KingOfRulers

As far as I can tell, that's what it is. How would you describe it? And I'd like to clarify that I'm not against Marvel characters being political. Even overtly political. What I should've said is that I'm against long established characters being hijacked for political purposes. In this specific instance, I feel as though Spider-Man has been commandeered to suit a writer's political interests. As I mentioned previously, the "multi-verse" can be used as the scapegoat to explain away anything. In this case, someone would say, "That's Miles Morales, not Peter Parker. Different universes etc..." But in the eyes of the world, Miles Morales and Peter Parker are ultimately still Spider-Man. I don't like that social activist writers (or some other term that you prefer) land a gig writing the most popular fictional character in existence, and see it as a golden opportunity to spread their political ideology. Regardless of the 60 years of character lore, it is all ignored so that the writer can spread their message to the widest audience possible. That's what makes me want to vomit. I'd be perfectly happy to see these same writers create their own Marvel characters and be overtly political with them to suit whatever their ideology might be. However, said characters should be the creators' own, original creations and not hijacked, decades-old superstar characters. Let the writers bring to market their original, politically charged characters to either succeed or fail with audiences on their own merit. As mentioned, Hobie/Spider-Punk was my favorite character in the most recent Spider-Verse movie. He was awesome! How can you have a punk character be a punk character without being super political? You really can't. My only problem with the character is that (again), they had to make him a Spider-Man. Marvel can have success beyond the Spider-Man brand name. There's more to Marvel than Spider-Man. I sincerely hope they find a way to make the character of Hobie his own, completely original superhero/anti-hero, political and all. Start him in a solo series, then make him a Young Avenger. I'd buy current comics again. Just don't make him yet another Spider-Man for the sake of exploiting the brand name.

While that character could be construed as having political undertones, that's not even what I was referring to. Blaxploitation Spider-Woman was a character flop with or without politics. The political easter egg injected into the movie was more direct and specific, as it was a current political action group that was referenced in connection to Miles Morales. I won't even specify what group it was, as we're not to discuss politics here. If you didn't notice it when you watched the movie, you can Google search it and you'll easily find what I'm referring to. That paragraph of my review was simply expressing displeasure at the inclusion of this specific political activist group by the filmmakers, into the star character's personality. I don't want the character to serve as a vehicle for the writer's political preferences. And if the writers do take the road of having the characters they write choose political sides, as the viewer, I can take my own side and find positives or negatives in what they present onscreen. That's as far as I need to go with it on these boards.

It's part of the movie, therefore fair game for inclusion in the movie's review. I didn't state my politics. I've merely stated that the movie displays obvious politics within. My opinion is that I don't like its inclusion in the movie. Put me on "ignore".

I saw the movie today. Overall, I liked it, but not as much as the first Spider-Verse movie. Every movie, it's more and more apparent that social activists are pushing their brand of activism into the personality of the characters. That was certainly the case here. They continued on the track of turning Peter Parker into a complete dope. Blaxploitation, pregnant, unlikeable Spider-Woman was involved in melee and riding around on a motorcycle. That's probably pretty good for her unborn kid, right? I hear that all of the vibrations and abrupt movements help an unborn kid's development. Such a strong, pregnant woman. So terrible and unlikeable too. I admire Sony for testing my salt as a moviegoer. I've long wanted to know what my limit is for how terrible a character can be, before I exit the theatre and request a refund. Thank you Sony for pushing my limits and allowing me to learn about myself. Maybe in part two we'll get to watch that absolute queen Spider-Woman down a gallon of Jack Daniels and smoke a carton of Newports. Outside of those two character letdowns, I thought the characters were all great. The multi-verse concept allows or such easy introductions to characters. Hobie/Spider-Punk was awesome. I wish Marvel could introduce that character as his own character, not connected to the Spidey name. A new, original character, but with that same look and personality. He was my favorite character in the movie. I'd love to see that character join the MCU as an original character. He could be a Young Avenger for a little while. Scarlet Spider was also hilarious. The movie was an amazing art project. As far as the visuals go, it was wonderful! I love all the experimentation. The wild and varied art styles. It was as close to a comic book that a movie could ever be, in my opinion. A legendary exhibition of the cinematic art form. As it pertains to visuals, I think it is the best representation of how a comic book can be translated to cinematic form. A++, in that regard. As far as story goes, that's where there's problems. The "multi-verse" was a great plot device for the first movie. It's been a great plot device for the MCU. As well as serving as the primary plot device, by its nature we are treated to a cornucopia of character appearances and easter eggs. That being said, the multi-verse's level of use is now concerning, especially since this second Spider-Verse movie wasn't even the spectacular crescendo of the multi-verse as a story. Going in, I had no idea this was merely part one. They're pumping the multi-verse well for a third time in a row. Sony and Marvel will inevitably use the multi-verse as a crutch for lazy storytelling. The multi-verse should itself be a storyline, not a get-out-of-storytelling-free card. The entire multi-verse concept is fantastic when utilized responsibly. The overuse that we are now being fed will ensure that future narratives have no lasting consequences. Every story will be dismissible. No lasting consequences has essentially been Marvel's comic book storytelling tactic for at least a couple of decades, so I shouldn't be surprised. The multi-verse allows for any story to be instantly retconned, without even actually retconning. The affect will be the same, but instead of being called a retcon, the multi-verse will be the infallible scapegoat for any unwanted or difficult story elements. Whether the consequence of a story was big or small, or something must be changed due to production issues, casting issues, or a fiery Sony board meeting, everything can be easily and instantly explained away by saying, "Oh, it was the multi-verse." "That character was from a different universe." "That sequence of events was from a different universe." From the smallest detail of a story, to the entire story, everything can be explained away by leaning on the multi-verse crutch.

I haven't been in so long. I wonder if it's filled with vagrant tents now.

I view Avengers: Endgame as our peak. We've been fortunate to experience the golden age of the superhero. 2008-2019 was the heyday for the MCU, but I'd say ever since X-Men came out in 2000, our once sub-culture has become mass appeal, popular culture. 2008-2019 was an amazing run. Not every movie was a winner, but even so, it was what so many of us dreamed about for years. At this point, we're four years beyond Avengers: Endgame (it's hard to believe it's been that long). I think the average person who isn't a comic book fan, but got loved going to see all the Marvel movies over the years, is possibly burned out. Been there, done that at this point. As to what this means for SDCC...probably nothing for quite a while. I think SDCC is large and high profile enough to bring in full capacity numbers for quite a while, even if general interest in fandom declines. I owned and operated several large comic conventions from 2010-2021. None as big as SDCC, but at the 40,000-50,000 attendee level. Towards the end of our run, we were very nervous about general public's comic con fatigue. Another, "been there, done that" situation. But in our case, not towards interest in Marvel movies and nerd culture, but instead interest in comic conventions. I think the nerd culture boom that we've had the last 15 years was fueled by popularity of Marvel movies, Star Wars movies, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones and the general prevalence of properties that were closely associated with events such as comic conventions. It's one reason why so many comic conventions (including my own) sprouted up everywhere and grew so large. At this moment in time, I see the general public as bored with the MCU, Star Wars etc, and I see that boredom as a threat to the viability of regional-level comic conventions. While SDCC isn't immune in the longterm, I see it as pretty resistant to that fatigue.

I don't think it will have an effect on SDCC. I see threats to SDCC as more macro and longterm, such as "Will the general public tire of nerd culture?"

I got all of my card art back from the framer! My last pictures were missing 6 or 7 pieces. It was a jigsaw puzzling arranging everything on the wall. I'm probably going to continue to make some more modifications. But the art wall is coming along nicely!

Last price drop! Now $19,500!

I think for the comic books and art featuring a given character that has made his or her way onto the silver screen or TV, the character needs to become an instantly recognizable piece of pop-culture. Yes, that means the success of the specific movie or show in which they're featured, but I think for true appreciation in value it goes beyond that. Over the last couple of decades we've seen plenty of instances where first appearances of characters shoot up in value in the months or years prior to their on-screen debut, only to tank in value once the movie or show is actually released. I see that as speculative value. To gain true, longterm value and staying power, I think the characters need to become ingrained within society's consciousness. A good example of this is Thanos. He was fairly well known in the world of comics, but the general public was completely unaware of the character before the MCU. Thanos was a popular (within the comic world) recurring villain that had a prominent role in an early 90's storyline. Not different than so many other Marvel villains over the decades. The character was given a fantastic "slow burn" treatment in the MCU. Several years of build up, foreshadowing, and after-credit teasing before we actually got the character on-screen in a significant way. After all that waiting, once we actually got the character, we received some great character development. He wasn't just a villain thrown in for the purpose of a slugging match, only to be forgotten by the audience once they leave the theater. I think it's this sort of situation that builds true value in the character's original art pieces. While not as ubiquitous as Spider-Man, I'd now consider Thanos a household name. The general public know the character. Thanos went from unknown to known by general public. No easy feat. Primetime/Golden Age Thanos pages now go for a fortune. That is, George Perez and Ron Lim Infinity Gauntlet pages featuring Thanos, and early 90's Silver Surfer pages featuring Thanos.

Some new close-up pics and a new price! Take $1,000 OFF! Now $19,995!

Donkey Kong is greater than EverQuest. Agreed.

Journey Into Mystery #83 CGC 6.0 (OW); $20,995 Some scuffing on the slab. Absolutely perfect colors on this beauty!

First wins whether by post or PM. Payment: Check, money order, wire transfer, or cash are accepted. Shipping: Shipping cost is $20 anywhere in the USA via USPS Priority Mail. Returns: No returns on CGC graded books. Returns allowed on raw books if notified within 7 days of item(s) delivery. References: I have been a member of the CGC boards since 2005, and active in the comic book community as a buyer and seller since 2003. My eBay username is AmericanComicsAndCollectibles. I am the co-founder of Tampa Bay Comic Convention, Indiana Comic Convention, and several other mid-size/regional conventions around the United States.

Yes, I think the demand for Disney books is fairly safe. While Disney isn't immune to failure, it is a giant, and in general a fairly safe bet as custodian for their IPs. But as mjoeyoung mentioned in his post, Doll Man #37 for example. How many buyers are out there looking for Doll Man books? Forget the general population, but how many hardcore comic book collectors are even aware that Doll Man exists? Even when siphoned down to the subset of "hardcore comic book collectors", I'd say that very few are aware of that character's existence. If I were a collector of GA, I'd be concerned for the longevity of books such as that. I think that most collectors of GA books such as Doll Man or any more obscure character that isn't "current", are mostly older collectors. At conventions, there are plenty of excited collectors that are teens and 20's willing to spend money, but they're all about Hulk #181. Gen-Z isn't hot for Doll Man. How can we change that?

No question that any of the SA and BA Marvel stuff is readily available in essentially every grade. Many GA books aren't readily available at all, and would require a lot of effort to find a copy in any grade. The supply certainly favors GA. However, I believe it's pretty obvious that demand favor the SA and BA Marvel books but an overwhelming margin. A Master Comics run in 6.0 would be tough to complete. However, the pool of potential buyers that are interested in purchasing Master Comics is dwarfed by those interested in purchasing Hulk #181. And I don't see that changing. What keeps comic books an alive hobby and market is its continued relevance in society. As long as the IP holding overlords such as Disney and WB keep the characters alive on TV, movies, and video games, I think the character's SA and BA material will continue to see demand. However, I can easily imagine the demand for most GA books declining as I don't foresee the majority of those characters holding significance to society going forward.

Possibly. In the comic book world, I tend to think that a lot of collectors are cash poor. That's people in general. I tend to believe that comic collectors often have a huge percentage of their net worth tied up in their collectibles. Even wealthy ones. Maybe the former owner of this Superman #1 was in such a situation, maybe not. Maybe the book wasn't even owned by a single individual, but rather a pool of investors. Who knows. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised if I found out that the owner lost 1/5 or more of his net worth on the sale, given how much collectors put into their wares in this glorious hobby of ours. You really have to have a lot of money for a $1M loss to be chump change/of little consequence. Of course that's a subjective term. For me, a loss "of little consequence" would be no more than 1% of my net worth. Above that, it is certainly on my radar as a problem. In this case, that would mean a net worth of at least $100M.

Nice book. Yes, this is worth having cleaned and pressed. By the first pic, it is clear that a press will help the eye appeal significantly. However, it will likely not help the grade much. If you're looking for the clean and press to improve the grade that it would otherwise be, it is not as clear-cut. I'd still recommend it though, as it is a semi-key and as such even a .5 increase in grade would make it worthwhile. That point aside, the improvement you'll see in eye appeal will be the real prize.

If there was ever an alarm bell signaling a market crash, it would be a nice Superman #1 dropping close to 40% in value in 1.5 years. I'm sure it would be impossible to verify, but might this sale be the single biggest loss ever on a single comic book? If I had to guess, I'd say that this $1M loss is indeed the largest loss of all-time, thus far.

Very nice piece! Never seen those cards before. Your piece is very frameable. I find one of the biggest detractor of b&w card art is that it often doesn't look handsome in a frame because the placement of the image art and the headshot/thumbnails is often not symmetrical in placement or for whatever reason doesn't display well. Yours isn't like that at all. Great big image up top, with the character headshots neatly lined up at the bottom.

FF #52 CGC 6.5 price reduction! Now $925!

Very sad news. Another legend taken from us. At least he lived a long life and brought joy to many millions through his talent.

Congratulations on that achievement!

That's definitely among the best! Probably is the best of the b&w single character cards. A true gem!