• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. Valley of The Geeks

User Info: Broken_Zeus

Broken_Zeus
1 month ago#111
Revelation34 posted...
I only have one because I was given it as a joke birthday present. There's a few I would want but I definitely would never buy ones I have no interest in just to collect them.


I was reluctant to get into the Pop!s since I dislike the more generic design, but I started "collecting" them when I found some Rudolph ones on clearance from Target and a Chernabog on the Disney store. The thing that bugged me about the line at first was the sameness between figures and, broadly speaking, most of the ones I've bought are an exception to that. Most of them have mouths and are more highly detailed.

Offhand, the few exceptions in my collection are things I found on clearance for dirt-cheap (some Runaways figures for $2 apiece, some MvC-ish set with Strider Hiryu), although in those cases I still liked the characters themselves and the price was just right. There are a lot of examples of characters I like where I haven't bought because I either really dislike the design or can't justify spending that much for something of that quality. (And, of course, there's the fact that they just make too much stuff.)

My Pop! collection is on the smaller side. iirc, I own fewer than 20 (or maybe 25) full-sized figures. Most of them are more monstrous-looking characters. (It includes *three* versions of Cthluhu -- standard, glow-in-the-dark, and the patina. I stand by that decision.)

Funko's *other* stuff I like better. I frequently wind up buying Mystery Minis for things I don't really care about because the blind-boxed feature is kinda neat and I like the designs. (In some cases it's also a matter that I think I know what I'm getting -- such as Molten Man from the Spidey set (figured it had to be him or Mysterio) or Gandalf and Gimli from the LotR set). I love the Hikari line, but it's more than I like paying for collectibles. I got a few of them on the cheap ($15-20 for something that was originally marked up to like $50 or $60; the line kinda imploded at that price), but it's mostly just colorways of Skeletor (Mystic Powers version, Havoc, and... I think one other one).

And I will mention that my brother once tried to give me a Logan Pop! as a gift. I didn't really want it.
Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance

User Info: Revelation34

Revelation34
1 month ago#112
Broken_Zeus posted...
I was reluctant to get into the Pop!s since I dislike the more generic design, but I started "collecting" them when I found some Rudolph ones on clearance from Target and a Chernabog on the Disney store. The thing that bugged me about the line at first was the sameness between figures and, broadly speaking, most of the ones I've bought are an exception to that. Most of them have mouths and are more highly detailed.

Offhand, the few exceptions in my collection are things I found on clearance for dirt-cheap (some Runaways figures for $2 apiece, some MvC-ish set with Strider Hiryu), although in those cases I still liked the characters themselves and the price was just right. There are a lot of examples of characters I like where I haven't bought because I either really dislike the design or can't justify spending that much for something of that quality. (And, of course, there's the fact that they just make too much stuff.)

My Pop! collection is on the smaller side. iirc, I own fewer than 20 (or maybe 25) full-sized figures. Most of them are more monstrous-looking characters. (It includes *three* versions of Cthluhu -- standard, glow-in-the-dark, and the patina. I stand by that decision.)

Funko's *other* stuff I like better. I frequently wind up buying Mystery Minis for things I don't really care about because the blind-boxed feature is kinda neat and I like the designs. (In some cases it's also a matter that I think I know what I'm getting -- such as Molten Man from the Spidey set (figured it had to be him or Mysterio) or Gandalf and Gimli from the LotR set). I love the Hikari line, but it's more than I like paying for collectibles. I got a few of them on the cheap ($15-20 for something that was originally marked up to like $50 or $60; the line kinda imploded at that price), but it's mostly just colorways of Skeletor (Mystic Powers version, Havoc, and... I think one other one).

And I will mention that my brother once tried to give me a Logan Pop! as a gift. I didn't really want it.


I don't have the money for them anyway. Looks like the one I thought would be super rare due to it being a pre order only bonus for Fallout 4 isn't as expensive as I thought it would be.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms

User Info: Broken_Zeus

Broken_Zeus
1 month ago#113
Revelation34 posted...
I don't have the money for them anyway.


It's not a huge outlay upfront, but it does add up over time. The usual MSRP for Pop!s is $9, but some retailers routinely charge more (which, in some cases, I'm okay with the premium). Of course, because so many of them come out, you can often find deals on them whether it's markdowns (Gamespot usually has a large selection of $5 ones) or clearances. And, in contrast, Mystery Minis usually range $5-9 depending on retailer and, because they're a blind-boxed item, they don't seem to go on clearance as much (although Gamestop seems to be getting rid of the Fallout ones)

As a general rule, the less I pay for something, the less time I spend mulling over the decision. Mystery Minis, Pop!s, etc, are usually just impulse buys. The dark side of impulse purchasing -- which I've discussed before -- is that the use of physical space also adds up over time. Then you either need new storage infrastructure (like shelving) or to get rid of something. I *hate* getting rid of things. I guess that's what also bugs me about Pop!s -- pretty much everybody I know (irl mostly, but also online) who has any sort of collection tends to get rid of some of it down the road, often still in box.

Out of all the ones I own, there are only a few that I question having bought. One is Smaug, where I'm not as fond of the design and I regret not going with the exclusive gold colorway. (Amazon has the standard-color listed for $45, but there's no way he's worth $45. I think with the Hot Topic promo at the time, I might have paid $17-20, which I thought was a little much but it wasn't exactly breaking the bank.)

I'm also kinda iffy another another oversized dragon Pop!, Nicol Bolas, who is still widely available for around MSRP. Mostly because the metallic sheen looks kinda stupid. I don't regret the oversized BvS Doomsday, but I only paid $5 for him anyway.

And it's not just the ones that I might have paid a little more for. Some of the Pop!s I picked up cheaply that have the more standard design I've sometimes wondered, "Did I really need this?"

On that same note, there are other ones like the Pop! Molten Man (which I bought half for the streaming code to the Spectacular Spider-Man show) and the Talespin Shere Khan (which I got for $2.50) where I like the design and the character, but I already own the Mystery Mini version which look a lot cooler (and I absolutely love). I guess if I ever decided I didn't need both, I'd be more likely to keep the Mystery Minis. However, I'm not sure if I'd keep the Pop! Rocksteady and Bebop or the Mystery Minis Rocksteady and Bebop.

Right now, my favorite Pop! I own is either the Batman: The Animated Series Scarecrow or Sharknado. Ironically, I don't have either in a prominent place.

Also I realize I probably own more Pop!s than I thought. That 20-25 is likely closer to 40. Forgot I got that 8-bit Rampage 3-pack for $5 and, even now, I was looking at the R2-D2 I bought used (maybe $2 along with some other stuff?) on my desk without thinking about it.
Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance

User Info: Broken_Zeus

Broken_Zeus
1 month ago#114
Revelation34 posted...
Looks like the one I thought would be super rare due to it being a pre order only bonus for Fallout 4 isn't as expensive as I thought it would be.


I would honestly discourage anybody from buying them for re-sale value because it's too hard to predict the aftermarket. Funko releases way too many figures and they tend to have large runs (even the Hikari, Funko's sofubi line that's supposed to have a designer vinyl thing going for it, was doing runs between 500 and 2,000).

Because of things like that, even a lot of the rare ones tend to not be super expensive. And while I'm sure that there's a Beanie Baby culture around some of them, enough people got burned by Beanie Babies that I expect we won't see the same kind of silly evaluations across the board. Granted, there *are* some supposedly expensive ones, but those tend to be con exclusives, not pre-order bonuses.

I do own a few con exclusives (ones that went to other retailers like B&N and Hot Topic after the fact), but nothing too crazy. I will admit that I bought the Iron Throne more because of a perceived rarity than simply for liking it, although amusingly enough I took it out of its box almost immediately whereas a lot of the others have been displayed MIB.
Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance

User Info: I_Abibde

I_Abibde
1 month ago#115
I need to count up my Funko Pops. I've got at least a couple dozen, though I'm not really a serious collector.

And, for a lark, I went to look at the Marvel Subscriptions page, and ... I found absolutely nothing that sparked my interest. Just another wave of the same titles restarted at Issue #1 after, what, a year? Maybe a year and a half? The same things that annoyed me when I stopped subscribing are still in place.

Call me weird, but I kinda missed the days when the issue numbers ran up into the hundreds.
-- I Abibde / Samuraiter
Laughing at Game FAQs since 2002.
Broken_Zeus posted...
They did okay with Amazing at well at first.... but then they cast Jamie Foxx as Electro and for some reason Paul Giamotti was cast as the Rhino (and then barely used). And, of course, it *also* had a downer ending after just coming off a downer ending.

My understanding of that was that they weren't really ready to make a film, and were mostly just churning it out to maintain the rights (see also, 2015 Fantastic Four) and to help set up the shared universe (which is what they were way more interested in). The goal was to justify Venom, Black Cat, Sinister Six, and potential other movies in the Spider-Man universe, because they figured they could make a ton off those (and then later pull the Avengers-style "Hey, look at all these characters team up now!" mega-movie that would make a s***ton of money). It's why a lot of the movie feels like they were just starting from the point of "we need to establish potential origin stories for a dozen future characters", and then tried to build around that, rather than having an actual story worth telling.

Granted, the film did a piss-poor job of that (and effectively shelved their entire shared universe idea until Homecoming helped revitalize the brand), but it still made them a lot of money. It was certainly a critical and artistic failure, but not a financial one from their perspective.



Broken_Zeus posted...
They do a lot of stuff as one-shot comics and usually the handling is lousy. This would be more than a little different.

To be fair, if they did it as a movie, it would also likely be a one-shot film and the handling would be lousy, so it's not like you'd be getting much of an improvement.



Broken_Zeus posted...
But don't they have to abandon what Disney brought to the table? Disney would logically have rights to at least some of it.

From what I understand of their deal, no. Sony basically retains all the rights to almost everything - mechanically, their deal was that Sony made the movie, and Disney provided extra financing and technical support via Kevin Feige (who was effectively rented out as a freelance contractor) in exchange for a cut of the profits.

They probably won't be able to mention Tony or the Avengers, and Happy's out. But other than that, Spider-Man, the entire supporting cast, and all of the events of his solo movies are part of the canon that Sony controls, and can refer back to whenever they want.
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family

User Info: Broken_Zeus

Broken_Zeus
1 month ago#117
ParanoidObsessive posted...
My understanding of that was that they weren't really ready to make a film, and were mostly just churning it out to maintain the rights (see also, 2015 Fantastic Four) and to help set up the shared universe (which is what they were way more interested in). The goal was to justify Venom, Black Cat, Sinister Six, and potential other movies in the Spider-Man universe, because they figured they could make a ton off those (and then later pull the Avengers-style "Hey, look at all these characters team up now!" mega-movie that would make a s***ton of money). It's why a lot of the movie feels like they were just starting from the point of "we need to establish potential origin stories for a dozen future characters", and then tried to build around that, rather than having an actual story worth telling.


All other things considered, I will say that I kinda liked how the Green Goblin became like a secret villain in the film, particularly give his last-second appearance

ParanoidObsessive posted...
To be fair, if they did it as a movie, it would also likely be a one-shot film and the handling would be lousy, so it's not like you'd be getting much of an improvement.


Meaning that you don't think it'd get a sequel? Because we have yet to see a Spidey film not get a sequel. Hell, Venom was kinda lousy and even that's getting a sequel.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
From what I understand of their deal, no. Sony basically retains all the rights to almost everything - mechanically, their deal was that Sony made the movie, and Disney provided extra financing and technical support via Kevin Feige (who was effectively rented out as a freelance contractor) in exchange for a cut of the profits.

They probably won't be able to mention Tony or the Avengers, and Happy's out. But other than that, Spider-Man, the entire supporting cast, and all of the events of his solo movies are part of the canon that Sony controls, and can refer back to whenever they want.


So even the actors' contracts are with Sony rather than Disney? Oo Damn, so I guess they *could* just continue s***.
Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance
WhiskeyDisk posted...
"Why make billions when you can make millions?"

--Sony

"Why bother making some money if you can't make all of the money?"

--Disney



Or, for a less pithy, more accurate summation:



"Why make billions if you have to share it, when you can make different billions you don't have to share? Sony can go f*** themselves and we'll play with our shiny new toys. We'll only play ball if we get a huge chunk of the profit for very little investment."

--Disney



"Why make the movie with you at all if you're going to try and gouge the s*** out of us? Especially when you get 100% of the merchandising profits and we can only recoup via film returns? We can s*** out a worse movie and still make more money than we would if we did things your way. f***, we made more money off Amazing Spider-Man 2 than we did from Homecoming. We'll just crank out a Spider-Man 3 with Tom Holland and his entire supporting cast, and we'll introduce Miles or Spider-Gwen or something, and make more money than we ever would if we bent over and grabbed our ankles for you."

--Sony



Word seems to be that Disney decided they didn't really give a s*** about Spider-Man or co-operating with Sony, because the influx of all the Fox properties (specifically the X-Men, but also the Fantastic Four stuff to some degree) means that Kevin Feige is going to be way too busy to be loaned out to work on a film Disney will only get SOME money from. Supposedly, they were already reconsidering if they wanted to maintain the relationship before the Fox merger (and had set an ultimatum of dropping the agreement entirely unless Far From Home made more than a billion dollars), but after the Fox merger they became even less willing to work together, and apparently only made their offer as an extortionate power-politic tactic because they didn't care if Sony said no. Sony, on the other hand, rightly saw the offer as the insulting BS it was and walked away from negotiations because they understood Disney was no longer willing to deal in good faith.

Sony actually made more money off Amazing Spider-Man 2 than they did from Homecoming. And yes, Far From Home is the most successful Spider-Man film ever, but if the deal Disney wants for the next film had been in place for Far From Home, it would have been their least successful Spider-Man film ever. Sony would have to be literally insane to accept the deal Disney wanted.

(cont)
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
(edited 1 month ago)
It's not even as if this is the first time Disney/Marvel has done stuff like this. Marvel's basically been sabotaging its own most popular franchise for more than a decade because they didn't control the film rights - and their attitude internally was basically "If we cannot make ALL of the money off this property, then no one should make any money off this property".

This isn't even speculation - people in the company have outright stated that was always their motivation as creators. "Why waste effort working on a title if you don't make as much money from its success? Focus on the properties you fully own and devote all your energy to making those better and half-ass the others."

X-Men was Marvel's #1 franchise for 30 years, but the combination of Fox owning the right and Marvel Studios being forced to use the Avengers for their films meant they actively de-pushed X-Men in favor of trying to cash in on the film's success to elevate the Avenger titles. The most popular X-Men were outright folded into Avengers' teams, and they were moved to the center of most company-wide crossovers in the same way the X-Men had been since the mid-80s. Meanwhile, the Fantastic Four was outright cancelled for years because, in their words, "Why advertise for someone else's movies?".

With the Fox properties now back under Disney/Marvel's umbrella, odds are we're going to see the comics re-emphasized. But we're also going to see the MCU pivot towards incorporating those properties as well, or having them run as a sort of parallel MCU of their own. With Kevin Feige in charge of plotting them out and integrating them, because Disney sees him as the #1 reason the Marvel movies have done so well compared to other mega-franchises.

It's also been mentioned that Feige is currently doing tons of research on the X-Men so he can pick out which ideas to use and which to avoid, so Disney has strong motivation to keep him from getting distracted working on Spider-Man for Sony.
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
Korruptor posted...
Don't give a **** about it at this point, but it would be interesting to see if Rey was some sleeper Palpatine clone that becomes aware, Kylo goes good and kills him err... her... err... whatever.

Rey as the villain is about the only way I could be made to care about the film at all. But they will never, ever do that, because it would undercut her as the "empowered female" they're pushing her as.

It also wouldn't help that the only way they could go with that is to have her be a clone who redeems herself (which is cliched and boring), Kylo would have to turn good to oppose her (which would cause a major s***storm because he's got too much baggage now), or Finn would have to become the central hero who defeats her (which would be stupid, because they've basically played him as idiot comic relief for two films now).

Not to mention the fact that having her be a female clone of a previous male villain opens a number of doors that a lot of people will complain endlessly about.

I half feel like whatever hints they're laying down about her potentially going Sith, it's going to turn out to be the usual trailer BS where it's actually from a dream sequence, where she fears her own potential to fall, or something like Luke's vision in the evil tree on Dagobah, or something even lamer, like she's just pretending to be evil to trick someone, or she's never even remotely evil but lost her lightsaber and just stole one that happened to be red.



Broken_Zeus posted...
Meaning that you don't think it'd get a sequel? Because we have yet to see a Spidey film not get a sequel. Hell, Venom was kinda lousy and even that's getting a sequel.

More that they'd focus on the differences for one film, then likely either completely panic and soft reboot, or just casually ignore the implications entirely so it becomes functionally meaningless.

Like with Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Aunt May was certainly IN the film, but her relationship to Peter was almost immaterial to the plot, and Ben's death hardly mattered much at all. The few mentions feel more like obligation and expectation than any meaningful application. Functionally, you could go the entire movie and never mention either of them and it would be more or less the exact same movie.

Arguably, you could almost say the same for Far From Home - Aunt May isn't really all that important to the plot and the MCU has always de-emphasized Ben to some degree (in favor of putting Tony Stark into a father-figure role).



Broken_Zeus posted...
So even the actors' contracts are with Sony rather than Disney? Oo Damn, so I guess they *could* just continue s***.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDvEPS9b4Q

Basically, the way the deal worked, the two Spider-Man films (and their casts, setting details, etc) are entirely under Sony's control, with Kevin Feige as an advisory producer loaned out from Disney, which also allowed the Sony films to use a few MCU characters (mainly Tony Stark and Happy) while the MCU films could use Spider-Man (and Aunt May). But in spite of being part of the MCU, they were still entirely separate in terms of corporate ownership. Disney doesn't own Homecoming or Far From Home in any way.

It's way more complicated in the details - because Disney took a minor share of profits and was paid for Feige's role, but then later renegotiated to reacquire merch rights in favor of giving up profit-sharing - and there's a ton of Hollywood book-keeping and contract insanity involved, but the upshot of which is that Sony still has access to all of the same actors, director, screenwriters, characters, setting, and so on. All they really lose is Kevin Feige, and the ability to reference the MCU or have guest cameos.
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. Valley of The Geeks
  • Post New Message