Jaydogrules

The seller just said it is. Much, much larger buyer pool on Ebay than comiclink especially for that kind of book. The 9.8 boardie sale for $12k a year ago was a private sale and there was another 9.8 sale after that for $20k about three or four months ago. That 9.6 sale was just low (especially considering another 9.6 sold for $8k in Nov 2017). -J.

Good to see you back Bosco. -J.

No serious estimates are at $160MM for this bloated two and a half hour cartoon. Even $200MM is probably too low. All most recent estimates are $350MM all in, however you want to break it up between production and P&A. -J.

A 1000% agree with that. -J.

Still low balling DC budgets I see. -J.

Wow very nice and congrats on your big time sale. That's a new high for the book, regardless of grade. What a great way to start the new year. (And yes, you'll totally regret selling it one day ) -J.

Again, the estimates I am using are publicly available and based on widely reported industry norms, and as such, they are entirely reasonable and appropriate. It is not a deep dive forensic accounting into the studio's books (although I am sure if one were to do that, the amount the studio actually spent on this movie would exceed even the bloated $350MM figure that still has it in the red, even now). -J.

Totally. If that sale turns out to be legit, it just goes to show how the right book on the right venue really can make all the difference. The seller of that 9.6 in that comiclink auction made a mistake consigning a book like that to them, would have done miles better, and saved money on commissions, just putting it on ebay. @mbv Who can say. Any number I could say would have seemed preposterous even two years ago, but now nothing would surprise me with some of these ultra rare blue chip variant keys. -J.

A 9.4, Dell'otto 667 sold in 30 minutes for $13.3K? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Spider-man-667-DellOtto-Variant-CGC-9-4-Super-Rare-VHTF/143076293586?hash=item215002fbd2:g:QREAAOSwBqZcLKFU -J.

Yessir -J.

Sure thing ! NY Times: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/arts/aquaman-box-office-china.amp.html -J.

Basing it on published estimates by traditional industry reporters (as well as the rule of thumb that P & A are often near or as high as the actual production budget, particularly on a movie like this, as correctly pointed out earlier by lou fine). -J.

If you have any of that information, please do share. Otherwise you are assuming and speculating beyond what exists within the public domain. (And by the way, much of the time "product placement" does not involve the exchange of money, but rather a mutual exchange of "media value"- ie, we will flash a Sprite billboard in our movie, if you feature our main character on your soda cans). -J.

Well I never purported that that the theatrical was the beginning and the end of the revenue life of a movie. All I've ever said is that far too much money was spent on this movie, and as a result, it would be very difficult to turn a profit theatrically (though it may end up squeaking into the black theatrically after all). -J.

Nothing "flawed" about it. The splits to the studios I'm using are all known industry templates and the figures I used are all directly from box office mojo. But thank you. -J.

P & A are upfront costs. And "Future revenues" also incur their own additional cost basis. #stillinthered -J.

Give or take. Production + P & A= $350MM China- $233M @ 25% BO= $58MM North America- $189MM @ 50% BO= $95MM Other Countries $329MM @ 40% BO= $132 Total Revenue To WB so Far= $285MM Still about $65MM shy to profitability. #stilldeepinthered -J.

You only live once. -J.

Easy. Because, as I said, it was 700 when Peter flooded all his memories into Ock, and then died. It was specifically the combo of Peter's life memories with ock's singular intellect and mechanical prowess that created "The Superior Spider-man". *see Ditko variant -J.

Is there a particular reason you are trying to make that book something it isn't? Ock isn't "Superior" in that, okay? And every time you want to believe that he might be, just look at the Ditko cover again. It quite plainly tells you in which book the character was first coined. -J.

In continuity Avenging is a bridge story between 700 and superior 1. So the answer is still ASM 700. Don't like it? Take it up with the Ditko cover. Lol -J.

In 698 he is impersonating "Amazing" (as the current label note basically says). In 700, as the cover of the Ditko explicitly announces, he becomes "Superior", (new identity, new costume glimpsed). In all likelihood, if CGC ever did get around to acknowledging this as a thing on 700 it would probably be "Doc Ock Becomes Superior Spider-man", rather than a "first appearance" note. -J.

I agree 100% with your points. I don't agree with the guy above who intimated that someone could be "wrong" about their own opinions. This animation style did not work for me. I understand what they were trying to do but it was just too much of it (I felt the same way about the other big cartoon out now, Aquaman, for other reasons, but did not feel that way about Bumblebee). -J.

Nice book. Did you read it? He doesn't become "Superior" until Peter dies, which is his inspiration (a la the death of Uncle Ben) to be an "All New SUPERIOR Hero", explicitly INTRODUCED in ASM 700. -J.

Yes give him a turgid -script, wooden, miscast actors with no chemistry, and a $500MM budget and he might poop out a movie able to turn a small profit. -J.