questions entirely ignored. Can you justify that with a similar piece of logic?

I'm getting an "original" Defenders kinda vibe from this; with Thor replacing Subby. This must be intentional!

Let's hope they ship to Canada

I agree, though I know it wasn't anything but an honest mistake. How would you propose he make him "whole" when he doesn't have another copy of the book? Logan, thanks for the note - I do want to again restate my position that I didn't intentionally break board rules or try to take advantage of anybody, though I do admit negligence. Though I understand it's frustrating when board rules are broken, I was caught off guard when both Harvey and MedicAR were so quick to jump down my throat in the thread itself as well as here. It's nice to know that there are a few boardies who can see through the debris of my mistake and identify it as such (which was very kind of them), but I am sad to see where I stand with some others, especially when myself and a friend were able to come up with a simple and effective resolution after some back and forth. If I've upset anyone, I apologize again. :shrug:

Excellent question. In fact, I did wind up locating another copy through my original supplier (a good buddy of mine on these very boards) and let MedicAR know his book was available if he wanted it. His reply? "No thanks."

Also, just go see Rogue One. The statute of limitations is swiftly expiring.

You guys are awful.

40 going on 20.

Pretty sure he is Ned Leeds...he is going to look a little weird in the Hobgoblin costume. Boy, I don't know... from the look of the character... him knowing Spider-Man's secret identity... I'd say they're pulling a bit from Ultimate here and that's Ganke. Good looking trailer, mainly because I think they're really starting with an age-appropriate and likeable Peter, which gets you more than 1/2 way there. Add in the Marvel Universe connection and I'm thrilled. As far as I can tell from Wiki, that's Ned Leeds.