Jaydogrules

That's sweet. Always nice to have a little bit of Dell'otto OA too. -J.

Very nice. Looks sweet in that slab! -J.

+1 -J.

Wowza! And what grade do we think that copy would come back as? -J.

Thanks for the heads up! -J.

-J.

It is not a "variant" of the first printing in the least. It is a third printing, as indicated by the UPC on the back. CGC labels it a "Retailer Incentive Edition", which is in fact not the same as an actual "RRP" (which label only applies to a handful of DC variants). It is a DRS (Diamond Retailer Summit) book, commissioned by Diamond (similar to how stores commission a store variant) and was mailed out to those who attended the Diamond summit from that year. Here is the description of the book from Diamond's website: https://summits.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/54/787?articleID=118463 -J.

....Not a "variant", it is a reprint (third printing), and it is not an "RRP" either. Great, informative list otherwise though. -J.

Only one blue label 9.8 added to the census since 2011 and this is it. No doubt this sale of a 9.4 from yesterday for $3k ferreted it out ("view original item")... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Danger-Girl-2-Ruby-Red-Smoking-Gun-CGC-9-4-NM-Rare/113729758186?hash=item1a7ad263ea:g:rfkAAOSw5tNcSpAU -J.

In line with the 9.6 that also just sold on C-link for $14.2k... http://comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch.asp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3DIncredible%2Bhulk%2B181%26GO2%3DGO%26ItemType%3DCB&id=1302077 -J.

Getting closer to a proper FMV for the grade. -J.

Looks like another 9.6 on comiclink went for over $14k... http://comiclink.com/itemdetail.asp?back=%2Fsearch.asp%3Fwhere%3Dsell%26title%3DIncredible%2Bhulk%2B181%26GO2%3DGO%26ItemType%3DCB&id=1302077 Still a bargain in that grade compared to 9.4/9.8. -J.

They sold at least one of them. -J.

Unlikely to even make Spider-verse money ($375MM). -J.

Holy...., man. Damn! -J.

Oh and remember this now glorious tidbit from that same article? Lol https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/ "With a production budget of $100 million and perhaps $75 million in worldwide marketing (to give it some benefit of the doubt and help widen the range for it to turn a profit) that still means break-even point sits somewhere around $350 million, give or take." (Of course the marketing budget for Venom turned out to be closer to $125MM, putting its all-in at $225MM, according to Deadline, but it is "interesting" to see that the break even on Venom, according to Forbes then, with an at the time estimated ~$150MM all-in was $350MM. Since we will never know the full breakdown of Shazam from them since it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell on being a top movie of the year, I think we can safely go by Deadline's all-in estimate of ~$200MM to realize how cartoonishly laughable Scott Mendelson is with his typical DC biased BS. Sorry, Scotty, but a 67% drop internationally, including 80% in China alone, the number 2 market now, remember(?), coupled with a 53% drop in North America in only week 2 after your lowest ever opening weekend for a DCEU film is borderline catastrophic for a movie that DC was, evidently, planning to make multiple sequels and spinoffs for. (Yeah, sure. )) -J.

Wow that sure is a lot.of lipstick Mendelson is smearing on this pig (he is known for that when it comes to DC movies). ...Except that this movie, at $259MM, is nowhere near "breakeven" terrotory theatrically. Oh and hey, remember when Forbes said this about Venom? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/ "The point is, I think Venom needs to play closer to $400 million to really return enough money to Sony to make the endeavor worthwhile. But for Venom to be called successful enough to earn a sequel and declare “we’ve kicked off our Spider-verse tie-in movies, now we’ll make more,” this film needs to play much higher than $400 million." -J.

I agree that Venom and Deadpool benefited from built-in brand name recognition (and Venom was obviously far better known than Shazam was), but even under the rosiest interpretations, this will be, by far, the lowest grossing film of the DCEU. The fact that this will make less than Fantastic Four (2005, also on a $100MM budget) domestically is just plain bad, and if it wasn't for China (which is also very weak by today's standards), it wouldn't even make what the original FF made globally 14 years ago. That isn't a "narrative", that's stating a fact, and it will continue the seeming pattern of the DCEU, with it's one step forward, one step backward thing it has going on. I didn't call this movie a "bomb" (yet). It may still pull a strong Easter weekend next week to at least get to "passable" before Endgame comes along and flushes this along with everything else down the toilet the following week. And "lined up" films have a funny way of falling into black holes when final box office numbers actually start rolling in (see, e.g. ASM 2). -J.

The First Avenger? What's the point in comparing this to a movie that came out 8 years ago? That's called trying to put lipstick on a pig. How about comparing it to movies that just came out instead, with comparable budgets? Compared to Venom, Logan, and even Spider-verse, this movie is performing terribly for Warner Bros. I agree that the timing of the release is probably primarily to blame (with two other super hero movies still in theaters and a third on the way in a couple weeks I will just hope that it isn't the dreaded and often talked about "superhero fatigue" finally setting in). -J.

I think it gets to about the $350MM mark that Mendelson at Forbes estimates. And at that figure, it is definitely a money loser theatrically. -J.

Box office mojo projecting a $22.5MM second weekend on a 58% second week decline, which means this movie still won't be to $100MM domestic by the end of its second weekend. Let's not kid ourselves, this movie isn't doing that great. -J.

Actually, they were originally announced in November/December of last year. I'm happy to provide you links if necessary. At this point I suspect whatever does happen will be either TV or the lower budget direct to video route that I said this should have also been from the beginning. -J.

"Some" profit may be realized on the ancillary end. And talk off spin off films were announced early. Will they actually follow through or be released theatrically now that the final numbers are in? Who knows. -J.

Nope. Not even close. All in- ~$190MM Worldwide Gross- $375MM Domestic- $190MM @ 50% = $95MM China- $63MM @ 25%= $15.75MM Other Foreign Territories- $122MM @ 40%= $49MM Total Net to Studio- $160MM Net Theatrical LOSS to Studio- (-$30MM) -J.

Uh yeah. He doesn't explain it either lol. -J.