Smeagol Eye Cherry

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smeagol Eye Cherry

  • Boards Title
    Just got here
  1. I see why you would say that, but if Cap interferes to fight Hydra, save Tony's parents, etc. then he is only saving those people in that particular timeline. The original MCU timeline cannot be changed; what's done is done. So at a certain point, Cap either tries to save everyone who ever exists in every new timeline he continually keeps creating, or he gets a chance to live his life and enjoy a little happiness of his own. I'm probably every bit as selfless and heroic as Steve Rogers, but even I occasionally take time out for nice restaurants, movies, and forum postings when my time could probably be better spent feeding hungry children or assisting the elderly. One person can only sacrifice so much. Cap saved the earth a couple times now. He's earned this ending.
  2. Nice. If the criteria for worthiness were based upon comic book selling acumen, you could lift Mjolnir.
  3. I prefer to watch these movies from a No-Prize point of view where I don't have to over analyze every detail, and as long as the film's own internal logic seems to hold up, I'm happy. Bruce Banner would have died in real life, but this isn't real life, and he turned into a hulking monster instead. I just accept that going in. So with that in mind, I feel like they did a fairly good job with the time travel. Cap returned Mjolnir and all the stones to their proper place in time so I'm assuming Malekith didn't kill everyone in an alternate Dark World timeline. The Loki we will get on Disney+ is this alternate timeline Loki probably? That timeline is missing the Tesseract then, unless Loki returns it or maybe Hemsworth makes a guest appearance on the show. I'm looking forward to all of these shows more than ever now since I've seen the movie. Old Cap presents the most possibilities. Did he live out his life in an alternate timeline where he continued to fight the good fight but with Peggy by his side, or did he grow old in the MCU prime knowing that everything was destined to play out the way it did originally? Is that even possible if he commits to staying on the sidelines and not causing another branch off(by saving Howard Stark or something like that)? There are ten other questions off the top of my head, but they're fun to consider if you are a nerd like myself.
  4. I think we will get more clarity on the cosmic characters and their place in the MCU once the Eternals show up. Is Ego the most powerful character we've seen on screen so far? Thor seems to be slightly less powerful than Doctor Strange, and clearly less of a threat than either Wanda or Captain Marvel who were both giving Thanos a beatdown before he outmaneuvered them with help from his warship and the Power Stone respectively. The movies portray Wanda as young and still learning, but she fights like Droopy when she gets angry.
  5. I’m terms of value, and impact on the industry, and most any other metric that anyone cares about when compiling a list like this, I wholeheartedly agree. Especially since the Turtles are still popular in general and probably beloved by a certain segment of the community. I’m just thinking that if Venom, as a character, is the Spider-Man of Copper Age desirability, then the TMNT are the Fantastic Four. Which is still a pretty big deal. And honestly, maybe Deadpool is the big Kahuna? I think he’s too sweary and murdery, but who knows?
  6. This was the paragraph where I took the quote from, but I think I understand better what you meant now and agree completely if my understanding is indeed correct. I missed the “Venom was insanely hot” assertion someone else must have made. General growing popularity was what I was postulating and that’s why I find two action figures in 1991 and one of the first four Marvel - non X-Men - characters featured, to be such a compelling argument. Hulk, Spider-Man and Punisher make perfect sense. Venom taking that last spot tells me they already knew they had something special. It doesn’t prove insanely hot though. You are absolutely correct about that. I also wonder what others think about the influence of fuzzy memories on a list like this, and whether that can sometimes be a good thing. For instance, aren’t some comics more desirable, not because of their importance, but simply because of their immediate impact upon our nostalgia zones? X-Men 94 has this kind of impact on me because it was a big deal when I was growing up, but it’s just a minor key filled with second appearances to my younger friends. Whereas Secret Wars 8 is far more iconic to the youths of today than it is to the more seasoned collectors that frequent these boards.
  7. I think you make a very good point with the Cap City numbers, and they are an important piece of the popularity puzzle, but when considering something as nebulous as popularity, they really are only one piece. They give us a clearer picture of what shop owners expected to sell, but that's not the only thing we should be considering. If that were true, then Spawn would have been the most popular comic book character in the world at one time. But of course, this has never been the case. Phil Collins sold more albums than Madonna in the 80s, but who had the greater cultural impact? Who would 9 out 10 people tell you was actually more popular? Spider-Man is streets ahead of Batman and Wolverine in merchandise sales, for as long as I can remember there has always been a general consensus that Amazing is the most collected back issue title, Spider-Man 2002 sold more tickets than Batman 1989(my guess is most 35+ year old collectors would tell you Bats 89 was a cultural event and Spidey 02 was just a popular movie), and if we scan the box office this century - when all three had simultaneous film careers - Spider-Man comes out ahead there too. But what percentage of fans would vehemently argue that Wolverine is the most popular character of the three? Among collectors, especially using sales to comic shops as the criteria, I could hear that argument. It's wrong, but I'll allow it. What I'm actually suggesting is that the Michelinie interview, and merchandise sales, and back issue sales, Halloween costumes and 5th grade lunch table discussions all play a role in determining popularity, and GeeksAreMyPeeps and Peter Park also make some good points in this regard. I believe you originally said "until Venom became popular in 1993" and that can only be proven to a certain degree with numbers alone. For instance, Marvel Diamond/sometimes-White-UPC issues should technically not be referred to as Whitman issues because, after a decent amount of investigation and discussion, we have definitive proof(unless I'm misremembering a Soapbox where Stan refers to them as Curtis issues separate from newsstand issues - someone check Snopes) that these comics were also distributed at shops and not exclusively in 3 packs. This wouldn't be the end of the world if someone got it wrong, but I would rather have a clearer picture of how things actually went down than not, so it's better to pass on accurate info. Venom's popularity before 1993 is a different question and can't be conclusively proven(nor does it need to be) any more than we can prove that Spider-Man is more popular than Batman, who is much more popular than Wolverine. Quick tie in to the actual topic - If we aren't talking price, then I think Amazing 300 is the most important comic of the Copper Age (BA 12 misses the cutoff) because it introduces Spider-Man's Joker. I personally prefer ten other villains but none of them can support their own series of films, line of toys, etc. The Turtles should always be more valuable, but I'm predicting they continue to hang around in pop culture mediocrity while other characters grow in popularity.
  8. Hey, my first post was approved! Probably not wise, but who am I to question the moderators? Unfortunately, it shows up hours ago in the thread so many of you didn’t realize I definitively resolved the Venom popularity debate. Just wanting to save ya’ll from needless typing. Anyway, I’m a little surprised there was any discussion regarding the removal of Harbinger 1. If 1992 books make the list, it was undoubtedly one of the most important books of its era. Even more popular than Venom at the time. Some could argue that without a successful movie, Valiant books will never truly pull off this decade long comeback they’ve been teasing (talk about a slow burn), but then where does that leave comics like Albedo? I can walk into my LCS, try to talk some Albedo, and receive blank stares as if Kumail just mentioned it by name in his last stand up routine. Sometimes it’s difficult to compare something with a larger pop culture impact and something with a small, yet passionate following. I suppose that’s part of what makes list making fun. Even among fans there are so many different perspectives.
  9. Hi. Longtime lurker, almost never contributor, the boards are different than they were years ago, and I have a new email now anyway. But enough about me. Venom had two Toy Biz action figures in 1991. That didn't happen for new characters unless they were popular. There were seven talking characters, three X-Men, Spider-Man, Hulk, Punisher and Venom. Doesn't that just perfectly sum up Marvel Comics in 1991? The X-Men, Marvel's two most iconic characters, and two of its most popular characters at the time? I would argue that Ghost Rider would have received a figure earlier if not for, you know, a certain large portion of the USA and its stance on selling demons with hellfire covered heads in toy aisles circa 1991. I remember my Sam Keith Spidey vs. Ghost Rider t-shirt did not go over well at Christian youth groups back in the day. Then again, I wasn't wearing a Spidey v Venom shirt, so maybe that disproves my argument? Anecdotally, I also remember hitting up newsstands for extra copies of Amazing 316 and 317 because of Venom and not just McFarlane. There was a strong nerd buzz about the character early on. I had to talk to nerds to get my comics, and that's why I know. In the end, isn't this really a Hulk vs. Thor kind of argument? It's fun but can only be proven to a certain degree. Also, there isn't any harm done to comic book history by claiming Venom was growing in popularity in 1990 or 1993. So we don't really have to worry about damaging misinformation leaking out into collector's circles.