Axelrod

On 1/27/2024 at 12:14 PM, Dr. Balls said:

 

That reply to Joeypost, of all people.

He gave you a tip: work on beaters. Here's another tip: be gracious in replies on your posts, even when you don't feel like it. Goes a long way, especially when asking a group to part with their information they gleaned from practicing. On beaters.

On the other hand, he did get a couple of snarky replies to an extremely reasonable question.  Even if the answer to the question is "practice more."  There's probably something in addition.  

I get that professionals may not wish to share their bread and butter secret techniques with internet strangers, but, the replies here could have been more gracious as well.  

On 1/26/2024 at 7:21 PM, Bosco685 said:

I'll take this one step further. And type it slower.

When I post any box office results and the same two people then work to discredit what that source says because they want to just target the negative and not just reporting - that is normal behavior to you??

Uh

To be clear, I'm not one of those "same two people" you are referring to, right?

I would agree there are some people who seem overly happy to point out how poorly Aquaman 2 is doing (along with lots of other recent comic book movies).  

I would disagree about that not being "normal" behavior though.  I think it's fairly normal.  People gloat.  They are also happy to be proved "right."  People can be pleased and also feel vindicated when a movie they don't like does badly.  Possible to do it to an extreme, of course.

On 1/26/2024 at 6:58 PM, Bosco685 said:

You noted he misrepresented Aquaman 2 doing better than Aquaman 1. That is not what he was noting. So I actually provided the metrics he is referencing from Box Office Mojo to make you aware what he was pointing to.

You now taking offense with your "uh" and implying you didn't say that is a personal problem. Not mine. I tried to share information.

I said exactly what he was representing regarding the respective "holds" between Aquaman 1 and 2.  How do you not understand that?  It was right there in the post?  

I then offered a personal opinion that this kind of statistic is somewhat misleading, in as much as it suggests that Aquaman 2 is doing better than Aquaman 1 in any meaningful way.  

You can't really disagree with that. 

I mean, you can disagree that it is misleading in any way since it's just reporting numbers and numbers are what they are.  But, you know, numbers and statistics get used to spin results all the time.   

Seems like you are just being kind of ornery and defensive with regards to Aquaman 2 box office for some reason.  

On 1/26/2024 at 6:51 PM, Bosco685 said:

Uh-huh. Meanwhile you did. Just own it.

Genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make.  You think that I have unfairly maligned the integrity of the Box Office Mojo guy?  

On 1/26/2024 at 6:43 PM, Bosco685 said:

You mistakenly implied he was misrepresenting content.

Uh, no I didn't?

This seems a silly argument.  

On 1/26/2024 at 6:26 PM, Bosco685 said:

That's not what the statement notes. He's pointing out that Aquaman (2018) was higher at this point in time for the 5th week. But that Aquaman 2 is doing better than the horrible start it experienced which should have gotten worse (hence the +5.3% increase).

Uh, pretty sure that's exactly what I noted.  Aquaman 2 is "holding" better than the original Aquaman.  Technically.  

It is, of course, easier to "hold" better when you are starting from a significantly lower box office start. 

But it's something!

On 1/26/2024 at 4:31 PM, paperheart said:

strong legs , this guy butchers the english language and math equally. Here's what happens when there are no new releases the weekend prior.  tied for 7th out of 9

I mean, it's all relative.  All he's saying there is that the week-to-week "hold" for Aquaman 2 on this, the 5th weekend of its wide release, is actually better than the "hold" for the original Aquaman from 2018 (26.3% drop vs. 37% drop.)

It is kind of misleading, of course, in as much as it would suggest that this Aquaman is somehow doing better than the first one in any significant way.  Which it is most definitely not.  

On 1/24/2024 at 1:24 PM, Motor City Rob said:

The mystery box from @sckao has arrived in three parts...so far. Been too busy to open anything, so finally getting to it tonight. Stay tuned!!!

I give this thread a 

Having a pile of unopened boxes sitting in one's closet for years is very much in my wheelhouse.  

What is even being argued about here? 

This movie is not underperforming because of lack of advertising.  I'd wager everyone who might possibly have been interested in an Aquaman follow-up was/is well aware.  

It's just that a lot less people are interested this time around (for reasons...)

Also, man, it wasn't great.  It wasn't terrible mind you, but, not great.  And it needed to be great to overcome lack of interest.  

The earliest versions of these characters aren't all that close to the "modern" versions, in their origins/powers/costumes.  So, any use of these characters is going to be limited at first.  

But ultimately, this will be a good thing, though.  I think.  Characters should fall into the public domain.  The more the better, I say.  Right now we've got companies constantly making Robin Hood and King Arthur movies since those characters are "free" to use, but some fresh blood would be nice.  

People worried about their comic collections plummeting in value as the younger audience moves away from comics might get pleasantly surprised when copyright expiration means there's suddenly a lot more interest in these characters from all over than there was before.  

I do not see Shazam making the 10 year plan cut.  Unless Gunn is, like, a super fan of that character.   

Talked about here, I think.

On 1/10/2024 at 7:25 PM, Namtak said:

Streaming is here to stay and won(aparently,thats what im told).

Talking to friends and such i notice that i have become à black sheep cause im not a streaming guy(whatever that is).i still buy my blu ray and 4k. Have i become i dinosaur?

Lets discuss how the hobby  have changed these past years and what it means for us.

Its becoming difficult to find some movies in physical form these few years. Im glad that some titans of movies are remastered in 4k like the abyss wich i cant wait to see!

I mean, not a dinosaur, as in outdated for a very long time.  But maybe a Passenger Pigeon?  Or a dodo bird?  

Streaming has come and physical media is going.  It may take some number of years to complete the takeover, but it is happening.  Even though it is absolutely true that a physical disc still gives a better picture quality today, for those who care and notice such things and/or have the equipment to discern the differences.  But streaming is going to get better as well.  

Those discs might be a collectable one day though!

Going to be more of a challenge this time around, assuming that they aren't able to simply remake the first film again for the third film, and have to actually come up with an original story.  

Oooo, I have a picture of the box now.

I received a notice a package was delivered!

I am, however, out of the country until next Tuesday, so, can't open until then.  

Very much looking forward to it.

On 1/10/2024 at 12:20 PM, wiparker824 said:

That’s not what’s been confirmed to be happening though. Nobody has confirmed they’ve been able to swap out a book without having any evidence of tampering on the case. What was confirmed was that there was evidence of tampering and CGC’s reholder process didn’t catch it and reslabbed the book into a case that of course no longer looked tampered with. If someone can produce a CGC slab without the help of CGC’s faulty reholder process and without any evidence of tampering then yes CGC would have to admit their case has been compromised. I’m aware of the videos showing the case being opened with a heat gun but in all of them I’ve seen there was still subtle indications the book had been opened. Would I prefer a better case that made it not as subtle? Sure. But again to my point about CGC’s assessment, if they don’t feel the case is the problem and the problem is the reholder process that’s what will change. And anyone expecting anything different is going to be disappointed.

I think it's the "subtle indications" that might be left by experienced scammers that is, and will continue to be, the problem going forward. 

Even if there are signs of tampering, just how obvious is it?  Definitely not something you are going to detect from your average ebay photo.  And then, when one receives the book in hand, how bad does it have to be for a buyer to say "hmmm, wait a minute, this book looks like it could have been tampered with...."  What do they do then?  Return it while the seller screams that they got exactly the book in the photo?  Send it to CGC for "verification?"  

CGC may stop most of the "reholder" scam going forwards, which results in lower grade books in perfect higher grade cases, but the scammers who can swap out high grade for mid-grade and reseal the case with only "subtle" traces, are still going to do that, and just sell on EBAY + the like.  As long as there are no changes to the current holder, this will remain an issue.

Some have suggested solutions that might help without requiring a total overhaul of the case, such as etching the serial number on the inner well to match the outside of the case and/or attaching the inner well to the label in some way that makes it not slip out the way it currently can.  No idea how hard it would be to implement changes like those.  

I count...40-ish movies I will probably see in the theater in 2024 (off this list, at least.) Probably more, some of those names I don't have any clue what they are.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  

On 12/30/2023 at 7:57 PM, Kramerica said:

Yes, everything is now A-OK. Thanks for your concern. I found out I'm getting a Mystery Box and that is all I wanted! Love being surprised.

I picked for you!

Only slightly selfishly!  (that box was on my list, just not quite as high up....)

Got there with 8 minutes to spare!

I will take @Poekaymon 's box, lot #11