William-James88

On 3/22/2022 at 11:59 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

 

I think that one of the first things you do when you become a vigilante is develop a clear difference in personalities between your identities.

That's a good point, but it assumes you let many people see that personality. In this film's case, they just got rid of the  Bruce Wayne disguise by having him never see anyone. Not saying it's the right approach or a better approach, I am simply saying that the film does adress why a disguise such as Bale's is not needed at the moment. 

On 3/22/2022 at 1:31 PM, Bosco685 said:

Michael Bay really messed with your mind, didn't he?

Hahaha, all kidding aside, when you realize that Dark of the Moon reached that Billion dollar mark  over 10 years ago, the idea that how much a movie makes is directly correlated to how good it is kinda flies out the door. There are several reasons of aprehension towards this new Batman film that counters the hype. I'm pretty sure it was baked into this film anyway. And while both have the same rating, I took my entire family to watch No Way Home, but for this Batman film it was just me and (in Borat voice) My Wife. 

On 3/22/2022 at 5:54 AM, Bosco685 said:

Do I think Pattinson is a better Batman than Affleck or Bale? Not at all. 

Interesting. I never bought Affleck in the role. And after rewatching the Dark Knight I can confidently say that I think Pattinson's Batman is better than Bale's. I have a really tough time with how Bale moves his mouth as Batman. I am sure technology has to do with it (a more prohibitive cowl) and Bale is an excellent actor, so he simply did what was asked of him. But with Pattinson, it just seemed to click really well. There is a symbiosis between him and the suit, it feels like a second skin. Not sure he beats Keaton though. I really love Keaton's Batman, it's a very impressive portrayal of the character being both bombastic and grounded. I love his self assurance. His (re)intro in Batman Returns is just phenomenal.

On 3/22/2022 at 1:03 AM, kimik said:

This would have topped $1B if it was a better movie. 

Not sure it's about how good a movie is. Would that mean that Transformers Dark of the Moon is better than this Batman movie?

On 3/21/2022 at 6:15 PM, bc said:

This is like a thread-surrection question

 

Also this:

https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-questions-answered-how-many-pages-did-jack-kirby-draw-in-a-day/#:~:text=Jack often did more than,with this in more detail.

Summary: "We have heard so many stories about how fast Kirby was, but how many pages did he actually draw a day? The one I heard the most often was about three pages a day, which is a remarkably high amount of pages."

"To find out for sure, I went to everyone's favorite Jack Kirby expert, Mark Evanier, and here's what he had to say:"

"Jack often did more than three a day. During the 1963-1967 period, he often did five or six a day. His 1970 deal with DC required fifteen a week and he sometimes did twenty."

 

This is somewhat confirmed by this post:

https://www.penciljack.com/forum/divergent-discussions/break-room/47634-

Three a day may have been his latter day output but, not his prime. Jack would've call three a day "naptime."

Picking blindly out of my Spidey box, I get ASM 21, Feb 1965. A month of no special importance, no different than any other. The letters page holds an INCOMPLETE checklist of "this months" books. Repeat: INCOMPLETE! The list held eight titles and Jack was involved in every one of them.

Fantastic Four 35 (20 + cover)
Avengers 12 (20 + cover)
X-men 9 (20 + cover)
JIM 112 - Thor+Tales of Asgard (21 + cover)
Suspense 62 - Captain America (10 + cover)
Astonish 64 (cover)
Strange Tales 129 (cover)
Sgt Fury 14 (cover)

That's 99 pages (minimum) in 22 days! 

Remember that Jack wasn't drawing art or history, he was drawing: house payments, heating oil, food for his children and shoes for their feet. Contrary to the libelous nonsense of FF 511 () where Jack shows up as god, Jack's pencils had no erasers. The reason was simple: You don't get paid to erase.

 

That amount of output is astounding to me, and to think it went on month after month for several years is just insane.

So to circle back to your original question: a good guess is at least 8 titles per month in 1965.

-bc

 

Haha. I asked because I felt I didn't get a conclusive response in my initial thread. But we were going about it in the wrong approach and I felt I could bring it up again here.

On 3/20/2022 at 7:59 PM, bc said:

Just as a follow up...

Starting with a cover date of Sept '63, Marvel was releasing at least 9 superhero titles a month (ST112, JIM96, TOS45, TTA47, FF18, ASM4, Sgt Fury3, Avengers1, XMen1)

Feb '65 raised that to 10 (ST129, JIM113, TOS62, TTA64, FF35, ASM21, Sgt Fury15, AV13, DD6, Marvel Collectors Item Classics1)

Feb '66 had 11 titles (ST141, JIM125, TOS74, TTA76, FF47, ASM33, Sgt Fury27, AV25, XMen17, DD13, Fantasy Masterpieces1)

By April '66 that had raised to 12 titles (ST143, TOS76, TTA78, FF49, ASM35, SgtFury29, AV27, Xmen19, DD15. MCIC2, Fantasy Masterpieces2, Thor 127)

Feb '67 saw that increase to 13 titles per month (ST153, TOS86, TTA88, FF59, ASM45, SgtFury39, AV37,Xmen29, DD25, MCIC7, FM7, Thor 137, Ghost Rider1)

Aug '67 grew to 14 titles (ST159, TOS92, TTA94, FF65, ASM51,SgtFury45, AV43, Xmen35, DD31, MCIC10, FM10, Thor143, Ghost Rider4, Not Brand Echh1)

1968 saw that increase after Independent News allowed them to publish "at will".

Sorry, didn't record Western, War or Romance comic data in my old spreadsheets....

-bc

 

Thanks for this, could you tell me which of those years had new Kirby art in the highest amount of titles?

FYI, toys have 0 cost for Warner, ONLY profit. They are licensed out to Spin Master, McFarlane, Mattel ect. And Warner will make money regardless of how many are bought by us or our kids.

Also, costs for BluRays is ridiculously cheap. Production is automated, so there is minimal labour compared to other products (like Action Figures) and they are lightweight and compact, meaning transportation costs are also minimal. And Blu Rays are also just additional profit since regardless if we buy it, they are already ordered by Walmart, Target, Amazon, ect, so it's guaranteed income with crazy margins for Warner.

Odd. I just saw "review" of the first 4 episodes and one of the main complaints was that it didn't really dive into the Egypt representation as much as Shang Shi did with Asian representation. The reason why I think it's an odd take is because I have read two runs of Moon Knight and never encountered the Egypt theme. I get that the hero has an Egyptian entity within him but that's just the origin of his powers, I never felt it defined the character and stories it should tell more than that. It never read that way. So I didn't expect much in terms of Egyptian iconongraphy, nor representation. Especially since Ancient Egypt and Modern day Egypt are very different, just like Ancient Rome and modern day Rome are. So I guess I'm in for a good time since I never had such expectations ever since I knew we'd get a moonknight show. 

There's also criticism on how mental illness is portrayed but as a fan of Batman and his rogues gallery I've been through it all before.

On 3/19/2022 at 10:06 AM, Bosco685 said:

As of Thursday's tally The Batman sits at 2.6x production budget and climbing

Great news. At this point, it's a bonnified success nomatter how many records we wish it would break. With that ratio, it has fully made back all it's investment, making everything after this pure profit and that's before merchandise and home video sales which is the most profitable part of any movie cycle (due to the cost being either none or close to none).

I watched the film for a third time this week and that first hour just flies by. The action scenes always feel great but that middle part about the back and forth between bruce, falcone and alfred just drags. But then you get to the rooftop where Selina has that dirty cop and the film just goes right back to that brisk pace. I love the look and feel of the film and of Pattinson's Batman so I decided to go back and watch the Dark Knight which is usually held as the true gold standard for Batman (and blockbuster movies in general). And well, yeah, the Dark Knight is one hell of a beast of a film. Perfect pacing, amazing visuals, very inventive and just an absolutely killer performance by Heath Ledger. He just feels so real, it's scary. Seeing him on screen is perfection, but I did feel like there were elements of The Batman that make is just as worthwhile and important to Batman lore as The Dark Knight. I'll give a little rundown and compare.

Villains: yeah, while the take on the Riddler in The Batman was good, Heath Ledger's Joker is probably the best villain I've ever seen in a film. And while the Harvey Dent thing may be rushed (at least the conclusion of that), it's still a solid telling. Love the scene in the car with Maroni.

Batman's look: I think both are as good. I forgot how bad the neck area of the early Batman Begins suit was and it was really jarring while watching the beginning of the Dark Knight but then he gets the better articulated suit and it's so much better and iconic that I realize how I could have forgotten about the earlier one. Oddly enough, for a realistic take on Batman, the cowl is very cartoony. I think it looks great, but it looks far more detailed than I remember. As for the Battinson, the suit is really good and I love the placement of the cape, very much in line with my favourite look of Batman, what I picture in my head, and the cowl looks more realistic, less at odds with the aesthetic of the film. I don't like those damn seams, but the folds which make the brown are excellent and I like the profile more, along with the angle of the nose (Bale's is more demonic and pointy) especially with how much of the lower jaw is exposed. Very reminiscent of how Jim Lee draws those parts of the cowl. I do preffer the symbol on Pattison's suit (and how it's a gadget of its own), there is no contrast in that area on bale's suit.

The fighting: I think the fighting usually gets better in every rendition of Batman as the costume department finds ways to give us a more functional suit everytime. While the Battinson did rely more than I'd like on his bullet proof suit (granted, I still loathe how batfleck has someone shoot him behind the head twice and it's no biggie) at least it works with the vision of the film. He will not use guns and yet has to deal with them constantly, so bullet proof armour is essential. The fighting is fine here, there are glimpses at greatness but we are still far from what I feel can be truly accomplished with Batman (just check the Batman vs Shredder fight in the Batman TMNT film). This actually reminded me a lot of how it looked like when I was playing the arkham game the first time and I hadn't fully perfected the counter (or i'd still try to get a strike in rather than counter). So that was fun, even though it meant it reminded me of an amateurish Batman. Bale's fighting is slow and stilted in the Dark Knight. I'd say it's the aspect that aged the worst after we've seen the later iterations. The Hong Kong sequence is the best part when it comes to action resulting from Batman alone but that's because the fighting is interwoven within an amazing setpiece.

Action: Dark Knight is better. While Batman's fighting isn't great, there is nothing in The Batman that beats the whole bit with the Bat pod and the truck, or the bazooka drive by. Of course, it isn't aiming to beat that, this isn't that type of film, which is fine. But if someone is looking for a great action film, one is obviously a better choice. That Hong Kong scene is also great. It feels like a scene straight from the comics with an established Batman that can just accomplish any mission he sets for himself. Not a fan of the final set piece which I feel is deliberately disorienting to hide the limitations in the fighting. There are 2 bits from the Dark Knight that I never liked that opinion didn't change on my latest viewing and they are both about people suffering greater impacts than the scene shows. First it's when the bus crashes into a goon at the beginning, I don't feel the impact at all. And same for when Batman crashes when avoiding the Joker. I think both are to keep a PG 13 rating but it really makes those scenes suffer. As does the bit with the pencil trick and killing Gamble. Both feel more tam then they should be.

Bruce Wayne: I preffer the way Bruce interacts with Alfred in the Dark Knight but I don't like the doofus Bruce Wayne persona. I really like the take on Bruce in The Batman. It really drives how consumed he is that he cannot simply be Bruce. I really like him having sunglasses indoors. It nears parody of Lego Batman's Darkness No Parents song but I still like that they went all the way with it. Those moments with batman unmasked made the film even more visceral. I don't like the way he treats Alfred though.

Alfred: I freaken LOVE Michael Cain's Alfred, the Dark Knight wins here hands down.

Gordon: Both are great, I have 0 issues with either take. Both seem to be lifted off the comic. I wonder why Gordon is so easy to do and get perfectly right compared to other characters.

Romance: I forgot how weak the romance plot is in the Dark Knight. What a waste of time. Obviously we need it for the Harvey Dent segment, I don't mind that. But anything involving Bruce doesn't add anything to the film for me. While I don't think it's great in The Batman either, it adds to the character. Here we see that Bruce/Batman is feeling a fascination for someone, it's a turning point for him. We get to see him being uncomfortable around someone else and it tells us how alone he's been all these years. I don't feel the Jim Lee kissing scene is warranted though. Batman Returns still isn't beaten on this front.

Gadgets and vehicles: Both are as good for what they aim to do. I always hated the Tumbler (odd how I realize I dislike the Batsuit and the main car in Batman Begins even though I do still like that film), to me the Batmobile was always more about speed and I usually associate a more slender shape to it. The Batpod in the Dark Knight is a great addition to Batman lore, I just love that thing. it adds to Batman's improved mobility. The Batmobile in The Batman is better than the Thumbler (for one, it's a car) and it works super well with the DIY aesthetic of the film. Plus I love how we build up to it, seeing it at different stages through the film until the full reveal. While not as stylized as other Batmobiles, it still feels like Batman's car. As for the other gadgets, I love those gel bombs in the Dark Knight, the release mechanic makes for a great visual, showing Batman's tactical prowess. At the same time I love all the variations on the grapple gun's usage in The Batman. I love how second nature it is to the Battinson, reminds me a lot of how second nature it was to me while playing the Arkham games. The release mechanism integration into the arms is a nice touch and, as a combo with the bullet proof suit, it shows how someone who hates guns would be able to face armed assailants. As mentioned before, the symbol being a large knife is really cool and I do like how he uses his utility belt. It's not peak Batman but we are getting there. I also really like his Batcave, better than anything we saw in the Nolan films. The tech used in The Batman has lots of screens, switches and buttons. It's tech we don't have yet but it has an analogue feel to it too, reminds me a lot the look from the Animated Series, like future tech done in the 40s.

So there you have it. All my thoughts on both movies. Pretty cool that while the MCU has all the money and the fans, the Batman films have a real special kind of quality. And as KAV said, we haven't even seen a true realization of Batman as he is in the comics and the games yet. But till then, there is just so much damn good content out there that I can wait. I also have thoughts on the dialogue but they aren't fair since the Dark Knight's dialogue has been so ingraved in my brain (both good lines and bad lines) that I can't compare them for myself truthfully yet.

On 3/18/2022 at 8:45 PM, Marcjoner16 said:

New here, maybe it’s been asked already but figured I’d ask again. Back story,I’ve been collecting for roughly 15yrs and hadn’t really cared to get books graded until recently. Still trying to figure out my way around the site but wanted to send a book in signed by Stan Lee, unfortunately it wasn’t in the presence of a signature series observer. Just want opinions on if it’s even worth sending it to get graded, or if I should just keep it raw. It’s a ASM 46. Appreciate the replies in advance. 

Really not worth it. Grading with CGC is just to make it easier to sell non signed books. 

On 3/14/2022 at 2:27 PM, doomwhistle said:

Hello everyone!

I need to figure this out. I found an X-Men #98 that for some strange reason had it's front cover chopped too close to the title up top and at the bottom. When I compared the same comic book to another one, the variance was very noticeable.

Is this an acceptable condition for grading? Does it ding the grade? Clearly, this is a printer error and I was uncertain how the community in general feels about it.

 

Depends, are you hoping for a 9.8? Because I have had badly chopped comics get up to 9.4. And it won't affect any grade below. So if you think your comic is an 8.0, it will still be an 8.0 regardless of the chop.

On 3/15/2022 at 7:40 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

So, as a refresher, here's the response from Overstreet editor, Mark Huseman:

Designation of "classic" covers follows no specific criteria, and there's no Council of Elders who meet in secret to vote. Various advisors or readers will make suggestions, and Bob Overstreet and the Gemstone staff will give it some thought. Personally, I consider a classic cover to be memorable and one that will be copied or swiped or "homaged" in later years. Incredible Hulk #340 and Amazing Spider-Man #50 fit that criteria, but those, they're so obviously classic that no designation is needed. It goes without saying.

Folks, you tell me...is this Harley Quinn cover memorable or one that will be copied or swiped or "homaged" in later years?  I think not, yet it is a classic cover, according to Overstreet.  I can list dozens of covers from the same era that are far more worthy of being noted as a classic cover over this piece of .  Some of the most 'homaged' or swiped covers since the time I raised this question back in 2014 are McSpidey #1 and ASM 300.  Are they worthy of classic cover designation?  Heck, yeah!  Are they listed as such in Overstreet? um, no.

First time I've ever seen that cover.  And I collect Joker covers.

On 3/12/2022 at 10:51 AM, Bird said:

with all the grading talk, in about a year I should some interesting info. I sent a book to mcs, ToS94 1st M.O.D.O.K. They graded it 5.0 which I thought was harsh by a grade or two and at that grade raw I would have to price it low $200s to sell. After waffling over price on it for a while and having it out there at $225 or so I decided to have them send it to cgc. It will be interesting to see what the mcs 5.0 translates to from cgc on this one and if it was a good decision or not.

I didn't realize first modok was still that affordable.  Should have gone for that rather than first Mr Hyde which set me back more than I would have imagined.

On 3/16/2022 at 4:25 PM, Bosco685 said:

What timing 

that's too bad. Was really hoping to see how much of a boost it would get from China. Weekday numbers are still strong though, looks like its aiming for 400M domestic. Usually this only works with films that have repeat viewings and I did not think that would happen for a 3 hour movie. But people (including myself and others here) are indeed seeing it multiple times. 

On 3/15/2022 at 4:49 PM, shadroch said:

Marvel in 1964 was putting out eight books 

 

And all drawn by the same guy

On 3/15/2022 at 6:58 AM, Artboy99 said:

I recall he used the bat emblem on his chest as a cutting device and after use he clicked it back into place. Does that count?

I say no, but it counts as being cool. I love how they first show it for him doing something super mundane like just cutting tape at the crime scene. 

Speaking of new things not done before but that I thought worked well, the make up. I like how not only do they address it, but we also see him putting it on. It adds a new element to the ritual of him becoming the creature he feels more comfortable being.

On 3/14/2022 at 7:58 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Overall point is as long as "little Jimmy" knows who these characters are all the blue chip books will be just fine for the foreseeable future.

I don't think we are talking about blue chips, especially not with the stamp comparison since the blue chip stamps (this case meaning rarest and highest graded) did not go down. It's everything that isn't blue chip which people are looking at. Like Teen Titans 12.

On 3/14/2022 at 8:20 PM, paperheart said:

this has gotta be too low unless China isn't much of a factor

I agree

On 3/14/2022 at 1:29 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

does that 800 estimate include domestic?

Two can play that game, looks like whoever had a CBCS ASM 361 to sell last November was better off than whoever had a CGC graded one.

And they paid less for grading and it took a shorter time for them to get it back.

NUFF SAID

Looking at the toy reviews, they all come with a batarang because of course, but it made me wonder: Does Batman ever use a Batarang in this film? He uses his grapple quite a few time when he needs long range weaponry, but I don't remember a single batarang.

On 3/14/2022 at 9:59 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Those look cheap AF.

yes, they look terrible. I don't get this one, it's just a police car which you could buy anywhere

Many of these toys are movie specific, like with Batman unmasked, penguin and selina kyle which are not as recognisable as their comic "costumes". So I really have no clue which kid would want these unless they watch the film, and even then I would be surprised if a 6-8 year old could sit through this film (or be allowed to).

On 3/14/2022 at 9:55 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Doesn't really matter what movie it's from; It's Batman.

Not all of these toys are Batman

On 3/12/2022 at 11:32 AM, Bosco685 said:

Based on Friday's results the expert forecast is projecting a $400M domestic box office alone.

 

Yup, it is now forecasted to make over one billion alltogether, which is one hell of a success for this type of movie. I know that the Batman brand is very strong, but this is the first film in a new series and not the culmination of 20 years of Batman. Plus, this is a slower film, a longer film. So both less showings and not four quadrant. Regarding that last bit, I am surprised to see so many Batman toys at Walmart for kids. Which 6-8 year olds are watching this film? 

Anyways, also wanted to say that I too am a big Hideo Kojima fan. While I wasn't wondering what he thought of the film, I can totally see how it would be right up his alley. That guys is fueled by film nostalgia and while the Batman is new in many ways, Matt Reeves definitely borrows from classic movie tropes and styles in his vision of Batman and Gotham.

On 3/14/2022 at 9:21 AM, drotto said:

By the way the movie is constructed around the metaphor of fear.  :P

Yes it is. And more broadly, you can say that is a theme explored in all of Matt Reeve's films, from cloverfield to his last Apes movie which really highlights it.