VintageComics

I've mentioned this a few times and believe that Epson make one of the best scans for comics. From what I understand they are expensive though (last time I looked, which was a long time ago). From what I remember, they also have a tendency to misrepresent darker pages making even the slightest foxing, tanning or shadows look worse than they really are but on the flip side, most books look amazing when scanned by an Epson.

Flipping the book upside down will also change the way the glare looks. For whatever reason, it's the way the light moves along the book while it's scanning that creates the glare, and sometimes changing direction makes it look better. You generally get what you pay for and for an affordable scanner there are going to be some drawbacks compared to a much more expensive scanner.

I think people over-speculate trailers nowadays. As Singer himself said, it was just supposed to be a character piece...meaning he was just introducing the characters. It wasn't meant to show storyline. As usual, I'll reserve judgement till I see more.

I don't know. I haven't seen the movie yet. If you don't know, then how come Wolverine having a healing factor makes more sense to you? I assumed it was physically since Singer said this (but don't know for sure) :

In a teaser trailer? When that CGI is probably the most time consuming and final piece to the film production? I'd rather not see half-assed rendered Sentinels as was done in the first Hulk movie for the teaser trailer. That just about ruined the buzz for that film. Releasing bad SFX is worse than not releasing any SFX. Here's what Singer said about the trailer:

I don't know. I haven't seen the movie yet.

Yes. It's no different than when some writer comes onto the title and rewrites history for whatever reason. Writer's liberty. Regarding the DOFP changes, for example, it just makes so much sense for Wolverine to be the time traveller - that healing power is everything in a situation like that. I disagree with most of what you wrote. I would also be willing to bet that your explanation for why Wolverine is the time traveler never crossed the writer or director's minds. I'm fairly certain Wolverine was chosen because of money. Absolutely. He's the face of this franchise, launched 2 spin off flicks that made bank, he's the one to carry the ball in this movie for sure. Yeah, I'm not going to argue that. It's just nice when you can take your big money player and he happens to work well in the story. It was Singer that said that Wolverine was specifically chosen at time traveler for that reason. It just made sense to me after reading it.

I used to use Photostudio and their "auto enhance" feature. That worked the majority of the time, but my Photostudio license has expired and I haven't used it in a while. I don't know if anyone else has any other suggestions.

Not that I dislike Singer's X-men movies, but I can only imagine how Joss Whedon would make an X-men movie work. He gave each character extensive development and screen time in Avengers.

Yes. It's no different than when some writer comes onto the title and rewrites history for whatever reason. Writer's liberty. I haven't really analyzed it, but I do know on the surface, that taking characters with a lot of history to them and trying to make a movie out of it is not as simple as it might first seem. When you're reading an arc that you might be nostalgically attached to (like DOFP), you've already got years of history and nostalgia behind you that the comic writer is building on. By the time DOFP came by in 141/142 we had years history, reading and characterization...that's why the story was so powerful to those of us that read it as teenagers, etc. When you're writing a movie, you've gotta get everyone up to speed really quickly without the value of knowing whether they all read X-men #94-140, so you have to change the story for it to make sense to the average moviegoer - otherwise you lose everyone. That's why it seemed so logical to have Stark Industries behind everything (including Cap, Hulk, Iron Man, etc) rather than give each hero their own original and find a way to tie them all together. I'm very impressed at the cohesion that they built into the Marvel / Avengers universe in a very short period of time, even if they did have to rewrite everything from the comics. Regarding the DOFP changes, for example, it just makes so much sense for Wolverine to be the time traveller - that healing power is everything in a situation like that. Anyhow, that's my Like I said, I'd rather enjoy the movies than reject them so I changed the way I saw them.

But close to what? You have the characters with their powers - those are fairly consistent. You have the behaviors and character traits of the characters which are fairly true to the comics. You have story concepts, but obviously with things changed to adapt to the big screen. I mean, come on, Iron Man and Avengers story lines are not true to the comic books, but those comics were originally written organically with one concept growing out of another and no real plan over all simply because they didn't know they were going to be around 50 years later. Most of the stuff would be silly to adapt straight to the screen. Now look what they've done instead to interweave Stark, Avengers, Hulk, Thor, Shield, Cap together. It's frigging brilliant. Anyhow, I let the concept of 'staying true' to the comics go a long time ago. I just look at these as exciting new stories with the same old characters - almost like a one-off graphic novel in a different continuity. That way, I get to enjoy the movies rather than ignore them.

It was more authentic to the source material than any other movie I can remember being made about comics. i go with 300 on this test: it was just about frame for panel loyal to the comic. I'd forgotten about 300 and Sin City (admittedly I've never read Sin City) but I did find Watchmen a highly enjoyable, well crafted piece of artwork on film. My point being that even the comic films that are most true to the source material can have people disappointed with them. I think that if you're not being realistic about what a story writer is capable of doing (and translating a 1963 comic to a 2013 screenplay is near impossible) then it's going to be rough going for those people. 300 was a time piece and based on history, which is why they could do it panel for panel and sell it. Sin City was ahead of it's time (and also timeless) but also gritty and gruesome enough that people would be drawn to it, which is why they could do it panel for panel. Watchmen was a time piece as well but also relatively contemporary and is still being read by students today. You just can't do X-men (1963) panel for panel. It wouldn't even make it to DVD. 1973 and 1983 X-men, ditto.

First class was one of the best Superhero movies ever made to this point. If you could get past the fact that X-men (1963) is not going to be the source material, it was almost impossible not to enjoy.

Have you seen this? They're coming.

It was more authentic to the source material than any other movie I can remember being made about comics.

I think Chris is going for 'stoic' and missed it slightly. I'll admit, even though I love the Cap / Avengers movies and this new trailer, his performance is a little 'wooden'...but I still enjoy the movies a lot.

I know exactly what you meant. (thumbs u

Add it to the list of "never see, even if tortured" I love it. I'm not expecting X-men #141-142 word for word, a la Watchmen. Watchmen proves that even the perfect comic movie can't please the fans. What I am expecting is good acting, good special effects and a storyline that captures the essence of what #141-142 are...and I think they've already done it with the combination of trailer and Trask Industries website. I'm going to keep expectations low but also am looking forward to it.

I try not to get too excited about any movie any more. I find I enjoy them more that way.

I like it. Like the old/new appearances, love the throw-back to the 60's, love that they have a varied cast. No Sentinels....yet.

It was a more innocent time. Readability was king.

What about a 2 tiered system? If you can't provide an eBay ID with decent feedback and at least one person to vouch for you on the forums, then you need a certain number of posts? That way, legit sellers don't need 100 posts but those that are truly new here get to know their way around before selling.

I heard that if CGC employees have to attend shows, those count as additional days even if they are not grading onsite. With the NYCC recently that might slow things down.

Books from this particular time period (like JIM #98, FF #26, TTA #57 and ST #110) all seem to have similar production defects, one of them being a diagonal 'forward slash' \ crease along the bottom of the cover (front, back or both). Something to do with the printer during the '63 / '64 period.

Or that the book looked too nice for a 6.0 holder. That's usually the case. It's either the "too nice" part or it just got even more popular. Even with that page quality I don't think it's passed 2K yet - until now! Wait - on ebay a 6.0 CR-OW went for $2181. Still can't believe the Circle 8 pedigree 7.0 OW/WH got $5,500... multiple Circle 8 copies ? Yeah, that caught my eye too.. I sold the Circle 8 CGC 9.4 last year.