theCapraAegagrus

4.0 IMO.

AFAIK, CGC only "covers re-holder" when they graded your comic and it is delivered from them. They don't re-holder books that were graded 5 years ago and recently sold. I would re-holder it just because I hate the gray text of the old stickers/labels.

This. What are the grading notes, though? Just because the ASM #4 looks better on the outside - doesn't mean that there isn't some internal writing/defect that degrades it.

Aaaaand this is why the collectible bubble will be bursting soon... Again...

This.

This.

No.

No.

Why are people treating comics that were printed last week like they're from the Golden Age? No, I don't want to damage my single issues, but I'm not going to limit enjoying my reading experience by "over-caring" for its condition... A modern comic should be interesting enough that I want to flip the page and see/read what's next.

Some people don't want pressed books.

This doesn't make sense. Particularly because: Fury's 1st appearance is in Iron Man. He shows up in The First Avenger. Stark has a credit scene in The Incredible Hulk, and the dialogue hints at this occuring just after Iron Man 1. The events of Doctor Strange occur around the same time as Civil War. Ant-Man and the Wasp's credit scene occurs during Infinity War. Makes literally no sense...

K.

"Let me re-phrase" i.e. you're misinterpreting my post. That's why I reiterated. So I'm not going to debate it.

Obviously you didn't take my prior post into consideration. I'm not going to argue an argument that I didn't intend on making.

He could be one of those people who aren't good with people. Who knows what's been said by whom. He could've called and said, "did you guy lose my books?" And - right off the bat - I don't wanna hear that as a customer service rep. Sounds like immediate trouble. There are just other threads to bring this up. None of us can answer the question.

He's a hero, now, though. The movie isn't bad because of the new origin - as previously mentioned. Continuity of the character as an anti-hero or villain requires Spider-Man, though. If The Joker is not a villain in his own movie, then it will just be a slap in the face to the character's history. It could be one of those things where it might be a 'good movie', but it won't be a good Joker movie if it isn't true to The Joker. Kinda how TLJ is sometimes called 'a good movie', but it's a flaming pile of ____ for a Star Wars movie.

This isn't about The Killing Joke, hence why I didn't understand why it was mentioned...

There are threads, without misleading titles, that discuss TAT, shipping, etc. It's just an unnecessary call to attention for something that's between the OP and CGC.

It's an unwritten rule. It's Friday, after all.

Let me re-phrase: The Joker's origin doesn't need Batman as much as Venom's origin needs Spider-Man to be "compelling" characters. They're completely different things regardless. It doesn't make much sense for comparison's sake.

Iron Man > Captain America.

You can think that - but Venom just isn't a good movie. When the main positive support for the movie is, "Tom Hardy" and "fun", then how can a franchise survive? Tom Hardy can only carry a movie so far. Marvel movies, and as Aquaman and Shazam have shown - Worlds of DC movies, are fun. Venom offers no separation to create a niche that those 2 can't deliver on. There's a certain relationship that Spider-Man delivers that makes any movie he's in draw attention. Outside of the Back-9 in Spider-Man 3, he's always made every movie he's in better. It's what Spider-Man brings - not what Venom lacks. The Killing Joke doesn't facilitate the necessity of Batman to Joker, but rather puts the Joker at the forefront of another story - graphically. I don't see how this is a counterpoint. How is Venom even an anti-hero? He serves as the objective protagonist in the movie. Killing a few guys here and there does not make one an anti-hero. See: Superman and Batman in recent cinema. Calling him an anti-hero does not take away from the fact that it seems Eddie Brock has him entirely reigned-in as a full-fledged hero. He "adopts" mankind. He's a tool for heroism at this point and nothing else. Box office aside - the importance will be about storytelling and truth to character. If The Joker is painted as some sort of anti-hero, it will be equally as bad as Venom. We've seen that villain-centric films can prosper with The Dark Knight and Thanos.

There are tons of abandoned warehouses around Detroit... Watch out, though, a guy fell down an elevator shaft to his death playing hide 'n' seek at night with his friends (in their 20's)...

Go to @TheGeneral and save some time!

It's a valid observation, though. You don't need a Batman to have a Joker. Venom's continuity in comics is mostly predicated on being attached to, and then damning, Spider-Man. I ditched my expectation for origin prior to the movie. IMO, lacking that connection did hurt the movie. You're talking about the all-time most well-known Marvel hero being "missing". Most people that know about Venom know about his origin and power being predicated on Spider-Man's existence. The Joker has never needed Batman to exist. You're also talking about an iconic independent villain vs a symbiote. All villains are not created equal. The Joker will always be a better and more-accepted premise. The Joker is original. Venom is not.