GeeksAreMyPeeps

I think there's going to be double that. I'm pretty good. At a 1:25 ratio, that makes 4560 copies, if every retailer that ordered at least one ordered in multiples of 25. Which I doubt happened (but if there were multiple 1:25s, maybe not so far off). Figure around 4000 copies?

I think there's going to be double that. I'm pretty good.

To some extent, yes. The numbers on the Valiant Handbook are small enough that it probably would have been out of the top 300 in other months. However, every ongoing more than 3 issues in (i.e. after where you would normally expect drops) saw an increase in sales. Looks like the movie news is prompting some people to check out the line. (Not sure what sort of changes other smaller companies are experiencing.)

I actually loved the Sentry's origin. At least it was original and his first appearance is in Wizard Magazine. Would you be the guy that asked me to break up that lot of bagged Wizard magazines?

Is anyone seeing any demand for the Point One reprint? Low print run, probably, but not a first anything. Probably will only appeal to completists?

I assume you mean this one: That would be it.

If anyone is looking to speculate on the current line, pick up the next issue of Ninjak. It has an A cover that I think will be a very popular down the line.

Or nobody wants to turn loose of them just yet. That's more like it. I just submitted a few books to CGC but I don't plan on selling my best copy of each book. I still need to go through my Valiant keys and figure there will be a lot more getting graded soon, but I don't expect to do that and have them back before the end of the year.

People will be demanding the old continuity, so they'll start a Marvel Then imprint, as well as an imprint with no clear continuity ties called Marvel When.

That's an ambitious asking price. That would be ambitious for a slabbed 9.8

Zemo is going to be in Captain America. Is he going to be Citizen V too or is that his role in Cap ? I'm confused. I could see them introducing the initial Thunderbolts as villains over the course of Phase 3, then having a Thunderbolts movie early in Phase 4, as the team comes together to pick up the slack of a worn-out Avengers after the events of Infinity War.

I can tell you that I submitted some Valiants for grading at NY Special Edition. And I'm starting a new pile for my next submission.

Um, why? 1st appearance of Citizen V (new Marvel line-up). Of a new Citizen V, I suppose?

Um, why?

Post-Secret Wars Deadpool is going to be the host for Venom, so Marvel can screw with Sony and Fox at the same time. I might have made that up.

Valiant started printing their Gold editions with real gold: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ninjak-1-CGC-9-8-Secret-Gold-Variant-Cover-Valiant-NM-RARE-HTF-ONLY-CGC-1-of-1-/171816971373?nma=true&si=XsalhEQxaF7l%252FP%252FcRxYTbsRLKcg%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Maybe they're going to make Y pick a side.

If they throw me in a jail cell with Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, then the answer is no. I'm actually one degree of separation away from her. A friend of mine was their translator at a number of U.S. appearances, including Riot's appearance on the Colbert Report.

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this. Censored art is art you're not allowed to see. That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want. Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are. Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance. And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society. Artists are free to publish any work that they have the IP rights to publish. That right doesn't protect them from criticism. An artist being silenced because a potential audience finds his work to be distasteful isn't criticism, its censorship. Please explain how artists are being silenced. To have a company publish your work for hire is not a right. Any artist can easily and freely post their art to their website (within the confines of any agreement they have with the holder of the IP rights, natch).

I seriously have no idea what that means. He's suggesting that if you don't like something, rather than criticize it, you should just shut up and move on. What's being suggested here is what some have dubbed "self-censorship"; there's irony for you.

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print No it doesn't. Um, yeah, it pretty much does. Or, if you want to be a pedant about it, a restriction by higher powers. You're not seriously going to argue that Disney or Time Warner are the underdogs in the recent controversies regarding cover art, are you?

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this. Censored art is art you're not allowed to see. That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want. Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are. Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance. And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society. Artists are free to publish any work that they have the IP rights to publish. That right doesn't protect them from criticism.

Censorship implies a legal restriction on what a company is allowed to print. That never happened. In the end, a company does what it thinks is best for business. It just so happens that what's best for business may not be what the average fanboy stomps his feet and demands.

Actually, I think they did it mostly from a rights standpoint. I know for She-hulk, DC was going to come out with a similar character and Marvel quick copyrighted it so DC couldn't. From what I've read in the past it's a similar situation with the other female characters from back then. I was aware of the She-Hulk 'story'... which coming from Stan Lee, I'm not sure if it's true or a interesting anecdote created to add flair to the story of her creation. I haven't read of that being done in any other situation. Even if TV producers had decided to make a show about a Hulk like character who was a female, Marvel could have certainly sued for copyright infringement. So I doubt all of those characters were created to protect a copyright. Certainly not Supergirl and Batgirl was created to douse the flames of homosexuality rumors in Batman. edit - from the She-hulk wikipedia My understanding is that Batgirl was created because the producers of the television show wanted a central female character in the series.

Turd Man Comics is all about the speculation on variants which may or may not float for a while. I buy from Dingleberry Man Comics because he tells me which storylines have been hanging strong. I find this amusing because Rick Remender's first comics work (which could arguably be considered a collectible, if you;re into collecting first works) was Captain Dingleberry.