MojoComics

On 8/8/2018 at 9:58 PM, SerialGrape said:

I really don't like Ruby Rose...

I'm an aussie, and even me hearing her accent makes me cringe.

I don't have anything else to add to the conversation.

To be honest, the only thing I've seen her in is John Wick 2, so her accent wasn't an issue.

3 hours ago, Lobo1969 said:

Gideon Falls #1 is heating up. What's the poop with his one?

As far as I know just a solid story.

On a side note, anyone anticipate movement on New Avengers #11, first Ronin?

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

 If the document is real, you may be right.  

Of course that also means that Sony is also just as able or likely to make a movie with any of the other three dozen or so "alternative versions of Spider-man" that almost no one outside of the hobby knows about (verbiage that, itself, I'm sure was used with purpose).

-J.

Yeah, there are a LOT of instances where they use Miguel O'Hara and Spider-Man 2099 as examples.  Seems like they thought that would be the way that SPE would take things if they decided to go the alternate Spider-Man route.

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I don't concede.  I concede that the "amendment" you linked does refer to Miles Morales but it is silent on the issue that we are discussing.  I've always said Sony can use him, which they do, in cartoons.  I would reckon that the original live action stipulations reside within the pages of the original agreement that Stan Lee has consistently reiterated.

-J.

Again, from the addendum:

"RIGHTS: SPE has the exclusive right to utilize the “Spider-Man” character and the other
Creative Elements listed in Paragraph 1 above to (a) develop and produce live action or
animated theatrical motion pictures (each, a “Picture”) and live-action television series
(and also animated television series with episodes longer than 44 minutes), during the
Production Term, and (b) distribute, advertise and otherwise exploit in perpetuity any
motion picture or television series that commenced production during the Production
Term."

Sounds like you concede that it's contractually possible, just improbable.  In that case I agree with you.

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I don't know what document you're looking at, but the one that licensed Spider-Man to Sony was executed looooong before 2011 when Miles Morales was first conceived.  It was Stan Lee who insisted on the Peter Parker proviso in the actual licensing agreement, which is precisely why he is always reiterating it publicly and why no one has EVER publicly contradicted him and why no one has EVER even hinted at a Miles Morales live action "Spider-man" movie, and why you're will only see him as such in cartoons.  

-J.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/junderwood/1 Corp Dev/Spiderman/Executive Summary of All Deal Points/Executive Summary (Creative).pdf

Edit:  I guess my post was incorrect as far as stating the 'original' contract, as this is, at least according to the Wikileaks source that started this whole thing, the summary of the most current addendum.

59 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

They are still operating under their original agreement.  It hasn't changed because it can't be materially changed without creating a new one.  That's how contracts work. Do I even need to take the time to explain how putting an entirely different character called "Spider-Man" in a live action big screen movie would be a material change?   All of Marvel's licensing agreements are character and name based as well as concept.  They cant just pick and choose whatever they want to satisfy the comic book pump and dumpers and the wishful thinkers. 

-J.

Again, if you look at the original contract, Schedule 3 names Miles Morales BY NAME, Schedule IV states that Spider-Man/Miles Morales can be used as an alternate named Spider-Man costume, and Schedule VI names Spider-Man III (Miles Morales) as a 'Named Character' that SPE is authorized to use in their production.  I don't know how much more cut-and-dry that can be. 

Now, whether that's a good idea, whether it happens or not, or whether it should, all that is irrelevant.  I actually don't think it'll happen, and I don't think it'll be successful if it does.  However, the contract is what matters, and it's there in black-and-white that by the terms of the original agreement, SPE is contractually allowed to. 

As for Stan Lee's interview, while I always like hearing his thoughts about Marvel's processes, is an opinion piece at best, and as one of the co-creators it's obvious that he'd want the character to remain as true to his original vision as possible.

From the original contract:

"

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

I think you read my post incorrectly.  

Where did I reference race anywhere in it ? 

And in either scenario, only Peter Parker can ever be "Spider-man" in a live action movie.   Unfortunately, they can't change that without tearing up the whole contract, which would cause all of the rights to revert back to Marvel, so don't hold your breath for that either.  

Sorry, no Miles Morales as "Spider-Man" in any live action movies.  

-J. 

Do you have an additional source that I'm not privy to, or is my Google-fu failing me, because I'm not seeing where it stipulates that only Peter Parker can be Spider-Man anywhere in the contractual sources that I'm able to find. 

6 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

I do think that character is completely undeserving of the hype he gets, especially since it is common knowledge  he is contractually barred from ever being a character called "Spider-man" in any live action film. 

And did you take a look at the current auctions though?   How much of the "demand" is real, how much of it is fake, and how much of it is lemmings following a fake "demand"?

-J.

I believe you're reading that contract incorrectly.  There are two different lists of character traits that Sony must abide by, one for Spider-Man (whether Peter Parker or an alternative Spider-Man character), and one for Peter Parker, and it doesn't stipulate that "Spider-Man" has to be caucasian, only that "Peter Parker or *his* Spider-Man alter ego" has to be caucasian.

5 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Which is crazy considering the one that sold 4 days before went for $167.

Yeah, I just dug one out of a box yesterday that I'd forgotten about and have been trying to price it, but it's all over the place.

Silk news!

 

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2016/08/19/spider-man-homecoming-cindy-moon-silk-tiffany-espensen-/

Breaking news from 2 weeks ago! Do you still get your porn delivered in a brown paper wrapper too?

Post dates are important...

Don't know if this is old news or not, but anything Deathstroke is about to explode; New Teen Titans #2 is already going for ~$200.00 more than it was last week due to confirmed appearance as the main villain in the new Batman solo movie.

Looks like some interest after Marvel declared her the 'smartest person in the Marvel Universe' at SDCC.

:shrug:

Has Marvel ever had a female superhero with a successful book? I can't even think of a title that ever lasted 100 issues.

 

Not sure I would throw down big money on any Marvel female superhero, but hey that's just my personal speculation tip...

Agreed, but Pulse 11/13 is hardly 'big money', and may be worth the gamble. This is, after all, a 'pre-heat' thread.

Hopefully she wasn't introduced in a test tube

Correct. Marvel's 'The Pulse' 11 or 13 I believe. 11 has her on the cover, but I don't think she's introduced into the story until 13. Could be wrong though, didn't really follow it.

That's a store owner I know in NC.

And just to chime in for anyone who doesn't know firsthand, my opinion is that Brett, the store owner in question, is one of the good ones. His store is small and unassuming, but when I was a regular customer he used to consistently impress me with his passion and knowledge, and has helped a lot of local artists get books published and on the shelves. The store gives back to the community in many unselfish ways, and they ran some of the best Free Comic Book Days I've ever been lucky enough to attend. I truly hope that we continue to see more Ssalefish exclusives, because that means he and his store are still doing well.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to help a brother out with the purchase of a $40 exclusive variant.

 

And who are the other 40-50% held by?

Speculators?

I wasn't a big fan of the Strain novels, but it could translate to a pretty cool TV show if the effects are done well.

Apparently they're pumping a LOT of money into the effect budget. Of course, effects don't necessarily make a story any better, but it seems with Del Toro's name and the rumored budget, this is something that more likely than not will make it to air. Waits to be seen (thumbs u

My LCS owner stated that this was a "free return on over-orders" comic for them. Any verification?

RR = 2011

Revival = 2012

I still think Revival would make for better television viewing than Rachel Rising. The story seems to lend itself to serialization (Floppies/Television) better, whereas Rachel Rising seems better in condensed (TPB/Movie) form.

Then, it makes sense (missed the comixology part). You are correct!

 

I guess it the:

 

Buy one for $2 or get two for $3 type consumer psychology.

 

The pricing would actually be buy 1 for $2 or buy 2 for $6, which makes absolutely no sense.

My point is that if your reading on a month to month, you're going to pay full retail per issue. But, if you're coming into the series late, comixology is giving you and incentive to go ahead and spend the more $$$ on a digital trade to save money. That's the way it is in most cases I have seen (trade is a better buy), but not so in this case I guess. Point, you can buy Rachel Rising 1-6 as singles on comixology for $11 or the trade for $10. If you spring for the single #1, you may not come back for #2. If you buy the trade, that's more $$$ for comixology up front. It just makes business sense to price all trades lower than what singles can be had for.

Understand and agree. Just strange that, like you, I've always been accustomed to the trades being cheaper than the floppies, and in think it's strange they decided that in this particular case the trade was 'worth' more. Convenience when it comes to singles I can see, not so much with digital.

Then, it makes sense (missed the comixology part). You are correct!

 

I guess it the:

 

Buy one for $2 or get two for $3 type consumer psychology.

The pricing would actually be buy 1 for $2 or buy 2 for $6, which makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but if not...

 

Revival is VERY similar to Rachel Rising by Terry Moore (which is an earlier story).

 

Why is Revival such a big deal and Rachel Rising isn't? Because Revival has an Image logo on it?

 

1. Image Logo

2. Black and White Artwork

3. Timing

 

That being said I love Revival, but in my opinion RR is a better story.

 

Definitely timing. Image logo sure helps too.

 

Well honestly I have never even heard of Rachel Rising until people in this thread complained that its Revival done better. But I'm attached to Revival so I see no reason to abandon a good story line just because someone thinks someone else story is better. That's like jumping out of a perfectly good ship in the middle of the ocean because someone thinks the ship 5 miles off in the distance may have better food.

 

And yes, it's a terrible simile but it made me laugh so to all you haters.

That's akin to someone not reading All-New X-Men just because they read Uncanny X-Men, or saying that someone shouldn't read Walking Dead because just like so many stories out there it's about people coming back from the dead. Just different perspectives on the same underlying theme.

Believe me, I'm not taking anything away from Revival, I absolutely love the series, as does my wife. I'll continue to read both, but I'm still intellectually curious about why one has gained the popularity it has when the other, as you yourself said, has people that have never even heard of it before.