VintageComics

Fair points. You can understand why I thought it was me, right? If it wasn't me then I genuinely apologize.

So, you're suggesting we should have a thread for every minority interest in comics so that nobody gets forced to read something they don't want to?

The problem is that people are convinced as a rule that more money means more quality and that's not the case. It's quite literally like a brainwashing and it's apparent in every industry. It certainly was in cars and comics, the two I grew up in. For example with comics, people think paying top dollar for a 9.8 is enough, but people have varying criteria for even 9.8s but novices don't see that. Same with automotive. You can spend $500K for a Bentley, and while I can't say definitely due to being out of the industry for 14 years, but it used to be that a $20K honda was technically a more reliable car. So it's a general rule that you get what you pay for but it's not a specific rule. This is an incredible point, and one that can't be stressed enough. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in the same vein when I coached soccer when I gave the kids plenty of time (resources) to score a goal during drills, they couldn't make it happen. I would cut the clock by a few seconds with every drill. 10, 7, 5 and finally 3 seconds. At 3 seconds, the pressure was so great that they would hyper focus and something eventually would lead to goal more often than not. In fact, procrastination and hyper focus under pressure is often a sign of a high achiever and MANY highly successful people operate like this. The adrenaline gets going and you get into salvation mode - you have to save your skin and come up with a solution and all the gears then align. Feige's bank was so bloated that it literally lulled them to sleep. I'll bet if he cut his budget in half for every movie, they'd make better movies. (Disney, send me the check please?) Look at Oppenheimer. $100MIL budget, ZERO CGI effects, one of the best movies of the year. And it made $1BIL (rouhgly), so 10 X it's money. Meanwhile, The Dark Knight, probably the best of the trilogy was filmed at nearly DOUBLE the budget ($185MIL) and made the same total ($1BIL) and 'only' made 6 X Which is the better investment? Which is the better movie? That's what I'm talking about, biznatches! Pressure is a GOOD THING, but most would have you believe it's bad. Those people are missing out on shaping diamonds!

Yes you, Biznatch.

BTW, it's worth pointing out that if Paqart hadn't made the OT post about ARQ, I'd never have heard about it. Conversation and interaction is the lifeblood of society. It's a beautiful thing. How some accept it is on them, not on the person talking.

I'm at a point where I just can't be bothered to watch mediocre stuff anymore. I'm old and my time is limited! I've cut out the majority of my television and will usually only catch either an old movie I love or something new if I really feel it's worth my time. Every once in a while I come across a hidden gem that I think is great, or someone recommends something like the ARQ Sci Fi movie Paqart recommended which was incredible, for example. I'd NEVER have watched that movie otherwise but I thought it was better than anything Disney put out in the last 3-5 years (honestly). And it was low budget - like $2MIL. The entire movie was pretty much filmed in one house. I normally HATE movies that are all filmed in one location such as movies all filmed in an airplane or a phone booth, but this movie was so well paced, well filmed and even well acted that it was GREAT. I just don't understand how someone can spend $2MIL and make a great film but "the pros" spend $250MIL and make a flop. The formula is absolutely broken and it needs to be thrown away and reinvented. And that doesn't mean Feige needs to go. What it means is that Feige needs to be given total control with zero pressure from the bosses because THAT was the formula that worked. Feige may have "total control", wink, wink, but Iger (or Disney / Chapek / whatever outside forces there are that we previously discussed) ABSOLUTELY are still influencing Feige and it's apparent. They've openly admitted it. Even if it's just pressure to produce more content (as the execs yell from the back office "WE NEED ANOTHER RECORD") it is RUINING THE COMPANY. The best art comes from the artist, not from the accountant.

Dude, I have ALWAYS posted this way. For nearly 20 years nobody cared. Now all of a sudden 'everyone' cares. Well, everyone except the dozens of people who keep either agreeing or quoting and adding to my points. Would you like me to find 1000 off topic discussions in threads for you that aren't caused by me to ease your pain? Bosco posts 100 memes a minute that have nothing to do with movies and gets a pass? Get off my ***favorite play toy*** and just ignore what you don't like. It's really simple.

I actually liked Kav's postings (outside of the cornfield) when he wasn't just saying KANG!

WE didn't get the thread locked. EDITED to say that my points in that thread were 100% bang on point as to why I thought the Marvels movie and by extension the MCU and DCU was struggling but a bunch of people who didn't even want to have the convo got a thread locked by constantly derailing it on purpose. Threads meander. No thread stays laser focused and nobody is derailing this thread either. I made a point about how disingenuous the entertainment industry can be and some people agreed. Nothing more. If you want 100 posts with the word Kang in them be my guest.

I think most grading is subjective. lol. Probably because they're basically the same "company". They forgot to add sustainability and the ingredients to the comic book. Wow, what a strange idea. I guess they're trying to index them to be able to market them easier, but it's a total conflict of interest for the people selling the book to also index them.

Ever since they put a leash on me nobody wants to post here anymore.

Saw them only once, circa 2013 or so? Just to see them to see what they were all about. It was a pretty incredible show....but yeah, those two Shysters will suck the blood from a lemon. Or something like that.

I saw them in '89 or so on what, the 4th retirement tour? It's all the same with these guys. Someone buys a house and they do a "we got a new mortgage to pay for tour".

I only watched Gotham and Daredevil and I felt Gotham was terrible, but maybe it got better after the 1st season? It felt cheap and amateurish to me when compared to Daredevil, which I think was on the level of Breaking Bad and GOT. If everything Marvel put out was as good as DD, nobody would be complain about anything. Instead, I felt the Jessica Jones, etc stuff was meh.

CGC has been putting all sorts of notes that make no sense on books in my experience and I'm not sure why. I literally would get books back, crack them out, look for the defect in the notes and was unable to find the defects. It was quite ridiculous for a while. The only thing I can think of is they had new graders.

I don't follow this sort of convo on budgets closely, but doesn't a $100 Million budget sound sound cheap for a film with a cast like this?

When you put a chip on the shoulder of someone capable, it's best to step out of their way. Amazing.

I don't watch much TV anymore and I didn't know how popular he was until I saw him in something. I even thought he was a great actor but for some reason I just don't enjoy watching him. This is probably a great choice for the franchise, though.

I remember the first time I saw a Motley Crue video back in 1983. I was smitten and loved the band for decades after. When they announced their "retirement" with signed papers, I just KNEW it was BS and that they were coming back. When they announced their "come back" I vowed never to try to see live them again. No interest, and then stories came out about how they were using backing tracks and that Niki Sixx can't even play bass. Serves them right. As long as the general public opens their mouths for them to shovel in their fodder, they'll keep doing it.

He identifies as Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Pov, are the defects in the notes or are you actually seeing them on the books themselves?

I prefer to think of it as an IQ per post basis.

I was actually thinking of starting a new Journal for myself but have realized that the format has changed. Can someone explain why they changed the format? The new format looks unreadable to me and I can't stand it. I much preferred the older format that just looked like traditional threads. Anyone have any input, or point me to a thread where this discussion happened? I haven't been here a lot over the last year+ so I've lost touch.

I'm in court tomorrow against a Libyan warlord! I was quite literally going to write "Shouldn't you be suing Libya or something" and then thought I'd give you the spotlight instead.

Don't remember the era in which those happened or the society that enacted them, huh? BTW, this is "non-comic talk" coming from the same person who complains when I do it. What I learned from decades of debate in religious circles is that not only is it important to define WHAT is done, but HOW, WHY, WHERE and to WHOM it's done, but that's far beyond the scope of this discussion and probably the attention span of most people here. *Thought better of it and edited the rest out.*