A to Z Challenge: Hulk

 The problem with Hulk figures is they are usually larger than normal size, which makes them more expensive.  Some of the older Toybiz and Hasbro ones can go over $100 on eBay or Mercari.  Just look at the prices on Amazon for some of these Hulks:

As part of a line after Endgame they made a Build-A-Figure of the Ruffalo Hulk and I eventually acquired all of the pieces.

I got 4 of the 6 figures needed, but the chest it was cheaper to buy the part separately off eBay and I think I got one of the arms along with a Spider-Woman and something else from someone else on eBay.  This is the finished thing:

It's a good representation of the Ruffalo Hulk.  Maybe someday I could get a more comics-accurate one.  But again they are usually pretty expensive to obtain, so whatever.  I'm not a huge Hulk fan anyway, except for Al Ewing's Immortal Hulk series that was mostly really good.

A to Z Challenge: Gwen Stacey/Spider-Gwen/Gwenpool

 So, yeah, I have three different Gwen figures.  I bought the retro Gwen Stacey figure when it came out because besides Gwen, it also has a Mary Jane Watson head.  I usually keep it with the MJ head on because she's been in the series a lot more.

The Spider-Gwen I have came in a two-pack with Miles Morales from Into the Spider-Verse.  Spider-Gwen is an alternate universe character who got spider powers instead of Peter Parker.  She was first introduced in the comics during the big Spider-Verse event but was popular enough to stick around and become part of the animated movie.  I don't think she's been part of the actual MCU yet.  The figure has both a Gwen head and a Spider-Gwen head with a separate hood along with extra hands.

Gwenpool is not Gwen Stacey, but some other Gwen.  In the comics she was some huge comics nerd who somehow broke the fourth wall and actually got into the comics...or something.  She was one of those peg-warming figures you could get for fairly cheap for a while.  One day I finally bought her when she was down to like $4.50 at a Walmart in Fowlerville, I think it was.  Her figure is OK but her legs are weird-looking; they're too thick compared to her body.

Lots of Gwens!

A to Z Challenge: Firestar

 I remember watching Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends in the 80s on TV.  I think it might have been on NBC Saturday mornings, but don't quote me.  I think the basic premise was to sort of compete with Superfriends, so besides Spider-Man they had to come up with some Amazing Friends.  Iceman was part of the X-Men at various times, and he probably teamed up with Spidey sometimes in comics.

Firestar I don't think existed before the show.  As you'd guess, she has fire powers.  When I saw they had a figure of her coming out, it went to the top of my wish list.  And it doesn't really disappoint.  She's got multiple heads, flames you can put on her hands, a little dog, and even a headquarters background to stand her in front of, though I prefer hanging mine up like she's flying.

The character was popular enough from the TV show that she was added to the comics, though I don't think she's ever carried her own title--at least not for long.  But she'll pop up in Spidey comics or other series from time-to-time.

A to Z Challenge: Eel

 Who is Eel?  I don't really know.  I think he's a bad guy in the comics.  Why did they make a figure of him?  I don't know; I suppose they ran out of Deadpool variants to make.

I don't remember if I got him from Five Below or a clearance bin at Walmart but it was one of those where he was only like $4.50-$5 and maybe he had a Build-A-Figure piece I could use, though I don't really think so.

He comes with some lightning stuff to put on his hands, because Eels, electric, lightning, get it?  Other than that there's not a lot to say about it.

Have a nice day.

A to Z Challenge: Deadpool

 Kind of a one-eighty from Captain America is Deadpool.  Originating in the 90s he is not a hero, but at best an anti-hero.  He was introduced as a villain but then like Wolverine, Boba Fett, or Snake-Eyes with GI Joe he became so popular that he got his own comics and eventually movies.

And there have been dozens of figures made of him.  I had sort of a quixotic quest to get one that was pretty decent.  The first one I got from Wish was pretty crappy because he fell apart at the drop of a hat:

Then I got an X-Force one in the gray suit that was OK but I really wanted a classic red one.

I got a classic red one off Mercari but the legs on it were splayed weirdly.

Then I got a bag of loose figures that came with this pants-less Deadpool which looks a lot funnier in the box:

Was it good for you too?

And the headless body of this one:

Finally I found the movie two-pack with Negasonic Teenage Warhead loose for a reasonable price and bought that.  It's got extra guns and hands and the coloring and styling looks pretty movie accurate.

But because the character is so popular there are always going to be more versions of it.

A to Z Challenge: Captain America

Captain America is probably my favorite Marvel character in both comics and movies.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe because I am a patriotic American.  Maybe it's that like Superman when you think of what you'd like a superhero to be, he embodies all of it.  And he's been around over 80 years now, so obviously lots of other people like him too.

I mentioned in previous entries that the two Marvel Legends figures of Cap that I have are WWII ones.  The first one I got about 2015 on clearance at the local Meijer just because I thought he looked cool.

And the second I got in the two-pack with Peggy Carter where the price for both of them on Amazon was practically what you'd pay for just one figure.  While Peggy didn't come with much, Cap had a lot of accessories like two shields, a helmet, machine gun, and extra hands.

On another entry I mentioned this two-pack that should by now have been released that I'd like just because it has both the Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson versions of the character.

Obviously there are a lot more versions of Cap that have been released tying to both comics and the MCU. But I still like the ones I have.

A to Z Challenge: Black Panther

 The first Black Panther figure I got was not a Marvel Legends one.  It was a movie one because the Meijer near me for some silly reason put all the movie figures on clearance weeks before the movie came out.  So I bought Black Panther since he was pretty cheap.

A short time later, I cashed in some Sears/KMart points to buy the actual Marvel Legends version from the movie.  But when the package came, it was Killmonger in the box!  (Now you see why they went out of business.)  I didn't try to send it back because I already had a Black Panther and Killmonger was pretty cool.

Finally I did get the actual Marvel Legends one from the movie because it was cheaper than regular price and I could use the Build-A-Figure piece because I had most of the others already.

Which is Marvel Legends and which is the movie figure? 

This version of Black Panther is pretty neat.  He's got some extra hands and a head that looks pretty much like Chadwick Boseman (RIP).  And the costume is pretty much like the movie version.

They've issued some other Black Panther figures taken from the comics too, but I don't have those.

Guess what the C entry is?  

A to Z Challenge: Ant-Man

So this year my half-baked A to Z Challenge is on Marvel Legends figures.  Marvel Legends actually began about 20 years ago with a company called Toybiz in 2002.  Around 2006, Hasbro took over the line and has been pumping out figures ever since.  Obviously they've picked up the pace since the MCU became so huge because with every new movie they make some figures to go with it.

Back in 2018, after Ant-Man & the Wasp came out, I got both Ant-Man and the Wasp for a slightly discounted price on Amazon.

This Ant-Man has two heads:  the helmet and the smirking Paul Rudd head.  He doesn't really have much else except whatever the Build-A-Figure piece was.

When Calculating Ratings, One Size Does Not Fit All

 Since Amazon started letting people rate books without writing anything, some of my older books have been getting more ratings.  Something I noticed is that for older books, these new ratings can be weighted quite a bit more than ratings already given years ago.  Like this for From Warrior King to Peasant Girl:

You see there was a 5-star and 4-star review from 2016 when the book released.  For years that's all there was.  Then some dick came along last year and gave it an anonymous 1-star rating.  As you can see, that anonymous 1-star rating with no words (and who knows if it's even a verified purchase) is now 47% of the rating!

If you look at where it says "how ratings are calculated" notice that it says one factor is how recent a review is.  So it seems like a logical assumption that because this one-star rating is 5 years newer it gets weighted a lot more than a 4-star review that doesn't say verified purchase and more than a 5-star review that is a verified purchase.

But really, how does that make any sense?  The book is the same as it was 5 years ago, so it shouldn't matter whether someone's review is newer or not.  I understand where that might matter for something like a toaster where a newer review could relate to a newer model, but books are pretty much static.  Time should not be a factor.

Poking around Amazon, they put that same message on all their products, which is the problem.  Well, two problems.  One is that they aren't up-front about how they calculate these things.  Two is if they are using the same model for every product.  Like I said, that model might work fine for household products or electronics or something like that, but it doesn't make sense for books.  It makes a little more sense for music or movies where you get different formats or maybe a "deluxe version" or "director's cut" or something like that where if they don't have a new product page you might get old and new reviews lumped together for different versions.

But books it still doesn't really make sense, especially when the book is in the same format it was 5 years ago.  It would be nice if Amazon were more transparent about how they're calculating these things and actually didn't just apply the same formula to everything.  But I doubt we'll ever see any change on either of those things.

HEAD'S UP!  Friday begins the A to Z Challenge!  Get your "thanks for sharing" comments copied to your clipboard now.

More Annoying Clickbait Tactics

 One of the irritating things about Facebook are its stupid algorithms that decide because you clicked some stupid Comicbook.com or Screen Rant or Collider or whatever article that you must love clickbait articles.  So here's a whole bunch more!  And then it gets worse because some of them are so fucking stupid that you can't help reading it.

In the last few months I've gotten a lot of articles from Cracked.com on my feed.  A few articles have used this tactic of using "facts" that are just mind-numbingly, obviously false.  

For instance, one article was about obvious and easy ways to settle a debate.  In a section on the Enterprise vs. a Star Destroyer, the easy solution is for the Enterprise to just beam everyone off the Star Destroyer.  Hey, good idea...except Star Destroyers have shields!  Just like the goddamned Enterprise, so no you can't just beam everyone off because the transporter wouldn't be able to go through the fucking shields!  Anyone who knows even the most rudimentary things about ships in Star Wars would know that.  But, hey, I guess you got me to read your dumb article, so good one.

An article I didn't click said in the preview that since Star Trek ships are going at the speed of light, time for everyone on board would be frozen but not for the rest of the universe so years could go by anytime they go anywhere.  Yeah, that's not how "warp" drive works, dumbass.  The warp bubble allows the ships to go faster than light speed and negates the time dilation effect.

Another Star Wars related one was the "fact" Luke would have frozen to death if he spent the whole night in the Tauntaun.  Except as someone pointed out, Han says he's just putting him in there "until he gets the shelter built."  The next morning when the snowspeeder finds them, you can see the shelter Han put together.  So obviously Luke wasn't in there all night.  So that wasn't Hollywood's mistake--it was the article writer's mistake.

You have to wonder if the writers are just too lazy to even do the most basic research on Wikipedia or Wookieepedia or whatever the Star Trek equivalent is or if they're actively trolling people.  The thinking might be that if they post something that's so obviously false, people will react and respond and maybe click stuff.  The downside, like with Screen Rant's "Marvel's Superman" bullshit, is it makes you look like a complete moron.  Because that is pretty basic shit for fans.  I mean, I'm not a Comic Book Guy-type superfan of either franchise and I know that shit.  Then I feel like a nerd because why do I know that and you, a somewhat "professional" writer, clearly don't?

If it's not intentional, then these writers need to find another line of work because writing about pop culture is clearly not for them.  I'm just saying.

While I'm at it, another annoying tactic that Comicbook.com has been using is to say, "[streaming service or network] has [cancelled or added] this fan favorite show [or movie]!"  The idea is you're supposed to click the article to find out what's been cancelled or added.  Usually some hero will put it in the comments so you don't have to actually read it--sometimes I'm that hero.  A few times the writer screws it up by putting the name of the show in the first line so it shows up on the preview so I don't have to actually read the article.

Sometimes it's funny then because the "fan favorite" or "cult favorite" is something I've never heard of.  That happens a lot with Netflix shows since I haven't used that in almost 4 years.

Those articles are pretty pathetic just because it's so obvious what they're trying to do.  It feels so desperate.  It's like when you're a kid and a sibling or someone on the playground crows, "I know something you don't know!"

I suppose a lot of this could be avoided if instead of relying on ad clicks, these sites just had fundraising drives and people actually gave them money to function.  But would I do that?  Probably not.  In large part because these sites don't really generate much that is of value.