Gatsby77

Member
  • Content Count

    5,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Gatsby77

  • Boards Title
    Pedigreed

Personal Information

  • Location
    Washington, DC

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's worse than that. The fine print for Rally Rd. indicates the share owners have no actual claim to the underlying book itself. You're trading based on the speculative share price only. With the average 30% mark-up, I truly don't understand why people don't just save to buy the books themselves, or - you know - buy it on a credit card and pay it off over time. As I (and others) have noted, overpaying by 30% is the same whether you pay $13 for a $10 book or $130,000 for a $100,000 book.
  2. Exactly. The sheer audacity of Marvel having the confidence to produce a slow-burn mystery series featuring Wanda & Vision as a 1950s sitcom couple is mind-blowing. Meanwhile, DC's over here trying to figure out how to do a solo Flash feature film and reboot Superman. I truly don't understand how we've not had two solid Flash films already, with a third on the way. He's a *far* better character than Thor or Ant-Man.
  3. I've loved it so far - and agree, 2nd episode was stronger than the first. But as a comics fan it's clear to me that it's House of M-based, *of course* Wanda is nuts, and this is just her way of dealing with Vision - and Pietro's - deaths. Also - to your point, more than a few folks on Twitter Saturday morning were theorizing this would point to a reverse-House of M scenario... Where instead of saying "No more mutants" she might just say "Mutants" -- thus introducing them into the MCU.
  4. This. I get the notion that "suspension of disbelief" has little place in a a sci-fi or superhero film where folks are wearing tights, flying, etc. - but that's a cop-out. Films should follow the internal rules they set up, amid the world-building they've set forth, with consistency. You can't set the rules of the universe and then simply disregard them for plot armor reasons. Good Example: WW84 establishes that Diana's lasso works both ways. Not only does it force folks to tell the truth; it also forces them to know, understand and accept the truth when it's being told to
  5. I understand what you're saying in theory - but didn't Superman reveal a new ability to (checks notes) *turn back time* in Superman: The Movie? I don't recall that power from the comic books. And it seemed a far more egregious deus ex machina than an explanation of WW's invisible jet that could make sense. Clarification: after some googling, it appears the pre-Crisis Superman actually could time travel via faster-than-light travel, esp. in some Silver Age storylines. But a key difference is -- the time travel only affected him, not every plant, animal, person and thing on earth - as
  6. “But they can’t fly commercial because Steve doesn’t have a passport.” “The guy he’s possessing probably has one.”
  7. Two different pieces detailing how WW84 abjectly failed Cheetah. They focus primarily on her lack of independent agency and depth - esp. relative to her comic book backstory and origin - but to me it was simpler -- she's Wonder Woman's archenemy, the closet analog we have to her version of the Joker, and instead she's relegated to a mere henchman / sidekick to Max Lord - just as Bane was to Poison Ivy in Batman & Robin. I don't understand the writers' logic there - let alone given that one of the writers was none other than Geoff Johns. *Especially* given that Greg Rucka gav
  8. Thank you - much like Green Lantern 76, it's the *story* in this book that makes it significant, far more than the cover. It brings Superman into the 1970s, with elements including: Superman shifting from newspaper journalist to TV broadcast reporter Perry White being replaced as his boss by Morgan Edge Superman's powers adjusted down Superman now (temporarily) impervious to kryptonite Moreover, it was *intended* by the editors as a restart of a more modern Superman for new readers as part of the new decade, as laid out (along with the full comic) here: https:/
  9. Interesting take. I thought Diana’s first overture to her - dinner after discovery that the mystery artifact was just cittroline (sp.) was genuine - and perhaps a bit out of guilt for blowing her off earlier. Either way - agree that the exact joke didn’t matter - it was their dynamic already in progress that enabled the characterization in the lunch scene.
  10. ? Just like I - despite your multiple posts to the contrary - never advised people not to see WW84, neither did Silvermane. His opinion’s just as valid as the *many* others on this board who have pointed out the film’s unfortunate mediocrity - and he actually added to the conversation with that post. More than a few folks on Twitter have pointed out how much stronger the film would have been f they’d leaned into the obvious sexual chemistry between Diana and Barbara rather than (as they did) hinting at it and then ignoring it. I’ve said it before, but the choice to relegat
  11. Because any Smart TV that can support Roku definitionally also gives you direct access to streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, Prime & HBO Max without it as well. in either case, you still have to sign up & pay for the services. So if someone wants to sign up for HBO Max, it makes zero difference whether they’re also a Roku user.
  12. Right. I’m saying, to my knowledge, *zero* Roku members are subscribed to HBO Max by default. So why would Roku integration help increase HBO Max’s subscriber base? I had the option to subscribe to HBO Max directly, via my Smart TV or through Roku. I chose to do it through Roku - but still had to sign up & pay the money. No differently than if I’d signed up via my smartphone & downloaded the HBO Max app.
  13. Seriously? I *never* advised anyone not to see it. I posted my honest opinion of the film - both positives and negative, but ultimately a view not as negative as at least a dozen other posters here. And you go and liken it to Raiders of the Lost Ark - not only one of the best films of the entire decade of the 1980s, but literally on AFI's list of the top 100 American films ever. And for the record, WW84 wasn't *nearly* as bad as BvS or Suicide Squad.
  14. I dunno - I thought "Tomorrow Never Dies" was an apt comparison (after "Goldeneye"), or...for Indiana Jones, it's far more "Temple of Doom" than "Raiders." As in, a highly anticipated but ultimately lackluster and shockingly mediocre sequel to a masterpiece. And if it's getting this trashed among us - the comic book faithful, who have every reason to want it to succeed, I can't imagine the general public thinking it's much better...