Crimebuster

Member
  • Content Count

    4,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Crimebuster

  • Boards Title
    FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The Crimebusters #3 will be launching on Kickstarter next month, but the pre-launch page is live now. So if you want to make sure you don't miss out, check it out and click the "notify me" button to make sure you don't miss it. Thanks again for all the support! I really appreciate it. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thecrimebusters/the-crimebusters-1-3/ Also, if you haven't read the first issue yet, I am giving away digital copies to anyone who signs up for my mailing list. I only update once a month (except during launches) so there's not too much spam; my October update should be going out in the next couple days, so now's the perfect time. Thanks! https://mailchi.mp/35996240ec7f/adventure_awaits_with_the_crimebusters
  2. Here's the latest YouTube videos from yours truly. I'm getting close to 200 subs, so I'm doing a giveaway! I also picked up some new stuff, including this awesome romance comic I never heard of before: And speaking of romance comics, here's a look at one of my favorite ongoing soap opera storylines ever:
  3. Falling In Love 20 VG $20 Falling In Love 45 G/VG $13 Falling In Love 76 VG bottom staple detached $20 Falling In Love 132 VG/F $20 most issues on back cover Girls’ Love Stores 55 VG $15 Girls Love Stories 80 G/VG top staple detaches $10 Page 2: Girls Love Stories 96 G/VG $15 Girls’ Love Stories 107 VG+ $15 Girls Romances 70 VG $15 Page 3: Heart Throbs 48 VG $12 Nice white pages. Most issues on back cover. Heart Throbs 67 G/VG $7 date stamp front cover. Looks like JUN 21. Page 4: Heart Throbs 86 VG/F $20 Page 5: Secret Hearts 56 VG $18 Secret Hearts 58 VG/VG+ $18 crease back cover. Young Love 71 VG- $5 @40% off
  4. I'll Take the Young Romance #150 for $40. Got some more takes coming once I can cut and paste them all.
  5. Everybody in this comes off looking worse. Byrne, Groth, the audience, everybody comes off badly. What any of them had to be so smug about is beyond me.
  6. I have around 10k, and am at my space limit, so I periodically sell off chunks to make space for new purchases. My tastes and collecting goals have changed a lot over the past decade so this is an ongoing process that probably won't stop any time soon. I collect full runs mostly, so they take up a lot of space!
  7. Episode #28 of the Classic Comics Forum Podcast is now live, with the second part of my three-part discussion about the Fall of Yellowjacket storyline. This time around we finish talking about the infamous court martial story in Avengers #213 before moving on to discuss #214-220: https://classiccomics.podbean.com/e/classic-comics-forum-podcast-28-avengers-211-230-the-fall-of-yellowjacket-part-2/ Meanwhile, on the YouTube front, I've got a couple new videos to share with you. In the newest episode of Origin Stories, I speak with Roquefort Raider about his experiences getting into comics in Quebec in the 1970's: And in this one, I show off some comic strip sketches that my Grandmother made in 1940:
  8. Given your condescending tone, I'm not sure there's any point in engaging with you on this. But for the benefit of people who are reading this thread to find out the answer to the original question, I'll just say that I'm assuming if you had some evidence to back your claim that "Kanigher and Kubert’s intent was always for OAAW 168 to be the Soldier’s first appearance" you would have provided it. I was asking because I thought maybe there was an interview or something? Or a lettercolumn comment that I haven't seen? Because I certainly don't see anything in reading OAAW #168 that they intended that character to ever appear again. And they certainly didn't mention in SSWS #151 that they were bringing back the character from OAAW #168 either. You say that "The creators have the exclusive benefit to define their creation." Sure. They have the right to retcon the character however they want. What they don't have the right - or ability - to do is retcon our reality. That reality is this: OAAW #168 appeared with a cover date of June, 1966. It features a nameless soldier - or soldiers? - only seen in shadow so we can't see his face, who Rock calls "the unknown soldier." The issue is a tribute to the idea of the unknown soldier being the true hero. SSWS #151 appeared with a cover date of July, 1970, more than four years later. It introduces a character called The Unknown Soldier who has a distinct narrative shtick - he's a master of disguise who takes on a new identity to fit every new mission. SSWS #157 appeared with a cover date of July, 1971, a year later, where they reprinted OAAW #168 with a new framing sequence where Rock basically says "oh, this is not just an unknown solider, it's the Unknown Soldier." I'm not sure whether you're claiming that they intended in 1966 for this to be a new character, or whether you're claiming that when they designed the Unknown Solider in 1970 they were thinking of the story from four years earlier, but I don't see any evidence in the comics that either of these things are true. I've read all these comics too, and it seems clear to me barring something to the contrary that I'm not aware of that the story from 1966 is a one-off; that they created a new character in 1970; and that they retconned things in 1971 to tie the two together. I haven't read anything in the actual comics to suggest otherwise. I submit that if they intended the character in 1966 to be an actual new character and not just part of a one-off story, they wouldn't have waited four years to actually develop him into, I should add, a pretty different concept with the disguise elements. I also submit that if they intended in 1970 for this to be the same character, they would have said so when they introduced him, and not waited another year. Further, I'll even submit that they had something very different in mind when they did the story in 1966, because the whole point of that story is that it's the unknown, nameless G.I.'s who were the real heroes of WWII and not our big hero Sgt. Rock, and so by retconning that so that it actually was a big hero - the Unknown Soldier instead of the unknown soldier - they completely undermine the entire point of the original story. It's a pretty seamless retcon otherwise, and the OAAW #168 story is a good one. But in our universe, as far as everything I've read and am aware of, it's not the first appearance of the Unknown Soldier, because that character wasn't created until 1970.
  9. Other people are welcome to accept whatever they want, but count me out! SSWS 151 is his first appearance, full stop. Connecting the character to OAAW 168 is a well done retcon, but it's still a retcon.
  10. The one that really drives me crazy is Avengers #71. It's not even remotely close to being the first appearance of the Invaders. The idea that the GA heroes that appear in #71 are the Invaders is a retcon from 1977 - 8 years after this issue came out. The Invaders didn't actually debut until 1975, 6 years after Avengers #71! Similarly, Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier. The idea that he is the same character from OOAW #168 is a retcon - a really well done retcon - from SSWS #157.
  11. Many years ago, my PayPal was hacked and someone deposited $6500 into my account. PayPal caught that one, though! Since then I added 2-step verification, so every time i try to log into PayPal it sends me a text message with a code number that needs to be entered in addition to my password.