No 1 Records

On 8/20/2021 at 11:25 PM, Qalyar said:

Gwenpool is the obvious one. Howard the Duck (2016) #1 is "1st appearance of Gwenpool (Gwen Poole)." The earlier Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars #2 Bachalo Variant Cover instead says: "Gwenpool cover. Predates Hoard the Duck #1 (1/16)."

I want to say there are at least one or two others like this but they're not coming to mind immediately.

Not the same character, the Gwenpool on Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars #2 was Gwen Stacy.

See:

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Gwendolyn_Poole_(Earth-TRN565)#Trivia

On 1/6/2023 at 12:48 AM, Jaylam said:

Remember the good 'ol days before CGC when if a Comic book shop or dealer had a book, it was Near-Mint-Mint, but if you had the same book trying to sell to them it was a Very-Good at best.

It's the same with ebay today.

The sellers think it's VF and the buyer think it's VG... :-( 

$ 2 for a reader or filler

$ 20 for a collectible

$ 200 for a key

$ 2000 for the grail

Hulk

Abomination

Sandman

Absorbing man

Moon Knight

Fantastic Four

Gwenpool

Red Sonja

Kamandi

Legion of super-heroes

Wildfire

Modesty Blaise

Calvin and Hobbes

Fat Freddy's Cat

Zippy the Pinhead

Socker-Conny

33 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It’s spelled ‘racism’. 

And it’s not racism to demand equality. Your definition is wrong. 

No it's not racism to demand equality and I never said so, but it is to exclude people based on there race (if that was the case).

My spelling depends on I'm not from an English speaking country, but I does my best.

I'm finished with it all for now. It seems to be a storm in a water-glass. At least the template was were very vague and doesn't have any specific numbers for representation. Just a clause that that the author (Dr. Stacy L. Smith) should be the judge of how well the studio succeed. I don't suspect Bries rider is much different and I don't think it will be public. The template doesn't mention interviews, but I don't have any reason to suspect that part of it to be harder.

http://assets.uscannenberg.org.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/inclusion-rider-template.pdf

P.S.

Im happy Brie didn't act racist.

20 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

You don’t seem to understand: as the STAR of a production that a company is banking on for HER to make a success, SHE gets a choice on who is hired for the project. 

Prviously some white male executive in the studio might make those decisions. 

Shes using her star power to employ someone who might previously not gotten an opportunity. She’s not UNemploying anyone. It’s the team put together for this movie. 

Her having a say in that isn’t racist or sexist, it’s her specific preference. Many people in Hollywood use friends or people they’ve previously worked with for most ALL of their movies. That doesn’t UNemployee someone, it just puts who they want in that specific job for the movie. 

Yes I do understand, she can demand who she will work with and it is based on race and gender. Therefore it's rasism and sexism.

If she put up a rule that only so or so many % would be allowed to be of this or that race or gender, she will exclude many.

It's racism to exclude people based on race, it's sexism to exclude people based on gender and that is just what she's doing.

38 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Asking for EQUAL representation is racist and sexist?

Not asking, demanding.

Even demanding equal representation is good, as long as it doesn't mean that you have to exclude people based on race and gender. How would that happen? Employing more people?

I think "EQUAL representation" is rasist, if you don't consider merits. For example I would consider it be rasist to demand that only 1,4% of movie makers and journalist should be jews, even thou that would be "EQUAL representation". 

A demand of not discriminating based on race and gender, only to employ based on merits. That would have been something everybody would have benefited from in the long run.

Just now, nearmint said:

You see it as exclusion.  I see it as inclusion. 

I don't know the details of her inclusion rider, but if she's asking for 50% male, 50% female, and equal representation of races, I have a hard time seeing that as exclusion. 

 

Not again... it's not asking it's a demanding.

If they have to exclude a number of white men in order to meet her demand it's exclusion. Or do you think they just hire some extra black women to meet her demands?

Two wrong don't make one right. If the media companies from the beginning didn't exclude minorities and women it would be inclusion. To make a second  exclusion on men and majorities make it two exclusions, not one inclusion. The result in numbers might be the same, but it's still exclusion based on race and gender. Two wrong don't make one right.

2 hours ago, nearmint said:

I don't think she's saying that at all.  She's merely asking for a more balanced representation.  She's saying the white male view is over-represented.

No. If she asked for a balanced representation I've been with her 110%. She was demanding representation based on race and gender. The only way to meet her demands is to exclude people based on their race and gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brie_Larson

"she became one of the first actors to incorporate an inclusion rider provision in her film and press tour contracts"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion_rider

I don't think she is a rasist or a sexist in her heart or in her personal life, but her action is.

3 hours ago, nearmint said:

She's supporting more diversity among film critics.  I don't think that makes her a racist.  Or a pig.

Thats one way to put it. Another way is: She’s excluding reviewers bases on their skin colors and genders instead of their merits and thats not good for the audience that wants a fair and a non-biased  information.