Randall Ries

I bought a CGC 9.0 O/W in 2011 for $115. Can't believe how much it raised in value since. I was lucky. Love the story. The cover, however, leaves something to be desired. The way the Joker is standing over Gotham, he would more than have to dislocate his hip. His left (your right) leg is drawn completely in the wrong angle. It rubs my OCD the wrong way.

#395 was also used in the hardcover "From The '30's To The '70's" as well. It really highlighted the move from the silliness Batman had become to steering back to the 1939 vision Finger and Kane had initially. Thank God.

Can't live in a 'tec 27, but houses suck as an investment. Frickin money pits every single one of them.

Nice! Congratulations! Love this cover.

I mentioned this in another thread as well. Golden Age books shouldn't be signed like that. They've been through enough. I love Sig Series books, but not Golden Age books. Stan Lee would probably sign his death sentence if it were thrust in front of him. Having anyone sign GA books is defacement.

Yes, I know Stan Lee worked on the early Marvels, but there is something REALLY defacing about signing golden age books. I like sig series books for sure, but the GA books have had a hard enough time surviving w/o Stan Lee scribbling all over them. To each their own, of course. Maybe some kid born today will get psst about the sigs all over my Adams books someday.

I finally saw Civil War. Not impressed. Something else that doesn't impress me are sig series golden age Captain America Comics signed by Stan Lee. That really grates on me.

Batman #1. Hands down. If it were between Cap 1 and Marvel 1 it'd be Bat 1.

Keep trying Mitch you will eventually make a correct prediction once they pull this dog from the theaters. Yeah a $300M profit is certainly a disappointment! If I got that type of return on my investments I'd be crying all the way to bank!! Yeah. Last I looked, "profit" meant cash realized after everyone and everything was paid off. I think if the movie had seen 900 mill profit, there would still be naysayers.

I bought a Bat #3 some years ago and the dealer told me a tale of a lot of GA books being bought up in the late 1960's early 1970's he was involved in. Among them was a 'Tec #27 that was 9.4-9.6. The buyer took it with him to Norway and it has remained in a vault ever since.

I can't help thinking about how many times since "Crisis On Infinite Earth's" has Superman been "reenvisioned" by the actual owners of the character? Some have been terrible, some passable, but NONE are like the Superman pre Crisis. It seems DC's whole stable is up for interpretational grabs by any writer, artist or director of a given film. I think it is DC itself that is unstable and seemingly without a rudder. Aren't they even now reinventing their universe? Again? Methinks they are insecure. I for one wouldn't mind if they would just stick with one universe and give each character some reasonable direction to develop in. Snyder's vision is just as valid as Speilberg's or Richard Donner's at this point. Just as long as Superman is sort of up for grabs. So far as pandering to a dystopian society, I don't see it so much as pandering as affirmation. If we are in a dystopian society, the idea of unicorns and rainbows as a paragon of virtue isn't going to sell tickets. Have you notice once an attitude is established in society, there is no going back? I don't think a dystopian movie or set of dystopian ideals is all of a sudden going to make everyone recoil in horror and repent, turning back the clock to 1961 or something. We are what we are now, possibly in part to the media we are exposed to, but certainly because of a lack of moral restraint and a common religious compass. I think one begets the other. In fact, our media reflects our mindsets, if the truth be known. With a little propaganda thrown in, of course. If we have no one greater we must answer to (at least in our own minds) then the sky is the limit. But, given our predilection for bumbling and selfishness, we will only realize dystopia, not utopia. For everyone's Utopia differs from everyone else's. As long as that difference exist, you will have dystopia.

We can punch holes in any movie and I think hero movies are especially susceptible to that. I watch the Avengers and conclude that Black Widow would have been wasted pretty quickly as would Hawkeye. Doing somersaults and waving a couple of pistols around in the face of an alien invasion, she would have been dispatched pretty handily. The aliens are privvy to some really advanced technology, and inter dimensional travelers and Natasha has a glock? K. The other side of that is the aliens that DO invade, like the Orcs in the LOTR trilogy, are feared before battle by reputation, but once the battle gets underway, are fairly inept and get killed by the hundreds, with our hero's suffering nary a scratch. The only thing that saved the "gang" in ROTK was the ghost army. Must be nice to have benevolent writers getting you out of a squeak constantly. The other thing to remember as well is the times WE live in aren't the 1950's, where there were no terrorist threats and the heavy narcissism and negativity we live with every day. This movie (MOS, BvS) is a reflection of the times as was George Reeves Superman was. The human race, being in the predicament we are now, naturally looks for a savior to bail them out of distressing times. It's why we vote. If that savior is way mightier, or that savior has its own agenda, then there is going to be a problem. It's a "Save Us Then Go Away" mentality. People are superstitious and suspicious by nature. Like in MOS, if someone showed up all of a sudden with Clark's abilities and went public with them, it would hit the fan. Talk about divisiveness. The 1950's Superman was accepted and lauded. Given awards. Today's Superman would be considered a threat. Especially a Superman who outright said he wouldn't be controlled. We actually LIVE in a dystopian society.

Film production usually involves more than one vision. The bottom line is a complicated business model involving profit margins from box office revenues, toy promotion, franchises, sequels and spin-offs with everyone involved in the production jockeying for credit when a film succeeds or deniability when it doesn't perform up to expectations. Sincere critics and passionate Superman fans have described Zack Snyder's direction as lacking coherence. I won't go so far as to describe Zack as a hack, but by the same token I don't think he's a comics guy. Snyder apparently doesn't care about the legacy of comics, the publishers or historic relevance of superheroes. That makes him the wrong guy to handle Superman and Batman or any other historic characters comic fans feel passionate about. Zack's Watchman film was a mixed bag. As a broad contemporary analysis of the comic book hero mythos it worked well on a philosophical level which was entirely appropriate given the subject matter. But since the critical success of Watchman, Zack's vision of comic book heroism has become boringly pedestrian, darkly dystopian and given his dismissive treatment of women, uncomfortably misogynistic. He's not a good match to be the torch bearer for DC's legacy. One can fault Marvel for being somewhat predictable in constructing a universe where each major character and storyline intersects on some level, but that's what fans love about their comic mythology. Consistency of vision is a key part of the Marvel universe that allows it to expand. Heck, fans can wink and smile every time Stan Lee shows up in a hammy-cameo appearance; we even look for it and rejoice. That's because the Marvel universe allows space for a sense of humor and respect for legacy. As a Make Mine Marvel guy, maybe my perspective is off base here, but I think it's entirely fair for Superman/Batman fans to ask why DC's franchise holders can't find room in their mythology for respecting the origins and traditions of their heroes. My What? Comic books treating women like tokens and blatant objectification? ! DC is treading water at best. They are reinventing themselves AGAIN and yes, they seem to have no respect for their roots. How many Crisis can you have before you admit you have no idea what you are doing anymore? DC's legacy is going to be hammered in stone as waffling if they don't decide on a direction. It smacks of fan disrespect as well as the character mythology. At least some of it might be because Marvel is smoking them right now. I'm not an expert in this by any means because I collect books mainly from the early mid seventies, when I was a boy/teenager. Enamored with Neal Adams at the time. It's hard to care when Batman today will be different than Batman tomorrow or Batman yesterday. Part of the problem for me at least is that I can read a fine mini series like the Watchmen, enjoy it thoroughly, watch a movie a LONG time in the making and getting that "Meh" feeling afterward. I have always wondered how a movie would fare if they did it frame for frame from a popular book like Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. A movie for the fans. The thing won awards, right? Critical acclaim? Screw the directors "vision". Just do the damned movie the way the story was told in the books and let the neophytes figure it out for themselves as they go. They might learn something. Of course there is always that phenomenon where the book is always better than the movie. I can only hope I can at least go" Not Bad" after seeing BvS. I have always favored DC over Marvel, albeit by a nose. I dug them both as a kid but loved the golden age Batman & Superman stories the best. Loved Bronze age Capt America and Spiderman. Never got into X-Men. Loved the Tales of Suspense title featuring CA and Iron Man. Then the Adams/O'Neil books followed by my favorite Adams runner up Jim Aparo before his art got all weird with Bob Haney in Brave and the Bold. So good. None of the Marvel or DC movies can touch any of the books from back then.

If there was any redemption at all in "The Shawshank Redemption", it belonged to Brooksy's bird Jake. He was born into captivity, saw some stuff that would have broken another blackbird and flew away smelling like a rose. If that is considered redemption, then I stand corrected. One Stephen King "Novelette" has a little whiff of redemption. I'm sure King didn't mean it.

Yeah. Andy Dufresne was "redeemed". Living in Mexico as a fugitive. The movie started out good, then got smarmy, then really, really convenient.

I waited and I bought the Watchmen Directors Cut when it came out. I like it a great deal. It's depressing, though. I felt a sense of hope with the mini series that I didn't with the movie, however. Which is ok. I don't need rainbows shining from my bowels at the end of movies or books. Sometimes, things are bleak. Societal change brings darkness with it naturally, not sunny faced hope and that looking-stalwart-into-the-future-with-jutting-chin-and-shoulders-squared poise. The process of change sucks. I never saw redemption in any Stephen King novel or movie either. If you find yourself in either of those, color yourself screwed! Also, as an aside, they are preparing to unleash "Preacher" on AMC. Already, there are rumblings about the violence and subject matter in the mainstream. But, it's a comic book that looks like it may get the treatment it deserves. The squeamish can change the channel, I guess.

As I say, I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't say whether I will like it or not. My "Standards For Entertainment" haven't been challenged yet. I CAN say with some authority that the DC movies I have seen up to this point have pretty much sucked. The Watchmen and MOS are really the only ones I infrequently return to. MOS being entertaining with good battle scenes and Watchmen if I want to feel depressed and hopeless. I read a pirated copy of the 1st Keaton Batman movie -script a year before it came out and was horrified. I thought, "Well. It'll be a year before the thing is finished in production. SURELY there will be revisions". There were not. There were none. I didn't get two pages into the -script when the "I'm Batman" line was hurled into my eyes like so much lemon juice. While the line has become a running joke and a geek eye roll in fandom, I found it to be trite and ridiculous. When sitting and watching the movie with friends in the theater, I had to be restrained from fleeing when that line, which I had HOPED would be excised from the -script, was blurted out like puke into the punch bowl. So, people immediately had to find something positive to say. Which boiled down to "Yah! Jack Nicholson as the Joker! Awe-Siimmm!" To sort of counteract the choice of Michael Keaton as Batman. That is still a head scratcher to me. As was the choice of Nicholson. The guy who played the young killer of the Waynes would have been a much better choice. Now it seems like some fans consider this movie like a Fassbinder film, which it certainly is not. The Dark Knight Returns set a new standard for The Batman at that time and we got pandering from an entertainment industry that didn't want to alienate the fans from the 1960's tv show which was also an abomination, as were just about every comic book from #47 to about #219, when Adams and O'Neil tried to turn the thing around. (Gosh! We have this terrible tv show and the books are reflecting that POS and book sales are plummeting? Why? WHY?) Also, we couldn't frighten the little kiddies back then either, as we has merchandising and concession stand sales to consider as well. Their parents, fans of the tv show, would be their pants if they were shown anything different from their Petula Clark/Beach Boys backgrounds. Can't have the little lawn apes scarred for life by a movie. We'll leave that up to the parents, the school system and a greedy, avarist Madison Avenue. I LIKED MOS, but I didn't love it. The notion of "comic books are for kids and " is still very much alive in the entertainment industry because there are a lot of stuffed suits that don't get it making decisions. When they do try to relate, it's usually over something that has been relegated to the passe bin years ago. The issue of an "R" rated BvS movie not being initially released bears this out. Still pandering in this age of sophistication and enlightenment. Nah. We'll release the "R" rated version on BluRay and everyone can watch it hiding under their beds or with the lights dimmed after the kiddies have gone to bed like so much porn. As I say, I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I hope I like it. I've been waiting for almost 30 years for DC to get it right. That's a long time.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm betting I will like it. I liked MOS although there were some really awkward moments in it. For all the naysayers, I say this: Pop in "Batman and Robin". Then go see BvS. If anyone can say with a straight face the former movie was good, I have a butterfly net waiting for your occupancy. I haven't seen a Batman movie yet I have liked. It's one of those things where I know what I want to see, but haven't seen it yet. I'm hoping BvS will be a close approximation.

I think it's either Maggie or Daryl. Reedus looks like he scored a TV series and Cohan just busted out a movie.

That's sad to read. I have high hopes for the movie. DC movies suck. Every single one of them. They just don't have it in them to do movies right. I read a pirated -script of the 1989 Keaton Batman movie a year before it hit the theaters and was appalled. It sucked on paper and it sucked on screen. I really hope the Batman v Superman movie is better than the reviews. My hope is it's being reviewed by people who are looking for camp or cliche and aren't finding it.

Maybe it's already been said, but prudence dictates if I'm going to lay out thousands, I am going to be sitting down at a table across from the seller or a booth and it's going to go down that way. No WAY I'm sending 10k across seas for any book without it being in my reach before I sign checks or money orders. Why not just answer those Nigerian emails we get from "Mrs. Robotham" whose "husband" just "died" and she "needs" my bank account to hide his "millions"? Beyond that, I only buy from established dealers or selling houses. yeah, I might have to pay a nominal "buyers fee", but I know I will get the books I ordered. Can't believe in this time in which we live, collectors allow themselves to fall victim this way.

pretty sure a new Mutants 98 is involved House of Secrets #92 CGC 9.0 and this beauty. This is my second big trade in recent months, and it's great to acquire a cool book or two without having to outlay a bunch of cash. Randall was great to negotiate with, and we both seem to be very happy with the deal... I'm very happy with the deal. It was time to rehome the 9. I've enjoyed it for many years and now it's Jeff's turn. I will miss it, though. That was the second copy of that book I have ever owned. The 1st came from a stash an old farmer had brought in to a comic book store I frequented. A raw (obviously) 5.0 or so. Over 30 years ago, my 1st wife considerately tore it nearly in half during an argument. Cold blooded. That "stash" the farmer brought in had Batman #52 back to #1. There were 2 #3's, 3 #2's and (Gulp) 3 #1's in that bag. All raw. All Bat-books. The owner egged me on all the way to the bottom of the bag. I could not believe it. I got the 9 for $60. The store owner was elated about that bag. She offered me one of the #1's - my choice - for (drum roll) $3000. Which is likely what she paid for the whole bag. I didn't have $3,000 as a 20 year old kid and no access to $3,000. Now, 33 years later, I don't have $100,000. War stories, I guess.

Well, I CAN say I don't have a 1st born anymore. nearmint is evidently going to raise him as a wizards apprentice or so he says.

Just got these via trade with nearmint. Lovely!