Jaydogrules

These are some awesome images by Dell'otto. You should share them here as well: -J.

Wow. That's incredible. You have an amazing collection. -J.

It's very good. -J.

Gee. I only made the same suggestion at least three weeks ago in both the original thread and in a PM to you (for the first time), and twice today. -J.

There are no "official sources" that say what you want them to say. There are also no "official sources" saying the budget was "$275". So since nobody really "knows" anything, refrain from making up your own numbers and just posting "whatever you feel like" and leave the charts to the bean counters at WB for this particular movie. Problem solved. -J.

This is just a ridiculous assumption. Anybody who can see my sig line can see that I have well over $100k in DC/JL-related characters, and if nothing else, have a financial vested interest in all of these movies succeeding. What I would really like is for WB to stop making movies that suck. And if they do suck, and bomb financially because they suck, let's not put our finger on the scale in an attempt to mitigate what happened. Let's let it all hang out there and have an honest and real conversation about it. Trying to cover up this poop stain on the CGC boards isn't going to make the smell go away. -J. And yes, I am a Spidey super fan, something else that should be evident from my sig line, so it should surprise no one that I celebrate Homecoming being the biggest hero movie of the year.

This isn't about people simply "disagreeing". This is about someone deliberately and willfully posting incorrect information in a quasi-official capacity in a public forum for public consumption and a large group of boardies who simply want truth in analytics. Why question the people who are pointing out that an individual is doing that, rather than the individual who is doing that? -J.

Wrong. You're using one stale "estimate" from five weeks ago. Plenty of other information has come out since then and estimates have been revised to the industry accepted estimate of $300MM. Nobody is using "$275". Just you. Stop. -J.

There is no rational reason. But here's my best guess: "Too many people are asking me to put the correct industry wide estimate of $300MM but I just don't want to out of spite at this point and it's MY chart so I'll put what I want." -J.

Nice attempt at a dodge. Some of this nonsense might have had a smidgen of credibility if even a single source anywhere was still using (or ever used) "$275" as number. But every single analytic for at least the last month has long settled on $300MM as the number. All of them. Hence why the only article (the same, stale article from five weeks ago ) you continue to use despite the avalanche of additional info that has since come out is utterly absurd. At this point, since WB has conspicuously played hide the ball with this film's final budget for a reason (something I doubt they would be doing if it was anything LESS than $300MM), so these are ALL estimates at this point. And the general industry consensus is that it is $300MM. Is imdb a "credible" enough resource for you ? http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0974015/?ref=m_nv_sr_1 So I repeat , if you aren't willing to report the industry consensus estimated budget for this film , don't post any chart for it at all, because it is better to post no information than Bosco's imaginary mis-information. -J.

Yes it does. Is it weird that I got a little turned on by it ? -J.

Not really. Sale was not reported to GPA. Usually meaning it did not actually happen. -J.

Because it is a 1:1. It might as well be an original sketch on a blank. -J.

Doubt it. -J.

I figured you would bring up that tried and true guardians of the galaxy example. The difference is, there wasn't already a series of movies with a team called "Guardians of the Galaxy" out there. Similarly , there wasn't already another "Dr. Strange" simultaneously casting spells at the multiplexes. I'm not saying general audiences are too stupid to know the difference , I'm saying the addition of this derivative character to the big screen may very well be too much of a good thing, and can push general audiences into not caring enough to bother showing up en masse to see this cartoon. We are already getting a Venom movie and the real Spider-man in the Avengers next year. We just got Homecoming this year, and the real Spider-man in Civil War last year. Enough is enough already. This cartoon should be on pay per view. -J.

General audiences know who Peter Parker is. A second, derivative character also being called "Spider-man" may or may not resonate or be relevant beyond the hardcore comic book set. Hence why it probably would have been better to test the waters in a smaller venue (VOD) first. -J.

Because of the greater potential of financial loss and perception of failure, given the derivative nature of the character and the lack of awareness among the general movie going audience. -J.

First , this is absolutely a straw man argument. To repeat - Overstreet does not rank based on "9.8" values, it ranks based on NM- values (9.2). So your speculative musings on how much you believe a hypothetical 9.8 copy of Cerebus 1 would sell for as a challenge to the original question in this defunct thread are completely moot. Second, I dispute your implied contention that a single sale of the single copy of a single highest graded book is all that it takes to make the statement that the book is generally "more valuable " than another (see, again, for reference , the single highest graded 9.9 copy of Hulk 181 selling for $150k). Third, "if" a 9.8 copy of Cerebus 1 ever hit the market , it would instantly torpedo the perceived value of the few 9.4 copies on the census. People would no longer pay the "top dollar" premium for the "top graded " copy of the book because 9.4 would no longer be the top grade. (And here is my own bit of speculation)- "If" a 9.8 copy of Cerebus 1 appeared for sale , it would be lucky to sell for just a bit more than what a 9.4 copy has sold for, maybe $10k-$12k (on a really good day), which is a long way from what a 9.8 Hulk 181 has sold for on numerous occasions. Meanwhile 9.4 copies would immediately become $4k-$5k books (also below Hulk 181 in that grade). Why? Simple. The heretofore mentioned overall lack of demand for the title will always be a thorn in its side, as it puts a psychological cap on what people are willing to pay, even for a highest graded copy, let alone for what would now be a two-grades-down copy that has multiple examples on the census. People can go back and forth all day on what might happen "if" something else happened. However, as it stands now and for the last few years, hulk 181 is considered more valuable than Cerebus 1 by Overstreet (because it is. By a lot). -J.

I'm really digging the new, more descriptive (and accurate) label notes key comments CGC is putting on copies of Tec 33 now detailing all of the many first appearances it has, in addition to the origin and classic cover. Seriously considering sending my copy in for the new label. -J.

No the Dark Knight Returns #2 homage that Square Chaos posted above. I'm sure a commission like that wasn't cheap. -J.

That really is a nice piece. Mr. Dell'otto really has gotten pricey with these. I can only imagine what that Dark Knight 2 homage directly above cost. -J.

I don't know where that Gitesh Pandya person thinks this film is going to find another $40MM to get it to $675MM internationally given that it is done in China and basically done in North America (only $1500 per theater average last week on 2700 screens means Jumanji 2, Pitch Perfect 3, and Downsized all on the way this weekend, will be taking the majority of those screens). Also, IGN has officially branded this film (along with fellow comic book films Ghost in the Shell and Valerian) with the "f" word (and they are also using the industry-wide accepted budget estimate for this film of $300MM, Bosco's imaginary "$275MM" number on his personal charts notwithstanding, sorry Bosco). By this article's assessment, a film like this needs to make 2.5X its budget just to break even, so even if this movie somehow gets to $675MM (very unlikely), it would still be $75MM shy of breaking even, according to this article: http://m.ign.com/articles/2017/12/18/2017s-17-biggest-genre-movie-box-office-flops -J.

They say they didn't count error/recalled books as "variants". There's several legit Valiant variants on there though. More than I expected. -J.

Oh and by the way, here's the seventh recent auction that I intended to post in my original analysis , to further hurt your feelings : http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=382289148810&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565 -J.

As always , you're mincing words. You said this : " It's not like any of your beloved variants have more than 3 (if even that many) people bidding above 50% or so of the hammer in most auctions." I then posted multiple recent auctions that directly contradict your demonstrably false and arbitrary statement. Your response is then, "well one was technically less than 50% by 25 dollars". Give me a break dude. Just stop already. By the way, how many total people participated in this auction ? http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=202086603520&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565 -J.