Name: Mike



Pull List

For Comics shipping on 08/28/13

    View details of my comics
    Print Your Pullist
    MPJB's Recent Comments
    November 29, 2012 6:08 pm From the youtube comments for part 1: "In 1986 Bullpen Bulletins, Jim Shooter wrote- this is before this episode premiered- that Stan´╗┐ made many, many comments about the contributions of Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, etc. and the program simply edited hours of interviews into a few minutes, and they were upset and there was nothing they could do about it." Take it with a pinch of salt maybe, but it's not like Stan asked the questions and edited the piece.
    May 2, 2012 9:19 am @ Conor. "The weight of a director whose previous directing effort was less than satisfactory." you. You are hilarious. Consensus from critics: good. Consensus from viewers: good. apparently that = less than satisfactory. You didn't like it. Great. But why are you acting like it's universally accepted that Serenity is rated as "terrible" and "less than satisfactory"? Avengers. 5 stars. Hell yeah.
    May 1, 2012 7:52 pm @Conor. The numbers say that the concensus among imdb voters and rt critics was that Serenity was a good movie.
    May 1, 2012 6:22 pm @ Conor. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Internets or not. Not too many man on the street polls to look for consensus from. RT is the critics score. Fair enough it wasn't for you but terrible is a strong word. @ comicBOOKchris. You are confused?
    May 1, 2012 5:44 pm Serenity was terrible...? The internets and I disagree. IMDB 7.9, RT 82%. It didn't quite reach the heights of Firefly but it was still great imo.
    February 6, 2012 10:47 am Why are you making false accusations? What names have I called you?
    February 6, 2012 10:28 am Your lack of comprehension is astounding. You are now trying to put words in my mouth! My original comment was "LOTR was popular in a big way before the movies. It is after all the best-selling english-language book from the 20th century. The movies just made it popular in a big, big, big way." From that comment you can see I've definately been arguing that the movies had no demonstrable effect on its popularity. Not. Your original comment in the article states that it took the movies for lotr to become 'popular in a big way'. It is an idiotic thing to say. The best-selling english-language book from the 20th century needed the movies to become 'popular in a big way'? Don't think so. The movies may have elevated it to a rarified air status of popularity, but even if they did not exist it would still be 'popular in a big way'.
    February 6, 2012 9:12 am For anything.
    February 5, 2012 4:52 pm Yes. But you said originally that it took the movies for it to become 'popular in a big way'. It was always 'popular in a big way' even if there were no movies.
    February 4, 2012 2:19 pm Firstly, it was Josh's reply. Secondly, read it again. Josh is saying it took the movies release to make lotr popular in a big way.