Aman619

I had the auction open.  There was one bid with a minute to go, followed by another with 30 seconds.  then crickets...  No last second battle.

If Im following this correctly, and  dont always cause it gets confusing as to which cheap solution the printers resorted to each time !  Seems to me that the books were all printed with 10c covers in the circle and 10c in the indices.  The error was noticed so all these finished comics (covers attached to interiors) were run through again under a black plate only effort.  A black circle inked over the 10C circle and an added 12C on the artwork.

In addition, they chose to reprint (probably ALL that months issues that had the erroneous 10c) wit corrected covers and indicias stating 12c.  This is evidenced by interiors with a NEW indicia, and NOT comics that had a black plate surprinted over as they did in 1939 for Marvel Comics 1.  They blacked out the beginning text that stated Oct 1938 with a thick rule; and also added a new line of text art the end, a bolder font, and not on the same baseline as the already printed indicia text on ten last line.. This has to be the order of printing. (If the 12c were printed first they wouldn't have needed to reprint any that say 10c.)

So which is the VARIANT?  Usually for UK copies it's been decided that the UKs are the variant and are printed BEFORE the US copies. Does BEFORE determine which is the variant?  One could argue that the 12c IN THE CIRCLE is the only variant, as both versions were the original printing plus a black overlay print run at some later date.  In my mind the variant would be the ones with the black circle.   (Though. to be a "variant", shouldn't an object "VARY" from an already existing thing?  Or just be a smaller subset of them all?)

On a tangent, did any of the first 10c printings get out of the printing plant into the wild? If not, and these copies stayed at the printers and were shipped only after they were fixed with the black overlay, I'd label them them ALL the first printing.... and the 12c in a circle as a 2nd printing.  You could say that there were NO variants because while there was a price change, ONLY 12c copies were distributed! via 2 printings.... and you never had a situation where both 10c and 12c copies were available to purchase.  

ok my head hurts. I go lay down now.

Thanx. Never saw these books! 

A two volume set?  Like a trade paperback?  Or coffee table book?  

Cannon was a big as they came in Cannes.  every year they handed out a 64 page booklet of all their productions, and about 64 pages of full page ads in Variety!  Not that they gave a whit for quality... just product.  I think I recall that his thing was signing and announcing these upcoming films THEN raising the money by pre-selling the rights to film markets around the world.  Then depending on how much he collected he went ahead and mad the film. The money was the point and the film didnt even HAVE to succeed cause he took his fees all along already.  Just needed to be good enough for the investors to still want to come back next year!

lots of international producers followed this approach, (foreign pre-sales) but Cannon went into overdrive with it.  Until is crashed down around them.

but, Michael Keaton was a burnt out shell.  Retreating from life.  Suddenly Flash appears and he gets out there again. And dies a hero (sort of sine they lost to Zod.   But, there are millions of earths, and lots of them probably have the Michael Keaton version.  no harm done.  Its not like they killed him in his Batman movies

I dont think this Batman dying was in any way a big reason the movie didnt work for many people, right?  A bigger reason could be "why does a Flash movie NEED a Batman in it in the first place.... or a rehashing of the Zod story?"

On 9/8/2023 at 12:06 PM, Dr. Balls said:

In my previous career, I was a graphic designer. I was likely part of the last era where scholastic training included stat camera use, paste-up and drawing skills intermixed with the new digital tools that were coming to market (this was 1993). A few years after that when digital pre-press became affordable for printing companies to accept electronic files and produce plates digitally, that collegiate training I received gave way to a all-digital focus, which practically erased all the fundamental knowledge in the field - replacing from hands-on use of old equipment to reading and performing lessons from a book.

When I started teaching Graphic Design in the 2010s, the mentality of using the computer to circumvent basic fundamentals was really apparent in my students. I can count on one hand how many students out of a couple hundred I had that possessed natural or practiced artistic skills - the rest felt they could rely on the computer to help do the work for them. That was an incredible challenge to try and reverse, and it rarely worked in the short time I had with them until they moved along in the program.

The Graphic Design vocation used to actually have some meaning, because it required artistic ability, skills with your tools and conceptual, compositional and communication knowledge. Technology is an excellent tool in practiced hands, but that's the exception - most of the time it serves as a crutch to people who don't fully know the foundations of what they are using that tech for.

And I don't blame the people who use these things - they want to be creative and expressive. But, society has told them that taking the shortcut can get you there, and it can't. But the general populace accepts it anyway - which is why everything in the world around us looks so junky now.

I've seen it with photography. I've seen it with sign painting, and while the graphic design profession is muddied beyond recognition after decades of novices delving into the field - the bleeding seems to have stopped, as AI takes hold and threatens the last bastion of true creativity: Visual Artists and Writers.

I have seen what technology does to imagination - it's hampers and entangles it with technical roadblocks, restrictions, steps and parameters, instead of allowing it to flow organically. I'm not a fan of AI, and never will be. This is just one more thing to reduce the beauty and creativity of our world, but the scope of it is so far beyond what has come before it. We're crossing over into a time where we are actively flushing one of the most unique parts of humanity right down the crapper: the Creative Process.

To have an idea and within minutes see it in front of us might be interesting or cutting-edge, but people have lost sight of the importance of the journey in making that idea come to fruition through hard work, dedication, practice and learning.

And people can't get enough of it, ignoring the obvious cultural danger in lieu of making Facebook pictures of Frodo Baggins Riding A Dinosaur in the art style of John William Waterhouse.

great points.  as I was reading I thought of this:  when I first used the cloning tool, I was blown away! I saw it as a first ever mind blowingly NEW drawing/painting tool.  It allowed you to "paint" exactly what you pointed it to, pixel by pixel.  Ive extended images and collaged images together seamlessly with it, and layers, for decades.  BUT --- as in the examples of the kid riding a dinosaur,  I see Midjourney tools like this as just an extension of the cloning tool.  Now instead of manually and painstakingly cloning textures and elements I can let photoshop add background for me... and add and remove elements and the results are just as good as what I achieved after laborious effort moving the mouse around hundreds of times in all directions and building dozens of layers!  Starting with a pic of a boat at a dock?  tell it move it to a mountain lake or NY harbor....  at sunset!  Bam!

Ill be happy to not have to do things the old tedious ways (30 years old technology)  And, to your point about the end of creativity.  well, Commercial art and Graphic Design are still reliant on the eye of the designer. (and ultimately the client.... dont get me started!) Whatever AI gives us on a first pass still must be tweaked according to what the designer thinks looks best.  So, all thats changed is that he will get there quicker.  Its the next wave of digital retouching is all.

AI can instantaneously give you a first draft. Same as a design studios with artists and a creative director.  They meet to discuss, then he sends them out to do comps. Then rejects some, and and comments on changes he wants THEM to do next until he says its client ready.  Today the onus of DOING the grunt work is on them.  Now, in a way, they too (the assistants artists) have an assistant speeding THEIR comps. 

It's just technology improving the busy work.  True creatives will still create.  Its true that much of the lesser pieces like supermarket pamphlets and flyers will probably be crappier and hard to look at... but thats already the case isn't it? 

and I disagree about hampering creativity.  What hampers creativity is having an image in your head that you are trying to put in a form for others to see.  Since computers, clients have needed to see tighter and tighter comps to the point that they are Finishes now:  exact fonts, kerning, and all elements in place as in a finished product.  Thats takes sooo long when 35 years ago you could literally show sketches with scribbled text of markers and colored pencils and just HINT at the final look to get an approval.  I wont miss that if I can create a dozen looks by literally telling the software what Im seeing in my head,  no?

There will still be "happy accidents" along the way that make a look unique. If you've got the "eye" to spot them. They cant take that away from you!

the swimming with his arms bothered me more than "taking a moment" to psych up to superspeed.  Were the arm poses lifted out of the comics, and just look weird in motion but cool in a static drawing?

On 9/7/2023 at 8:36 PM, Beige said:

The Joker was a hit, simply because it was an excellent movie. A truly great film, regardless of genre.

 

 

it was good.  But, I cant get myself to rewatch it.  Im not a fan of films that spiral deeper and darker to a place we see (or know) coming and I dont want to follow.  Well done, but not really enjoyable for me.  More of an interesting story of a descent into madness that works BOTH as a drama AND an origin of our Joker character... taken seriously.  Gave a bit of hope that some of our comics stories can be told without a villain existing just to fight the superhero. (Though Im sure the sequel will go there if not in #2, eventually.)

On 9/6/2023 at 10:21 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

Definitely agree with you about the Joker.

Was looking at some box office numbers and the last Joker movie beat the last Batman movie at the box office. Wow! 

Times have changed.

The Joker movie was released and marketed as a drama NOT just ANOTHER superhero film.  I think that had a lot to do with its success critically and industry wise, leading to a healthy box-office.

On 9/5/2023 at 10:40 PM, Gatsby77 said:

 

This is really simple.

The proof that even Marvel didn't consider these characters "A-list" is what actually happened in the 1990s.

Marvel was facing bankruptcy, so they agreed to sell off the movie rights to their most valuable characters in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Hence:

• X-Men -> to Fox
• Fantastic Four -> to Fox
• Spider-Man -> to Sony
• Hulk -> to Universal

They sold these, because they were seen as the most valuable (potential) movie properties.

Had Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or The Avengers been seen as A-list *by Marvel* at that time, they would have been sold. Period.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why (years later) the MCU succeeded.

Because Marvel Studios had to try to build a connected film universe without their biggest stars.

Marvel didnt sell the characters, they did what they started doing in the 70s, they LICENSED the characters to studios to make movies ... with the movies hopefully earning Marvel millions. (Essentially free money using the studios effort and $$$)   At the time, this was all Marvel could do to achieve profits from movies: they had no ability to cash to create big budget films on their own.  Thats how it was always done: license to the experts with the tools and the know-how.  Only after Spiderman had taken in $1B did Ike and Avi begin to make plans to do it in-house.   Unfortunately, the studios had the movie rights to big chunks of their characters already.  But they managed to work around that starting with Iron Man.  Later Disney's clout led to deals with rival Sony for shared use of Spiderman.

Also, there was zero successful track record for Marvel character films and entertainment besides Spidey and Hulk which had worked in the past.  Studios rightly passed on Cap (who se right Had been bought by Israeli Golan Globus and a very bad film was made that tanked.  "Avengers"is a tough sell because it's a team. Never been a team movie, especially when each superhero was licensed on their own.  Marvel lives through this problem even today with Sony holding Spiderverse control.

On 9/6/2023 at 10:01 AM, Dr. Balls said:

 

I think the point of Batman and Kara not having any resolution is to show the futility of messing with the timeline. I actually liked that they simply disappeared with no closure (well, there was closure - but it wasn't what the audience wanted). I felt that was a compelling way to end the story. I can also see why people didn't like it - but I like endings like that.

 

I agree.  When you introduce the concept of a multiverse, there are thousands of Earths that developed similarly with twists. Killing off a Batman and a Supergirl is no big deal.  There are plenty more to work with and as you said, it made for a more compelling end to the story.  On THIS earth, Zod wins because he already killed Kai-El and had only Kara to defeat, and he did.

On 9/7/2023 at 2:22 AM, shadroch said:

Those were my thoughts, especially with the ' baby shower", but I'm glad I stuck it out. I had a few laugh-out-loud moments, and while the movie lagged in a spot or two, I enjoyed it.

It was nice seeing some of the old stars back in action, and surprisingly, I found myself liking Ezra's Flash.  Overall, it was one of the better superhero movies I've seen in the last few years.

me too.  On his own the Ezra Barry is cringy unsure and annoying.  But with the other Barry, he became sober and heroic, more like a "true" Flash is supposed to be starring in his own (title role) film..

On 9/3/2023 at 11:53 PM, bentbryan said:

I’ve been background watching it on MAX the last few nights in 20 minute or so segments.  It’s not even what I would call bad CGI. It looks more like a straight-up animated movie during the action sequences.  
 

I’m watching right now and I take that last sentence back. It doesn’t just look like, it IS a straight-up animated movie. 
 

well, Im sure you're just exaggerating... Ive tried to watch the WB DC animated versions of the comics series.. and they are to me stiff and unwatchable. Bluey has better graphics.    The CGI in this was almost too much like everything else coming out. The extensive cities and planets landscapes in all the shows (like the Star Wars ones )  and a few actors against a blue screen with the rest a CGC background. Even Foundation etc etc.    Cheaper nowadays to CGI it than construct sets... and it looks more realistic too.

I finally watched it last night.  I actually liked it!  all the DC multiverse stuff, all the Batman's etc was fun.  I got used to the Flash character from JLA movie, too, especially after the "multiverse Barry" showed up and made DCU Flash much more serious.  Supergirl was fierce, like WW in Batman v Superman.  Of course I got a bit lost and uninterested when they get trapped inside the time travel scenes.  But CGI was well done, and I just wonder why he runs like he's swimming!? what all the arm swinging!

... and of course overall I had my expectations really low.  thats helps.. I expected to get through it in half hour chunks , but plowed through wanted to see what happens next.

right. I see it.  thanx  The Proud. The FEW!

I dont think CGC allows this anymore.  Back in the day, they'd allow it, and other submitter friendly assistance, like posting the grades BEFORE shipping, and allowing people to call and get the books regraded at a lower Prescreen perhaps, and other actions (while still at CGC).  CGC finally made the cutoff decision they use today:  once we have your books in the system, no changes.  We grade and ship them.  And THEN you can resubmit if you want.  Makes sense, they have had way too many submissions of late and those allowances opened the door to extra work and flow problems... which they have enough of already.

Marvel also had another Fan group membership thing in the 90s:  WAM!  Wild Agents of Marvel (I think thats what it stood for)

it does, and yes of course, rejects should be ignored by the final graders.

if a prescreener spent time doing weeding out rejects, and then gives them ALL to the grade, then he wasted valuable time. So I believe any books weeded out are not graded by the grader.  What could be the case as Lions Den alluded to I think that when prescreening for 9.6 they definitely weed out up to 9.4, leaving a few to get a second opinion.  THAT would be efficient and allow the grader a chance to slab a few more...Im sure CGC prefers a full grading fee over a reject fee, so long as the grade is defensible.

hey is the Blackstone being talked about as buying CGC the SAME as OUR Blackstone?

On 8/12/2023 at 12:48 PM, The Lions Den said:

To my knowledge, pre-screens are always done by the graders. And maybe things are different now, but there never used to be a separate department for pre-screens. And the rejects aren't usually looked at after they're rejected, but sometimes even books that pass the initial pre-screen will be rejected during the finalizing process. 

that makes sense... 

What I think you are really asking is if the Grader never even sees the books that the pre-grader felt didnt pass the pregrade level. Or if the Grader sees them all but knows which passed and which didnt -- does the Grader ever look at the rejects? (If he does he might disagree with the pregrader) ... same as the Grader may feel that some that passed are NOT 9.6 in this example and reject them.  

My guess is that the Grader only grades the non rejects by the pregrader. Its more efficient that way/ Otherwise just give al the boss to the let the Grader do the rejecting.

But, IS there a separate pre-screener department/level?? (aside from the page counter functions etc) If the pregrader is qualified to grade books, he should be in the grading room full time. Maybe pregraders ARE graders and they switch roles on a schedule to keep them fresh. .. and away from the espresso machine.

I still find it wild that so many near perfect copies of these books from the early 60s exist at all. I know how MY collected copies turned from back then!  Even a copy nice enough to press into a 9.6 is remarkable.  Who had the lucky to buy a perfect copy, then save it well?  The Curator sure, but regular collectors?  amazing.