• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Venom Movie
3 3

Started by Jaydogrules,

1,187 posts in this topic

RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

#1 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sprucestreetcomics.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-top-25-greatest-amazing-spider-man-covers-of-all-time/amp/

Spoiler

 

So let's break these down, and see where they actually stand.

This is a blog, wherein the writer says "These are my picks for the top 25 Greatest Amazing Spider-Man covers of all time. As always, you’re free to disagree, but just be cool about it. We’re all nerds here." So, right off the bat, the writer isnt 

Here's what he says about ASM #300:

"The all time classic!" 

I'll leave it up to others to decide if the writer is making a case for "Classic cover" designation.

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

#6 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.nerdgoblin.com/comic-book-rewind-top-10-spider-man-covers/

Here's the line in question: "it also reminds us old-timers why we just might want to revisit some of the classics." 

So, all 10 covers are "Classic covers"...?

Sure waters down the designation. If everything is a classic cover, is anything a classic cover...?

14 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

#23 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.comicsbackissues.com/best-spider-man-covers/

Here's what they say: "A Spider-Man cover is to a comic book artist what hosting Saturday Night Live is to an actor."

Um. Ok, we'll go with that slightly strangled analogy...

Here, however, is where we see the "reference" to ASM #300 that "jay" claims:

"For aficionados of classic cover art, check out these high quality decals of best Spider-Man covers from RoomMates."

See that...?

It's an ad line with a link to a decal website.

It's not referring to ASM #300.

It's not even referring to Spiderman covers. 

It's referring to "classic cover art" in general. Yes, I'm not blind, I see that the next phrase refers to "best Spider-Man covers"...but the first phrase does not. It's just a generic reference to "classic cover art"...and I'm sure you can get more than "best Spider-Man covers" from "RoomMates" decals.

And in the notation for ASM #300 (#23 on that list of Top 25, by the way) : "Todd McFarlane, with issue #300, launched a whole new generation of Spider-Man cover art fans."

...really? Or did it launch a generation of McFarlane fans...? Go back in the literature of the late 80s. Do you find any reference to "Spider-Man cover art fans" anywhere...?

And again...is everything is a classic cover, is anything a classic cover...?

.

15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

#11 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/the-15-most-iconic-spider-man-covers/amp/

Here's what this article has to say about ASM #300:

"The huge sales of this issue, both due to the anniversary and its “hot” status as Venom’s popularity exploded, meant that this cover became instantly recognizable."

...which, of course, we know isn't even remotely true. Sales for ASM #300 were only slightly higher than #298 and #299. I don't have my Krause handy, but #298 and #299 were around 36k for Capital City orders, and #300 was about 42k. Compare that to New Mutants #98 at 52k, and #100 at 104k. 

Also, check out sales figures, published at Comichron (and in ASM #315, for direct reference.)

Venom's popularity didn't "explode" until 1992-ish, with the Carnage arc, the 30th anniversary issue, and #374-375, which led into Lethal Protector #1. You won't find many mentions, if any, of Venom by himself before that. Grab the 1990 OPG. Any mention of Venom? Nope. Just "last black costume." 

This is classic...pun intended...historical fiction, easily disproved, but since it's published on a "respectable" website, it's accepted at face value. Fact checking? We don't need no fact checking!

Here's where the word "classic" appears:

"The cover is also memorable, being a classic Todd McFarlane shot action pose of Spidey, swinging his way through the city in a pose that would make the most supple aerobics instructor grimace in pain."

So, is the cover referred to as "Classic"? Nope. It's the pose that is called that...which, in this case, is perfectly true.

15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Heritage Auctions seems to think it's a classic and "iconic" cover as well:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/todd-mcfarlane-amazing-spider-man-300-cover-original-art-marvel-1988-/a/7099-92276.s

Heritage, which is in the business of SELLING stuff, calling something "an absolute classic piece" is hardly surprising.

Superlatives on Heritage aren't hard to find.

15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

One thing of note about all of these lists-  they do not all contain the identical books in the identical order.

Go figure.  

Ok. And that is relevant, because.........?

15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Now, just for fun let's have a look at some synonyms for "iconic":

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/iconic

Two words included on there: "classical" and "historic", the latter which RMA used to describe the cover to ASM 300 in his first post on the matter, incidentally.

Once more: the colloquial use of the word "classic" or "classical" is not the same thing as a "Classic cover" designation from either the OPG and/or CGC and other similar entities.


 

Spoilered, so no one has to read if they don't wish to. Unspoil of your own free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

-J.

....where's "Stu" when you need him? My understanding is that quoting from Wikipedia is verboten this week. 

In this case, however, you're barking up the wrong tree. The colloquial use of the word "classic" is not the same as the official "Classic cover" designation, used by OPG (see: Shock Suspenstories #6, for example) and CGC (see: Captain America #113.)

In other words....a distinction with a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I found this interesting. How Todd McFarlane would fix the Venom movie look.

You can tell Todd is trying to be diplomatic here because if Venom's a hit this would give his new Spawn movie some good buzz.

 

 

Nice! 

Todd's getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Sinescu

Martin Sinescu

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're interested in having a discussion, let's have a discussion.

That's fine, we can, and I'm happy to do so, but would suggest that we consider taking it to the ASM 300 Appreciation Thread or start a new thread in Copper with a poll as to whether it deserves a classic cover consideration or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydogrules

Jaydogrules

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Martin Sinescu said:

That's fine, we can, and I'm happy to do so, but would suggest that we consider taking it to the ASM 300 Appreciation Thread or start a new thread in Copper with a poll as to whether it deserves a classic cover consideration or not.

Here's my final take on it- I'm not aware of Overstreet (or CGC) yet designating ANY copper age books as "classic cover" just yet.  However if/when they start, ASM 300 will certainly be one of the first to be deemed so by the same overwhelming consensus that considers it to be already.  

-J.

Edited by Jaydogrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

However if/when they start, ASM 300 will certainly be one of the first to be deemed so by the same overwhelming consensus that considers it to be already.  

Now THAT is presenting your opinion as fact. Good job!

:applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Dunno said:

It's not forbidden, it's just laughable and hypocritical for someone who claims to be a scholar to use Wikipedia as a legit reference. Especially if that reference is the only one on the Web that supports your position.

The irony of people eternally pointing that out in Internet forums is that global wikis are inherently a far better source of information than the forum itself could ever be.  So to the extent that Wikipedia is nearsighted, any Internet forum is blind by comparison.  It's also a misleading accusation when it comes to Wikipedia specifically.  The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are sourced, so when you condemn Wikipedia when someone cites it, you're implicitly condemning the sources it references as well without any specifically stated reason for doing so.  The logical fallacy referenced in this thread IS sourced, so if you'd like to condemn that source, have at it.

Edited by fantastic_four
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick O.

Dick O.

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2018 at 6:29 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

And, of course, they went with the "I'm Erik Larsen, and I hate Venom, so I'm going to make him look as clownishly ridiculous as I possibly can" 50,000 sharp, spikey teeth, and the stupid, 10 foot long tongue.

:luhv:

f537c398488d27bde4bacacad505ec14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dunno said:
21 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

....where's "Stu" when you need him? My understanding is that quoting from Wikipedia is verboten this week. 

It's not forbidden, it's just laughable and hypocritical for someone who claims to be a scholar to use Wikipedia as a legit reference. Especially if that reference is the only one on the Web that supports your position.

Which, of course, is total nonsense. Wikipedia is a weak source...it's not "no source." But, as with all things involving "Stu", decency, integrity, honor...these words have no meaning to him. He can say anything he wants, because he operates entirely outside the rules of this board, and no one can stop him. Rules? He doesn't give two squats about your rules. The only reason he's stopped Doxing the hell out of me is because even he realized he crossed a serious legal line. 

I do wish CGC would get serious about keeping banned members banned, rather than this endless revolving door of new accounts. 

And all of this...all of it...because "Stu" hates the way others choose to collect, and thinks creators should charge a huge surcharge for Sig Series, because you're scum if you want to SS your books.

That's the sum of it. That's pretty pathetic.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valiantman

valiantman

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2018 at 1:33 PM, AGGIEZ said:
On 8/29/2018 at 12:46 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nice! 

Todd's getting old.

Aren't we all...?

I've never listened to him. He sounds like a 13 year old Jim Henson Muppet...

Hey Bert, check out my Venom rubber ducky, Bert.  Bert?  Bert.  Check out my Venom rubber ducky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted

Wow, how have I missed the word "doxing" until now?  Never heard it before.  :blush:  I probably wouldn't have remembered it anyway since I make a conscious effort to never be anonymous online, but I'll probably remember now due to Stu doing it to RMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewWorldOrder

NewWorldOrder

Posted
Posted
On 8/29/2018 at 1:24 PM, Martin Sinescu said:

That's fine, we can, and I'm happy to do so, but would suggest that we consider taking it to the ASM 300 Appreciation Thread or start a new thread in Copper with a poll as to whether it deserves a classic cover consideration or not.

There are a lot of copper books that deserve classic cover eventually.

ASM 300

Spider-Man #1 (1990)

Hulk 340

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing