Any books red hot 5-10 years ago that have now fallen?

[Sqeggs]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

[mintcollector]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

[Bio-Rupp]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

This would have been great if I hadn't of lost my job at the end of 2008 like everyone else.

 

Then I could have afforded to purchase tons of $5 stock... and make a mint later on.

 

Life sucks

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[mysterio]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

I think he was asking about your strategy going into the crash. I made plenty of money on GE stock coming out of the crash too, and I don't have a business degree.

[Junkdrawer]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

Having money to invest isn't really making money in the same sense. How about if you were in the unemployment line after losing your job, behind in your mortgage. How savy are you without working capital? How about while in debt?

[mintcollector]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

I think he was asking about your strategy going into the crash. I made plenty of money on GE stock coming out of the crash too, and I don't have a business degree.

 

I bought a lot of gold through EFT's in 2004-2006.

[mintcollector]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

Having money to invest isn't really making money in the same sense. How about if you were in the unemployment line after losing your job, behind in your mortgage. How savy are you without working capital? How about while in debt?

 

Actually I did lose my job during the 'crash.' The difference is I already had enough money to pay my expenses during the job loss and I landed fairly easily in another profession afterwards.

 

That being said, I wish someone would answer the questions I posed to speculators at the end of that particular post. That was the point of that post.

[Sqeggs]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

No, no. We've all made out like bandits on what we bought when the market was tanking. That was the easiest money ever made. The question is did you make any money during the downturn -- which qualifies as "in any financial climate"?

 

Making money on what you bought in 2009 is the proverbial "being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple."

[Beige]

Back on topic.

 

People were comparing Western movies with Superhero/Marvel types.

 

In essence nothing is different with either - both had good stories, the main players became huge stars and money was made.

 

What IS different is the time. In the 40's - 70's when the Western film was at its most popular, special effects were limited to technology and subject. There is no reason for SXF to exist in a Western, as the debacle that was Cowboys vs Aliens showed.

But with superhero/Marvel films, every time SFX makes an advance, it can, and is, incorporated into a new sci-fi/superhero film.

With movies heading into the galaxies - GOTG, Thanos etc then it's not just the subject matter that people want to see, its also the advances in SFX that draw people in.

 

People want to be wowed.

Superhero/sci-fi gives film-makers that exact opportunity.

 

Audiences will never tire of new ways to be entertained, and films based on fantasy,science and superhumans do just that.

 

Oh, and one of my favourite 3 films of all time is "A Big Country" so I love Westerns as well.

 

A 'levelling' must certainly be coming - but that won't be because comic book movies are suddenly boring or irrelevant, it will be because people were dumb enough to spunk out $1000+ on Preacher #1, BA #12, Nova #1, NM #98 and the like.

All common books, and all certain to lose 50% of their value in the next 12-18 months at best.

Look at Nova #1. Here on these very boards people are dropping the price left, right and centre. There were what, 10 for sale this week,with very little interest.

 

 

 

[thunsicker]

Just for fun:

 

GL 76 in 9.6

 

High for

 

2009: $30,500

2010: $25,000

2011: $10,158

2013: $7,335

2014: $6,274 (Don & Maggie copy)

 

Perfect example of a hot artist being hot with his generation`s fans and not with the modern generation.

Steranko books have taken a hit, as well.

 

So in conclusion

A hot first appearance of a character will trump a hot first appearance of an artist in the long run.

 

No.

Clarify please?

 

Those prices have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the popularity of Neal Adams, who is just as popular today as he was 6 years ago, and everything to do with census numbers.

 

+1 There was a mania surrounding that book in high grade at the time. There was a lot of discussion here about how hard it was to find in grade, etc. that inflated the price. It was clear what was happening at the time.

 

+2

 

I think I also have to disagree that Steranko books have taken a large hit. His most in demand covers remain very strong. IH annual 1 in 9.6 has seen some very strong sales in the past six months and CA 111 commands what I consider strong prices in hg despite the large number of high grade copies available.

 

I think I'd have to agree with you actually. The interest in Steranko isn't totally gone. 8 of the top 10 viewed slabs I have in my collection on myslabbedcomics.com are Steranko's. Of course this is totally non-scientific, but it shows there is still some interest.

[mintcollector]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

No, no. We've all made out like bandits on what we bought when the market was tanking. That was the easiest money ever made. The question is did you make any money during the downturn -- which qualifies as "in any financial climate"?

 

Making money on what you bought in 2009 is the proverbial "being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple."

 

Yes. It was done through short selling and other speculative means.

 

By the time the meltdown hit a lot of industry insiders were already expecting it. It wasn't like the signs were not there. I had friends actively buying gold from 2004 on waiting for it to hit. Another friend of mine was completely liquid by 2007 altogether. Ironically, the minor recession that occurred several years earlier was harder to predict than this.

 

I would really like some answers to my previous questions posed to speculators.

 

[paperheart]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

No, no. We've all made out like bandits on what we bought when the market was tanking. That was the easiest money ever made. The question is did you make any money during the downturn -- which qualifies as "in any financial climate"?

 

Making money on what you bought in 2009 is the proverbial "being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple."

 

Yes. It was done through short selling and other speculative means.

 

By the time the meltdown hit a lot of industry insiders were already expecting it. It wasn't like the signs were not there. I had friends actively buying gold from 2004 on waiting for it to hit. Another friend of mine was completely liquid by 2007 altogether. Ironically, the minor recession that occurred several years earlier was harder to predict than this.

 

I would really like some answers to my previous questions posed to speculators.

 

[mintcollector]

Back on topic.

 

People were comparing Western movies with Superhero/Marvel types.

 

In essence nothing is different with either - both had good stories, the main players became huge stars and money was made.

 

What IS different is the time. In the 40's - 70's when the Western film was at its most popular, special effects were limited to technology and subject. There is no reason for SXF to exist in a Western, as the debacle that was Cowboys vs Aliens showed.

But with superhero/Marvel films, every time SFX makes an advance, it can, and is, incorporated into a new sci-fi/superhero film.

With movies heading into the galaxies - GOTG, Thanos etc then it's not just the subject matter that people want to see, its also the advances in SFX that draw people in.

 

People want to be wowed.

Superhero/sci-fi gives film-makers that exact opportunity.

 

Audiences will never tire of new ways to be entertained, and films based on fantasy,science and superhumans do just that.

 

Oh, and one of my favourite 3 films of all time is "A Big Country" so I love Westerns as well.

 

A 'levelling' must certainly be coming - but that won't be because comic book movies are suddenly boring or irrelevant, it will be because people were dumb enough to spunk out $1000+ on Preacher #1, BA #12, Nova #1, NM #98 and the like.

All common books, and all certain to lose 50% of their value in the next 12-18 months at best.

Look at Nova #1. Here on these very boards people are dropping the price left, right and centre. There were what, 10 for sale this week,with very little interest.

 

 

 

You don't think that Westerns were revolutionary for the time...all things being equal? Not always in special effects, but in other ways? If people only want to be 'wowed' how come no super hero movies are winning Oscars? The story for some Westerns had merit for their place and time.

 

People will tire of special effects. Want proof? Look at the previous Star Wars trilogy. Most critics noted they were light on story, but heavy on effects. Now only the first three films from the original trilogy are coveted. Story matters just as much if not more than effects. No one is looking for just eye candy on a screen to make a lasting impression. In fact that is why a lot of industries suffer...all fluff and no content.

 

This too shall pass. The average movie goer is NOT spending several hundred dollars (or thousands) on a comic book. Collectors are. Collectors are NOT made they are born. The last time the industry thought that collectors could be made we ended up with speculation which later hurt the industry as those so called collectors realized that collecting wasn't for them.

[Beige]

Back on topic.

 

People were comparing Western movies with Superhero/Marvel types.

 

In essence nothing is different with either - both had good stories, the main players became huge stars and money was made.

 

What IS different is the time. In the 40's - 70's when the Western film was at its most popular, special effects were limited to technology and subject. There is no reason for SXF to exist in a Western, as the debacle that was Cowboys vs Aliens showed.

But with superhero/Marvel films, every time SFX makes an advance, it can, and is, incorporated into a new sci-fi/superhero film.

With movies heading into the galaxies - GOTG, Thanos etc then it's not just the subject matter that people want to see, its also the advances in SFX that draw people in.

 

People want to be wowed.

Superhero/sci-fi gives film-makers that exact opportunity.

 

Audiences will never tire of new ways to be entertained, and films based on fantasy,science and superhumans do just that.

 

Oh, and one of my favourite 3 films of all time is "A Big Country" so I love Westerns as well.

 

A 'levelling' must certainly be coming - but that won't be because comic book movies are suddenly boring or irrelevant, it will be because people were dumb enough to spunk out $1000+ on Preacher #1, BA #12, Nova #1, NM #98 and the like.

All common books, and all certain to lose 50% of their value in the next 12-18 months at best.

Look at Nova #1. Here on these very boards people are dropping the price left, right and centre. There were what, 10 for sale this week,with very little interest.

 

 

 

You don't think that Westerns were revolutionary for the time...all things being equal? Not always in special effects, but in other ways? If people only want to be 'wowed' how come no super hero movies are winning Oscars? The story for some Westerns had merit for their place and time.

 

That's why they died out - other movies overtook them, not story wise, but because they were newer and fresher with a new look - James Bond for example - special effects bought audiences in.

How many terrible or obscure films have won Oscars - if that's your parameter, then it's a poor one. Oscar winning films are quite often niche films outside of the best picture category.

 

People will tire of special effects. Want proof? Look at the previous Star Wars trilogy. Most critics noted they were light on story, but heavy on effects. Now only the first three films from the original trilogy are coveted. Story matters just as much if not more than effects. No one is looking for just eye candy on a screen to make a lasting impression. In fact that is why a lot of industries suffer...all fluff and no content.

 

I'm not saying story doesn't matter - but compare say, Two Guns, with GOTG.

Which was the better story - Two Guns according to critics

Which one had whizz bang SFX? - GOTG

Which one bombed - both were out with big fanfare releases (at least here they were) - Two Guns

There are very few films that were light on SFX that come anywhere even close to the superhero films so far released.Both in $$ and influence.

This too shall pass. The average movie goer is NOT spending several hundred dollars (or thousands) on a comic book. Collectors are. Collectors are NOT made they are born. The last time the industry thought that collectors could be made we ended up with speculation which later hurt the industry as those so called collectors realized that collecting wasn't for them.

 

Movie goers on the whole don't buy comics - correct.

A 'hot' movie/TV show makes a superhero a household name, and THAT encourages people to collect books - just like The Walking Dead, Iron Man etc

Collectors aren't made?

Please, that frankly is ridiculous.

People were genetically born with a disposition to dress up as Bronies and collect My Little Pony?

 

Marvel and DC will keep pumping out movies, a couple a year - they aren't stupid, and have no wish to kill the golden goose.

New characters will become popular, and they will be sought out. Some older characters will retain popularity, some will wither and die.

Which books people choose to buy is up to them.

But I'd think you'd agree that anyone who bought a TOS #39 will be doing better than the person who bought the 1st Whiplash, Mandarin etc etc.

I agreed with you a correction will come. But only in some books, not all.

 

We are a long,long way from an end-of-days Armageddon scenario.

 

 

Fun debate - thankyou

[oakman29]

To me that is work, but then again I have a degree in business and can easily make money in any financial climate. Sometimes I have to wonder how the mind of the speculator thinks.

 

Even 2007-2009? Less us know your secret!

 

Absolutely! That was the best time to buy. Here is my secret. Invest heavily in index funds while the price is low and buy up undervalued companies. Note I bought GE stock for about $5 a share and sold at over $20 a share.

 

REIT's have been very kind to me as well.

 

As stated before my net worth literally nearly quadrupled when the market recovered.

 

Is that really a secret; buy low, sell high?

 

Gee u be smarte,I wisht I wuz az smarts az u.

[mintcollector]

Back on topic.

 

People were comparing Western movies with Superhero/Marvel types.

 

In essence nothing is different with either - both had good stories, the main players became huge stars and money was made.

 

What IS different is the time. In the 40's - 70's when the Western film was at its most popular, special effects were limited to technology and subject. There is no reason for SXF to exist in a Western, as the debacle that was Cowboys vs Aliens showed.

But with superhero/Marvel films, every time SFX makes an advance, it can, and is, incorporated into a new sci-fi/superhero film.

With movies heading into the galaxies - GOTG, Thanos etc then it's not just the subject matter that people want to see, its also the advances in SFX that draw people in.

 

People want to be wowed.

Superhero/sci-fi gives film-makers that exact opportunity.

 

Audiences will never tire of new ways to be entertained, and films based on fantasy,science and superhumans do just that.

 

Oh, and one of my favourite 3 films of all time is "A Big Country" so I love Westerns as well.

 

A 'levelling' must certainly be coming - but that won't be because comic book movies are suddenly boring or irrelevant, it will be because people were dumb enough to spunk out $1000+ on Preacher #1, BA #12, Nova #1, NM #98 and the like.

All common books, and all certain to lose 50% of their value in the next 12-18 months at best.

Look at Nova #1. Here on these very boards people are dropping the price left, right and centre. There were what, 10 for sale this week,with very little interest.

 

 

 

You don't think that Westerns were revolutionary for the time...all things being equal? Not always in special effects, but in other ways? If people only want to be 'wowed' how come no super hero movies are winning Oscars? The story for some Westerns had merit for their place and time.

 

That's why they died out - other movies overtook them, not story wise, but because they were newer and fresher with a new look - James Bond for example - special effects bought audiences in.

How many terrible or obscure films have won Oscars - if that's your parameter, then it's a poor one. Oscar winning films are quite often niche films outside of the best picture category.

 

People will tire of special effects. Want proof? Look at the previous Star Wars trilogy. Most critics noted they were light on story, but heavy on effects. Now only the first three films from the original trilogy are coveted. Story matters just as much if not more than effects. No one is looking for just eye candy on a screen to make a lasting impression. In fact that is why a lot of industries suffer...all fluff and no content.

 

I'm not saying story doesn't matter - but compare say, Two Guns, with GOTG.

Which was the better story - Two Guns according to critics

Which one had whizz bang SFX? - GOTG

Which one bombed - both were out with big fanfare releases (at least here they were) - Two Guns

There are very few films that were light on SFX that come anywhere even close to the superhero films so far released.Both in $$ and influence.

This too shall pass. The average movie goer is NOT spending several hundred dollars (or thousands) on a comic book. Collectors are. Collectors are NOT made they are born. The last time the industry thought that collectors could be made we ended up with speculation which later hurt the industry as those so called collectors realized that collecting wasn't for them.

 

Movie goers on the whole don't buy comics - correct.

A 'hot' movie/TV show makes a superhero a household name, and THAT encourages people to collect books - just like The Walking Dead, Iron Man etc

Collectors aren't made?

Please, that frankly is ridiculous.

People were genetically born with a disposition to dress up as Bronies and collect My Little Pony?

 

Marvel and DC will keep pumping out movies, a couple a year - they aren't stupid, and have no wish to kill the golden goose.

New characters will become popular, and they will be sought out. Some older characters will retain popularity, some will wither and die.

Which books people choose to buy is up to them.

But I'd think you'd agree that anyone who bought a TOS #39 will be doing better than the person who bought the 1st Whiplash, Mandarin etc etc.

I agreed with you a correction will come. But only in some books, not all.

 

We are a long,long way from an end-of-days Armageddon scenario.

 

Fun debate - thankyou

 

 

First, I wasn't aware this was a debate as we are both in agreement on the basics. I have always used the term 'correction' not 'crash.' A crash will NEVER come, but price corrections will overtake the market at some point and yes, even the 'keys' will fall. This already occurred at some point in the 1980's.Not every seller with a JIM 83 or Hulk 1 is making money. There is an excellent story in the new Overstreet that talks about a seller who lost over $40,000 (I think if I recall correctly) on a JIM 83. I wish speculators would read this.

 

Second, I never heard of Two Guns so that is a horrid example as I was left wondering what the heck we were talking about and I am sure others are as well. Substance does matter and I have yet to see GOTG, but I also have NO desire to see it (if that makes any sense to anyone other than myself).

 

Collectors are NOT made. This has been researched in depth. Not everyone has the desire to collect; in fact collecting is actually less popular now that it was at any other time in history. Please research this. Several commenters in the trade (aside from me) have done great articles and research on this. Most millennials are not interested in accumulations of stuff. This is due to several factors. One is the issue of income equality. If you don't have a job that pays well enough to pay your school loans buying collectibles is farthest from your mind. Second, millennials are the first generation to grow up in a digital world. They are used to digital movies, music, and games. Others still are more relationship focused and have no desire to star in an episode of "Hoarders."

 

Dressing up as characters is much different than collecting. I have friends that dress up as video game characters. They own very few physical video games; yet I on the other hand own thousands and have no desire to dress up like anyone (other than myself). Being an active enthusiast and collecting are two distinct things.

 

Just some thoughts...

[The-Collector]

Superhero films represent a distinct genre, and film historians have documented the way in which film genres progress. That progression is fairly predictable. From http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/filmtopics.htm:

 

"1.Primitive--During this stage the conventions of the genre are just developing, and the audience has yet to develop set expectations for the genre.

2.Classical--During this stage, the genre is at its peak of popularity, the conventions of the genre receive their fullest expression, and the audience knows what to expect.

3.Parodic--By this stage, the conventions of the genre have become so stale and well-known, that they are laughable and ripe for parody.

4.Revisionist--During this stage, genre films consciously question and/or reverse the established conventions of the classical stage of the genre."

 

I haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy, but judging from the trailers, which I have seen, I'd say it may qualify as a parody of the genre (just like the comic was in all likelihood intended as a parody of super-hero comics). Kick- probably qualifies, too. As more parodies come along, superhero movies will lose their some of their coolness with the general public.The revisionist phase may keep the genre going strong for a while, but like other film genres such as gangster films and westerns, superhero movies will almost certainly fade at some point.

It wasn`t a parody, but probably the beginning of a new Star Wars type franchise.

It will probably last much longer then the original old school iconic characters because it seems new and fresh.

I don`t think the comic movies will fade.

The Avengers Age of Ultron will break all box office records in May.

Superman vs. Batman will then do another billion the year after.

Think about this.

Tim Burton`s Batman came out in 1989.

Well, here we are 25 plus years later, and superhero movies are stronger then ever.

 

 

 

I think you are painting an overly optimistic and revisionist portrait of comic book history in the past 25 years. After batman and Robbin in 1997 superhero movies were toxic. The Batman franchise was not revived until 2005 and Marvel properties were only made sporadically and on relatively low budgets and did not inspire the masses until 2008.

 

The popularity of super hero movies is not an inexorable march forwards and anyone who says so is being very naive.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Westerns were dead when I was a kid in the 80s.

 

But after at least a 50 year run.

I had to come back for this one last point.

 

This is the big difference between western and superheroes.

The western heroes all got old and died.

John Wayne,Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers and Gene Autry all iconic heroes for their generation. All got old and died.

 

The superheroes never get old and die. In fact they keep reinventing themselves for new generations. (thumbs u

 

How many new Marvel, Batman and Superman fans have been introduced to the comic book movies and animation shows these last two decades?

I would say millions.

 

So western heroes die, and don`t come back for new generations, while superheroes never die and keep reinventing themselves.

Thus superheroes will not suffer the same fate like the cowboy TV western heroes.

 

 

[mintcollector]

Westerns were dead when I was a kid in the 80s.

 

But after at least a 50 year run.

I had to come back for this one last point.

 

This is the big difference between western and superheroes.

The western heroes all got old and died.

John Wayne,Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers and Gene Autry all iconic heroes for their generation. All got old and died.

 

The superheroes never get old and die. In fact they keep reinventing themselves for new generations. (thumbs u

 

How many new Marvel, Batman and Superman fans have been introduced to the comic book movies and animation shows these last two decades?

I would say millions.

 

So western heroes die, and don`t come back for new generations, while superheroes never die and keep reinventing themselves.

Thus superheroes will not suffer the same fate like the cowboy TV western heroes.

 

 

Uh, no. You are aware that not all the Western heroes were actually living people, correct? A lot were fictional characters. That argument does not hold merit.

[Beige]

Because you haven't heard of a film it's a 'horrid example'?

It was a big budget, big name film, out at around the GOTG release and bombed.

And you haven't seen GOTG?

 

Perhaps less research and more watching might give you a better insight into what is being shown on screen at the moment.

 

How many Marvel films have you actually watched in the cinema? You can research all you like, but if you haven't actually viewed the product on offer, how can you comment on them?

 

As you say, just some thoughts. I'll leave this thread to those who have researched income inequality and the like.