Jaydogrules

Bringing up a slightly different book here for a second, but do any of the experts that post regularly in this thread know why a run on all of the What if? Venom/Deadpool 9.8's has been made the last couple days on ebay ? -J.

100 watchers in one week? Wow. -J.

The 5.0 comic link auction closed at $14,750. Further supporting the $3k a point level the book seems to be at now. -J.

Nice book! All three books on c-link did very well. Yes the book does still have some legs. (thumbs u -J.

Very nice. Both you guys have quite a pair. (and I mean that in the most platonic way possible ) -J.

Such a small collector pool for those pence copies. And it's not as though prices are so outrageous on ST 110 yet that someone would need to consider getting one of them instead of an original American copy. -J.

That is stunning! That's my former 7.5 copy. I bought it for $5k back in 1990-1991. Is $68.5k a record for a 7.5? That figure does beat the prior GPA high by about $2500. -J.

The book has obviously been expensive for years. I just feel bad for the fence sitters/speculators/bandwagon collectors who start panic buying now that they think it is going to become even more expensive. Which it will. -J.

Shouldn't you be retired by now? -J.

Jamie Foxx in his Electro costume. Looks more like the lizard dudes from the original "V" . It would be ironic of that jacket he's wearing is alligator leather. -J.

Anyone think Punisher #10 will also get hot ? -J.

I told you guys. -J.

Who cares? You're using your own specific criteria to describe everyone (a common fault on here) when there are various "key" issues that do not involve " the star of his own top selling comic book of a flagship title", right? The point is that there are Flash Thompson fans in the world, and that sub-section of the hobby would certainly view his life-changing moments as "key" to their own collecting viewpoint. To me, Spider-man getting married doesn't amount to 2 dead flies, as the character design just doesn't work with a hot model-wife, kids, mortgage, etc. - that's why Marvel killed off the baby, got rid of MJ for a bit, then retconned the entire marriage into oblivion. The exact same thing will happen with this latest retcon, and years from now, they'll be retconned apart again. I think comparing anything that happened to Flash Thompson to Spider-Man in the ASM run is the epitome of a false analogy, to put it mildly. And your opinion of the marriage and what was done to MJ and especially the kid is just that- your opinion. The marriage "worked" for 25 years, and many, many fans hated and resented the ret-con. I would reckon yours is even a minority opinion among long time fans. So now we're seeing a married Peter again. Only goes to further exemplify the "keyness" of the wedding issue as a seminal Spidey moment. -J. Depends on how "longtime" the fan is. I'm also of the mind that Spider-Man getting married was one of the worst things that happened to the character. What made Spider-Man popular and relatable? He was a nerdy outsider who had girl trouble and money problems. Things that most average teenage boys can relate to. Successful photo-journalist, married to a hot super model...not quite so relatable. I think weather you liked the wedding or did not like it, both sides are arguing for the 'keyness' of the issue. Either way it signified something significant, even if it was something you didn't like. It made an impact. That's key. +1 Couldn't have said it better me-self. -J.

Nice 7.0 SpiderTurtle. Looks like all of us who called the 7.5 on c-c-link going for over $65k were right. That "yellowish" tint on the c-link copy is definitely the scan by the way. -J.

Awesome news! That makes just 2, 9.8's now out of the last 15+ new submissions. -J.

I'm right there with you on the Batman Beyond movie. I would have rather seen that than Batman Begins. I also know that's likely a pipe dream too, sadly. Chad, Sony would automatically own the rights to a "Spider-Gwen' movie, as, similarly, Fox owns all mutant characters, even ones Marvel created subsequent to the licensing agreement. -J.

Is it really not a possibility? Honest question. I would think the studios do not care that the bulk of th general public has no knowledge of several Spider-Woman's and alternate universes. They see Emma and the dollar signs that follow her. (I don't really have a dog in it since I only have one EOSV copy.) If they can fade out mutants can they upset a few die hard fans and get away with it? I think the $100 million opening weekend would make them forget about that. No? I'm obviously not a studio head, but if I were, I certainly would not gamble $100M+ on a completely unknown property that is essentially identical to another property I just screwed up, and even less so after I just cried uncle on the flagship character and basically turned creative control back over to another studio. Also, Emma Stone is not a "star". She's a decent actress but she doesn't open or carry movies. -J. Emma Stone is most certainly a star and Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, etc. prove that you can make a superhero movie without that much built in fanbase. I certainly don't have any idea how plausible this idea actually is and I don't want to give credence to this lot of speculation. I just don't see how you can dismiss this as not being a possibility with the way Marvel is hyping the character up and how easy it is to get the snowball rolling for something like this. I think our understanding of what a "star" is may differ. And GOTG and Ant-man are marvel productions. Sony gave up on Spider-Man because even they knew they were screwing the pooch on him. You really think they're going to now take a shot on a completely duplicative character and concept that would likely only confuse mainstream audiences and dilute their flagship property? They partnered with marvel studios to *stop* the bleeding. Come on. Be realistic. -J.

Is it really not a possibility? Honest question. I would think the studios do not care that the bulk of th general public has no knowledge of several Spider-Woman's and alternate universes. They see Emma and the dollar signs that follow her. (I don't really have a dog in it since I only have one EOSV copy.) If they can fade out mutants can they upset a few die hard fans and get away with it? I think the $100 million opening weekend would make them forget about that. No? I'm obviously not a studio head, but if I were, I certainly would not gamble $100M+ budget on a completely unknown, barely six month old property that is essentially identical to another property I just screwed up, and even less so after I just cried uncle on the flagship character and basically turned creative control back over to another studio. Also, Emma Stone is not a "star". She's a decent and (occasionally) attractive actress but she doesn't open or carry movies. -J.

Who cares? You're using your own specific criteria to describe everyone (a common fault on here) when there are various "key" issues that do not involve " the star of his own top selling comic book of a flagship title", right? The point is that there are Flash Thompson fans in the world, and that sub-section of the hobby would certainly view his life-changing moments as "key" to their own collecting viewpoint. To me, Spider-man getting married doesn't amount to 2 dead flies, as the character design just doesn't work with a hot model-wife, kids, mortgage, etc. - that's why Marvel killed off the baby, got rid of MJ for a bit, then retconned the entire marriage into oblivion. The exact same thing will happen with this latest retcon, and years from now, they'll be retconned apart again. I think comparing anything that happened to Flash Thompson to Spider-Man in the ASM run is the epitome of a false analogy, to put it mildly. And your opinion of the marriage and what was done to MJ and especially the kid is just that- your opinion. The marriage "worked" for 25 years, and many, many fans hated and resented the ret-con. I would reckon yours is even a minority opinion among long time fans. So now we're seeing a married Peter again. Only goes to further exemplify the "keyness" of the wedding issue as a seminal Spidey moment. -J.

A "Spider-Gwen" movie? Keep dreaming guys. -J.

Sweet book! That's definitely a keeper. -J.

So, by this logic, every single book ever printed could be deemed a "key issue" by a sub-section of the hobby? Fine, but we're talking about "hobby-wide keys" that have been accepted as important books by a significant portion of the collecting base. I don't see how the first point is true. It's not even close to every first issue that features a first appearance or some other milestone event in a character's history. Of course it can, as once you get down to pure minutiae like this, virtually *every* comic printed is special in some way. First, second, third appearance, artist, writer, cover appearance, large/medium/small event, co-star appearances, etc. There are many different types of "key" issues. It all depends on your point of view, just like the Spidey-centric collectors who believe the MJ marriage is the be-all-end of keys. I bet there are some Flash Thompson fanboys who believe the issue he went to Viet Nam, graduated college, or got married are big keys too, again, from their POV. Flash Thompson is/has been the star of his own top selling comic book of a flagship title? -J.

$13,466 So it looks like this book is $3k a point now. -J.

Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Chris Evans... man lots of Chris's... Henry Cavill... Those guys are "stars"? They're just dudes who have been lucky enough to get cast in some successful movies that would have been successful regardless. -J. No, that's my point exactly. Those dudes aren't stars, and yet they're in comic movies that are very successful and entertaining... He missed it. As long as the -script is strong and the tie in with BvS then the JLA flicks for the character works, the movie will do well whether JM is a star or not. No , he missed it. No such movie can be concocted around this character. And the MOS -script was "strong"? What ? -J. the argument you're making here is different than the ones you made earlier... But I understand why Aquaman gets no love, which is why I'm doubly rooting for this movie! The thrust of my original post was that because Momoa is no star and nobody cares about James Wan or how much money Furious 7 made, this movie about "Aquaman" (in quotes, because whatever Momoa was supposed to be dressed as in that one picture sure as hell was not Aquaman) has no chance of being anything other than laughable and a waste of both money and fan goodwill IMO. Marvel got lucky with GOTG. They are probably pushing their luck with Ant-man. And DC ain't no Marvel when it comes to making decent super hero movies as it is. -J. Marvel at least started from zero with GOTG. Nobody had ever heard of them, and thus had no preconceptions, positive or negative. Aquaman has been the butt of a joke for what, 20 years? Even the Big Bang cast pretty routinely make fun of Aquaman (or at least used to, haven't seen it in about two years). In making his film DC has to overcome a ton of outright dismissal of Aquaman as a cool and interesting character. Average guy on the street will definitely see a Batman or Superman film. But Aquaman? +1 That is the gist of what I was trying to say earlier. The fact that "Jason Momoa" (*yawn*) is the "star" and James Wan (who cares?) is the director, will not hardly be enough to overcome any of that. -J.

Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Chris Evans... man lots of Chris's... Henry Cavill... Those guys are "stars"? They're just dudes who have been lucky enough to get cast in some successful movies that would have been successful regardless. -J. No, that's my point exactly. Those dudes aren't stars, and yet they're in comic movies that are very successful and entertaining... He missed it. As long as the -script is strong and the tie in with BvS then the JLA flicks for the character works, the movie will do well whether JM is a star or not. No , he missed it. No such movie can be concocted around this character. And the MOS -script was "strong"? What ? -J. the argument you're making here is different than the ones you made earlier... But I understand why Aquaman gets no love, which is why I'm doubly rooting for this movie! The thrust of my original post was that because Momoa is no star and nobody cares about James Wan or how much money Furious 7 made, this movie about "Aquaman" (in quotes, because whatever Momoa was supposed to be dressed as in that one picture sure as hell was not Aquaman) has no chance of being anything other than laughable and a waste of both money and fan goodwill in my opinion. Marvel got lucky with GOTG. They are probably pushing their luck with Ant-man. And DC ain't no Marvel when it comes to making decent super hero movies as it is. -J. We're kind of talking in circles now, but that's okay. It's been shown that a comic movie doesn't need to have a star or a name director for it to be successful and entertaining. I don't see how anyone can dismiss out of hand the possibility that an Aquaman movie could also have a similar chance of success. It really depends on the -script, the director and lightning in a bottle. But to say years ahead of its release (before a -script, or a trailer or much of anything really) that it has "no chance" is a pretty strong statement. Heck, the movie might still not even get made! Still, I respect the dogged hate on you have for this film. It's good to be passionate about our hobby. No hate. I would just rather see them get a Superman movie right before they start trying to over-reach and delve into these other C list characters. Honestly I don't think the "Wonder Woman" movie will work well either. Some characters just don't translate well, and I think she will be another one. -J.