VintageComics

1986 was about Miller because Batman wasn't as popular as he was in 1989. Wolverine was at a peak in popularity at that point in time. Not the peak but a peak. So was Miller (he was the hottest thing since sliced bread) but I don't think it was a co-incidence that Wolvie was chosen for Miller's project. I do realize that Miller had a fascination with Japanese culture. That still doesn't mean Wolvie wasn't popular. Anybody have guide values for Hulk #181 to see what prices were in 1980 - 1990?

Ah yes but by the mid 100's he was beginning to gain prominence both in stories and on covers. I think the Miller mini was done because he was popular. I think the Miller mini was done because MILLER was popular. In fact, I'm sure of it. But why Wolvie and not DD or Cloak and Dagger or something else? By 1982 when the mini series had come out, Wolvie had already been featured on several covers in the X-men run, had mini features within the story arcs against Hellfire club and was tied into a love interest with Jean. He was moving to the forefront of the X-men series even though even individual characters were popular. Issues #140, 141 and #142 centered around Wolvie. Wolvie had already risen above the rest of the X-men in popularity by the time the mini series came about. I realize he became even more popular by the late 1980's but that is likely another surge. What makes you so sure that the mini was because of FM and not Wolvie?

I remember being excited whenever there was an X-men crossover. Marvel Team Up Annual #1 was becoming a mini key in the making for those of us that were a little too young to read it on the newsstand, as was MTU #53, ASM #161, 162 were hot ( and still is fairly popular) and then there were others (can't remember them all right now).

I suspect it was this. A bit before my time so I can't say I remember, but looking at pre-Miller Wolverine, he's just kind of a goofy Bronze Age character. No "cooler" than Nightcrawler or Colossus. I think Wolverine's exposure grew as the X-men's exposure grew. By the late 1970's they were all cool and then each character began to take a life on their own. Byrne probably had the most to do with that. There wasn't much hotter than X-men during that era from what I can remember. Am I remembering it wrong?

Ah yes but by the mid 100's he was beginning to gain prominence both in stories and on covers. I think the Miller mini was done because he was popular.

I haven't. I generally don't buy discs. I do want to see the Director's cut of Watchmen though...I own that and just haven't found the time.

I thought Cap #1 was near perfect too. I said this earlier but every time I think about the movie it strikes me how much it felt like a Raiders of the Lost Ark movie. I think it was awesome. And Hayley Atwell.

The action sequences were mind blowing. They were easy to follow and had me on the edge of the seat, even when I knew what was going to happen the 2nd time around. Just awesome. I may have to see it a third time. On a slightly critical note, while I agree that Chris Evans' early Cap performances were slightly wooden and lifeless he seems to have loosened up and found his niche. I thought he did a terrific job. My only complaint about Evans is that he always looks like he's slouching. He needs to pull back those shoulders just a touch. Scar Jo did a terrific job as Widow. I loved the way she dropped down like a crouching spider in that ship scene. Terrific movie and I'm concurring with all the concurrences.

Did a good sized transaction on two books with Leonard and all went smooth. Thank you!

Saw it again. Phenomenal movie. Marvel magic at it's best. I'd put it up there with Avengers and Iron Man 1.

There appears to be a direct correlation.... Have you ever smelled a carpet from the 70's?

Oh, and Hayley Attwell.

me too. Didn't it feel like an Indiana Jones movie, only better acting and story?

I don't send in my books because I care less. I send in my books because it's really my only option when running an internet sales store. If course I care.

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Arts and Sciences, not Industry. Besides, academic scientists monetize their commercializable technologies through patents and the University technology transfer system. It doesn't stop them from teaching undergraduates, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and junior colleagues how to perform complex techniques and think about how to select and address key scientific problems. Fair enough.

I really liked the 1st Cap movie as well. I thought it was a terrific time piece.

You are such an absolutist. How do you even function in a world where almost nothing is absolute. Restoration is not a matter of opinion but whether it is detected or not is. And unicorns don't fart. Or do they? Didn't we cover this already? It's the unicorn circle jerk. OK, I was just talking about unicorn farts. Not bodily fluids.

Greed often has part of it's roots in just not trusting the other person. If everyone were open to sharing we'd probably have less greed. The problem is that you or I likely don't trust that anyone will share as much as you and I are...so we need to protect ourselves. Since monetary value is king, we protect ourselves by monetizing everything we have to offer.

You are such an absolutist. How do you even function in a world where almost nothing is absolute. Restoration is not a matter of opinion but whether it is detected or not is. And unicorns don't fart. Or do they?

Exactly. I've said this before: people are socialistic when they want to gain from something from someone else (ie. when buying or gaining knowledge that can save them money) - they're willing to be your best friend, they're buying it for their collection (in the sweetest possible voice), they just want to help mankind but capitalistic when they are selling or taking someone else's money - sorry, that's the price...take it or leave it.

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it.

Not this cat - I sat til the end of the Avengers credits and there was nothing - the theater shut down the camera and turned on the lights. What a waste of time. Karma's a biznatch!

Excuse me while I give you a and a in the same breath. You just love pushing the boundaries to test them and see if there will be an echo coming back. Nobody is OK with undisclosed trimming just like nobody is OK with unicorn farts. And never will be.

Using that line of reasoning, nobody really knows anything. Bingo. Which is why I'm not subbing to anyone anytime soon. And why, the "We screwed up, we'll try harder" isn't enough for me. I'd have more confidence if the answer was "We believe (insert problem) happened, and we're doing (insert solution) to make sure it doesn't happen anymore." Cool, so in the mean time make sure you use that same line of reasoning when you deal with law enforcement, government, the media and of course the wife. Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking you at all. I'm genuinely a relativist at heart and I don't think there are many things in this life that are 100%. There's 100% effort but not 100% results. That's why I've basically accepted the fact that I am willing to move through life and bank on 98-99% assurances. I believe that anybody looking for 100% assurance is rarely going to find it. I just find it so amazing that people expect stuff like 100% performance from their entertainment (whether it's sports or comics or their stripper) but are willing to accept mediocre performances from the medical industry, the food industry, the media, their government and even their own spouses and anything else that really affects the rest of our lives. The hippie has spoken.