Thursday, August 6, 2015

Vintage Rubber 1950's Superman Figure. Or Not.

As a collector of Superman memorabilia, I will periodically do a search on eBay for "vintage Superman" to see what old items pop up. Of course, "vintage" is a relative term, and often, one man's antique is another man's piece of recent junk. While it galls me to see cheap, poorly designed items from the 1980s and 1990s listed as "vintage," I realize they are now decades in the past, and thus fit the rather loose definition of the word.

However, there are times on eBay when sellers are precise with their dating of objects. And then there are times when they are so far off the mark that I can't let them get away with it. Such is the case with this Superman figure, listed as vintage rubber 1950's Superman figure. To the trained eye, it's immediately obvious that this is an unlicensed, bootleg toy. But you don't have to be an expert on action figures to quickly notice that it's off by a good four decades.

If you look closely, you'll see that this is a Batman sculpt repainted with Superman's colors (adding red gloves that he doesn't wear), with a new Superman head stuck on top. And it's not just a Batman sculpt, it's easily pegged (thanks to the distinctive abs) as based on the costume from the 1992 film, BATMAN RETURNS.

Okay, so it's not from when they said. What's the big deal? How about the fact that the Buy It Now price on this cheap, well-worn, incomplete (I assume at one point there was a cape attached to the back, but could be wrong) bootleg is $498.00!! That's overpricing this thing by, oh, I'd wager a guess of at least $478.00 (hey, at least the shipping is free). The description in the eBay listing doesn't help the seller's credentials:

1 old spiderman figure from the 40's or 50's. Made of soft vinyl rubber. Couldn't find more information about them. If you know anything more about these, please let me know. I was quoted this price by an appraisor in europe (already converted to dollars). Have not seen any others like this on Ebay before.

The "spiderman" (sic) / Superman mix-up actually happens all the time on eBay. I'm highly skeptical that any "appraisor" (sic) in "europe" (sic) or anywhere actually took a look at this thing. But it's the "if you know anything more about these, please let me know" bit that cracks me up. As you can tell, I do, and I did. I e-mailed the seller, correcting them as to the nature of this 1990s bootleg, but they did not get back to me, nor did they alter the listing, probably because there are actually two (three, counting me) people watching this item. I'd like to think that the other two watchers are doing so for the same reason I am (to share and chuckle), but you never know. That's the thing about selling "vintage collectibles." They are worth precisely what someone is willing to pay.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Beware of cold, talking pizza!

I'm not the most discriminating pizza connoisseur (unlike most New York / NJers), but even I would have a problem with a pizza that started talking to me.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

BLUE VELVET is not about Roy Orbinson

This review is from: BLUE VELVET (Special Edition) (DVD)
I thought I was going to see something of Roy Orbinson. It was only in the title of the name. I could not watch it when it became vulgar with offensive material. It is too bad to have a good story with great actors lowering its potentially good quality with such degrading vulgarity. There are better ways of getting this aspect of the story across with such depiction. Silly me, I should have checked the rating. I "assumed" it safe as it would involve our beloved Roy Orbinson. I was sadly and horridly disappointed and cannot in conscience recommend it to anyone at anytime. By the way, I destroyed the tape in good conscience. Watch at your own eternal risk.

Okay, so the woman got Roy Orbison and Bobby Vinton mixed up, that can happen. I still see her point. The same thing happened to me in 1986 when I went to the theater to see what I ASSUMED was a documentary about the Psychendelic Furns.

The Pennsylvania lady who wrote this review turns out (via her other Amazon reviews) to be a very Catholic woman who felt THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST "is a best movie ever, due to its very nature of the truth and its pure and holy presentation. It is the most important movie, consequently. It behooves us to rate it a "five-star" and a grace to whom does it. God bless you. Thank you." She is not, however, a fan of Sally Hansen White Nail Pencils. Or David Lynch.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Uh...That's Why We Do Want It

Limited on PS Magazine

"From 1965 through 1966 I was the S-4 (Supply Officer) for a battalion in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg.

I can vouch for the value of this publication. I made it my mission to collect many of the back editions so that my troops would have access to them.

Disappointedly, this book illustrates the great art work of Eisner but does little to discuss the idea and use of the magazine. Also, it includes only seven pages on 1965 and none beyond that.

If you want a book on the early work of Will Eisner this should fill the bill. If you want a book on PS Magazine, this is limited."

posted on September 14, 2011

First of all, understand that I am not making fun of this review. The writer's generousness of spirit comes through, both in his desire to educate his troops and his acknowledgement of the quality of Eisner's art. I can't help but picture the melancholy scene: "Alright! Somebody finally reprinted PS Magazine! I've been waiting for this...oh, damn. It's just the cartoons." It's like saying about The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover "If you want a mannered, visually lush allegory about England under Thatcher, this should fill the bill. If you want a movie about effective restaurant management, this is limited."

Of course, this review makes me want to hunt down old issues of PS Magazine.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Digital Copies: Shreed 'em up in your Shreeder!

Watching THE BIRDS on TV this morning, I thought perhaps there might be a Vox Plops gem on Amazon for this oft-maligned Hitchcock film. Oh, boy, was I right. But that review led me to an even better one. Bobby P. of Springfield MA has a recurring issue (aside from his love of Josh Groban). Here's his review of THE BIRDS:

What is that, I haven't a Clue to what that is?, May 29, 2011
This review is from: The Birds (Collector's Edition) (DVD)
I hate this Movie, because where I'm concerned, this is Extreamly to Spokey / Scarry to be watching. But if your the type of person who Craves / Loves Scarry Films, then and only then is this Movie for you. If your like me where you Don't like them, then all I can say is DON'T watch it, it could give you Nightmares if your NOT Carefull!

Poetic bad grammar, including the headline. What's even more amusing is that when I checked out this person's other reviews on Amazon, more than half of his seven pages of reviews had the same header: "What is that, I haven't a Clue to what that is?" In some cases, it's especially amusing as the item in question is a bucket or a saucepan. Turns out it was a reference to the digital copy included in his copy of MAMMA MIA!, which didn't play on his DVD player or his Blu-Ray:

I like this movie, but the one thing that I can't figure out is what is a Digital Copy; I have tried to play it in both the Regular AND the Blue-Ray DVD Players and it Doesn't even work, so I haven't a clue to why the Manufactoring Companies insist on putting something in when it doesn't even work. If and only if it's meant for the Computer, then why don't these Manufacting Companies say that its for the Computer. I HATE Guessing Games, and these Manufactoing Companies insist on playing Guessing Games with people that know Practiclly Nothing when it comes to such things as a Digital Copy of Any Movie. If these editodic Fool Harded Companies are going to insist in putting these Digital Copies in with Movies, then in my own Opinion, I would have to say that these Companies / Business's MUST also Include Instrctions in just how Exactley these Digital Copies are to Work and are to be Played! But will these Compnaies / Business's Include Extreamly Simplafied Instructions in how to go about the Playing of these DIgital Copies, NO they Won't, so why are they Waisting Everyone's Time and Money by Including a Digital Copy of some Movies, when a Percentage { % } of the Worlds Population is 100 % Clueless in how these Digital Copies Work and are to be Played?
So what I do with ALL Digital Copies of any movie that I get, I Shreed it Up in my Shreeder, for the reason's because One { 1 } it doesn't work, and secondly { 2ndly } I haven't any ideaa to how it is supposed to be played! So why should I go waisting Money and Space for something that I haven't any idea to how it is to be played AND how it works.

That guy's shreeder is going to get awfully busy...

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

I'm Too Pretty to Do Homework...

Comics Journalist Heidi MacDonald highlighted this little story from (a site I normally don't visit, believe it or not) about a shirt for sale on JC Penney's website. The sweatshirt, for girls, is emblazoned with the line, "I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me."

I know, right? The message is just hideous on every level. Pretty = Dumb. Homework is for Ugly People. Girls shouldn't have to do work. On top of that, the thing is fuckin' ugly.

Well, after the story was posted on Today's website, Penney pulled the item and issued an apology (man, I would hate to be the buyer who picked that item, and not just because I would thereby be a moron who probably never liked to do homework).

But what's gotten this on VOX PLOPS isn't just the story in and of itself, it's also—you guessed it—the absolutely moronic comments on the TODAYMoms article.

A few choice tidbits from the masses:

Lisa R says (via Facebook):
Oh my god get over it. It is just a shirt. This country is so sensitive about things.
This comment gets the Thumbs Up LIKE by 41 of her friends, and one of them comments:
I 100% agree with you Lisa!! It's a shirt, I don't know why people feel like they need to over-dramatize everything!

Richard B says,
I think it would be a good guy gift.

Andrew R. from Winstead, AZ says to suck it up:
It's the same schtick you see on any number of shirts this time of year. My boys have all sorts of them that say they can't do homework because of video games, or that something was their brother's or sister's fault, or that they'll get to it "after one more level..." Stop having such thin skins.

Kathy R. thinks it's much ado about nothing!:
Oh my goodness... It's just silly kid shirt, and I have read much worse! I don't know why people feel like they need to over-dramatize, take that energy and make positive thing's happen around you..quit complaining! geeze

Erik C, like so many others, misses the point:
Seriously. People are in a flap about a benign tee shirt a kid wears? If you don't want your child to wear it, do the crazy thing and act like a parent and say no. But please, you have no right to say no for my child.

People objecting to this shirt aren't saying that you shouldn't be allowed to buy it. They're not saying the company doesn't have the right to manufacture it. They're saying that it's pathetically sad that it was ever made in the first place and that someone at one of the nation's largest retailers thought it was a good idea to put it into their stores. I despise Political Correctness. But how anyone can defend this shirt is beyond me. Objecting to this piece of shit is not Political Correctness, it's just... correct.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

BLACK CHRISTMAS: "Halloween is the first slasher not this slasher"

This review is from: Black Christmas (DVD)
Halloween is the verry first slasher this movie is terrible now i know you are going to stop readind and press no but just listen to me for you people that say halloween owes alot to this movie you can kiss my ass halloween is an original masterpiece that started slashers and the only movie halloween owes to is hitchcock films because john carpenter used hitchcock techniuqes and as soon as halloween came out a million imatators came out no one even knows about this trash and for you people that say the killer in this movie is diffrent than michel myers and jason HOW DARE YOU compare michal to jason and michael is a force of naature this guy is just a wack job.the pov scene in halloween came from china town but other than that halloween was an idea fom irbin yablons who asked john to direct it halloween is the very first slasher and dose not owe sh*t to this trash and was a completley original story it did not copy it got coppied halloween is the absolute verry first slasher that 95% of horror and thrillers you see now a days owe it to halloween not this trash it is not even a slasher halloween is the very first slasher and that is a fact.
POSTED on AMAZON.COM, March 2005

Wow, this guy is pretty passionate about his favorite film, and apparently subscribes to the theory that time is not linear, hence HALLOWEEN is the very first slasher and that is a fact.