Log In Forums Help
Comic Collector Live
Home :: CCL Messageboard
Find Comics for Sale
Items For Sale
All Comics For Sale
New Releases
CGC Comics
Bundled Lots
Store Locator
Search Library
Search By Title
Publisher
Story Arc
Character
Credits
Release Date
Change Request Manager
News & Reviews
Reviews
News
Our Products and Services
Get the Software
Buying Comics And Stuff
Selling Your Comics
Opening A Store
Community
Forum
Store Locator
Member Locator
Welcome Guest Active Topics
Twilight Zone (Now, 1990, 1991) Options
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:22:58 AM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
I have been looking at issues of Now's early '90s The Twilight Zone series. I have noted some facts that make me think an issue listed in one series is actually part of a different series.

Let me first cover the facts not in dispute: In 1990, Now published The Twilight Zone #1 (Nov. 1990) with story by Harlan Ellison and art by Neal Adams. There were several editions (see Twilight Zone (1990) in the Library). One year later, Now published another The Twilight Zone #1 (Nov. 1991), with all-new content. This was the first issue of a series that ran 11 monthly issues (see Twilight Zone (1991) in the Library).

I have in hand two issues containing the Ellison/Adams story: Twilight Zone (1990) 1-A, and 1-D. Comparing them side-by-side, I see that they were NOT published simultaneously. 1-A is dated Nov. 1990; 1-D is dated Oct. 1991. 1-D contains a letters column with letters sent in response to the Nov. 1990 publication. The 1-D letters column explicitly states that there was an old Twilight Zone series, and that this is a new Twilight Zone series.

There are other significant differences between the two editions. 1-A is 48 pages, including a second, ten-page story. 1-D is 32 pages, without a second story. 1-D does not have an issue number; instead, it uses the word "Premiere" wherever a number would normally appear. The pages are assembled differently in the two editions; in 1-A, advertising pages are placed between story pages, while in 1-D, no ads interrupt the story. After comparing the two issues, I have become convinced that these two comics represent two different issues, and NOT newsstand/direct editions of the same issue.

I now believe that The Twilight Zone Premiere (Oct. 1991) is in fact the first issue of Twilight Zone (1991). One reason for this belief is the dates of the issues: The Premiere issue is dated Oct. 1991; #1 of the 1991 series is dated Nov. 1991. Another reason is that the letters column of the Premiere issue promotes publication of #1 "due out in September," as well as #2 "coming in October." A third reason is the continuity of newsstand presence of the title, beginning in 1991. The 1990 issue doesn't seem to have been distributed to newsstands, but the Premiere issue was (I recall seeking out my copy at a newsstand outlet), and so was the 1991 series.

For these reasons, I believe the issue listed in the Library as Twilight Zone (1990) 1-D is incorrectly placed in that series, and ought to be moved to the Twilight Zone (1991) series, as issue "Premiere." I don't know how to do this. And so I am asking: Do others concur with my reasoning? And can anyone please tell me how to accomplish the change?
padreglcc
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:47:26 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,305
Points: 489,880
Location: Bangor, Michigan
Based on what you've presented here, I think you make a strong case for moving 1 D to another series. I would be very interested in seeing a scan of the indicia of 1 D, if you are able to do so.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:59:19 AM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
I don't have a scanner, but I can type it:

Quote:
THE TWILIGHT ZONE PREMIERE, October 1991, is published by NOW Comics, a division of NOW Entertainment Corporation, 60 Revere Drive, Suite 200, Northbrook, IL 60062. THE TWILIGHT ZONE is TM and © 1991 CBS Entertainment. All rights reserved. Any similarity between persons living or dead and/or institution is purely coincidental. Absolutely no reproduction is permitted without written permission from publisher. Printed in the USA.

This gives me an opportunity to point out something that I failed to mention above: Ownership of NOW changed between publication of the 1990 The Twilight Zone and that of the 1991 series, as did the office of publication. In my copy of the Nov. 1990 #1, NOW COMICS is a "division of Caputo Publishing, Inc." with offices at 332 South Michigan Ave. Suite 1750, Chicago, IL 60604.
padreglcc
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:09:34 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,305
Points: 489,880
Location: Bangor, Michigan
I wonder if that change in ownership causes a relaunch and that's the reason that the "Premiere" issue is essentially a shorter version of the 1990 #1. At any rate, I'm with you that the 1990 1D needs to be moved. The question now is should it be it's own title or should it go with the 1991 series.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:21:57 AM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
As I stated earlier, I think it should be considered part of the 1991 series. My reasons are that (1) there was no interruption of publication between the Premiere issue and the #1 issue, and (2) the "Premiere" designation (in lieu of a number) uniquely identifies the issue within the series.
padreglcc
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:32:21 AM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,305
Points: 489,880
Location: Bangor, Michigan
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I want to be sure to cover our bases. I know that you said that the premiere issue makes references to issues #1 and #2 coming soon. Can you tell me if the premiere issues has the same creative team and/or a continuing storyline?

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:58:54 AM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
I don't have any issues past the Premiere issue, but it's pretty clear that the Ellison/Adams team was a one-time "get." The letters column closes on a "maybe" they'll do another someday (it never happened).

Judging from information at comics.org, there were never two consecutive issues with the same creative team, and only infrequently did a writer or artist in one issue come back later for another issue. There IS continuity, though, in the editorship: editor Joan Weis, and editor-in-chief Tony Caputo.

I don't see evidence of continuing stories, either. Ellison's story was adapted from a script he wrote for the 1980s television series. It was done in one, with no need to be continued. The television series was famously an anthology, without continuing characters. If a comic-book series wanted to retain that flavor, then single-issue stories were probably seen as the way to go.
SwiftMann
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:07:52 PM

Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,393
Points: 1,944,546
Location: PA
I don't think it should be moved.

It looks to be a partial newsstand reprint of the Ellison/Adams #1. It has the contents of the 1990 one-shot. That is the determining factor here, not ownership or dates, ad placement or letter columns. These are all things that determine it's a variant edition, not a completely different title.

It was likely put out the same time as the 1991 ongoing Twilight Zone series just to capture some more readership. That Nov 1991 #1 was written by Bruce Jones with art by Eddy Newell. So, maybe it was put out as a primer for this series, but that doesn't make it not a reprint of the 1990 issue.

Also, CCL generally puts reprints with their original counterpart when they aren't clearly titles of their own (thus X-Men Classic is its own title).

And from a technical standpoint, even if we did agree that this should be moved, it can't simply be moved in the current database. There's no way to pull one issue from a title and into another without invalidating the original, building a new one and making all stores delist/relist and also messing with everyone that has had it cataloged.

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

"The return of beards and 90's fashion makes hipsters and homeless people impossible to tell apart." - Woody, Quantum & Woody #5
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:16:29 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
@SwiftMann:

I may not be able to convince you, but I think I'll give it a shot anyway.

I agree with a lot of the points you make. The issue that I propose moving is a newsstand issue, and it does reprint the Ellison/Adams story from the 1990 #1. I'm surprised that "this is the determining factor here." Reprints have occurred in such a wide variety of cases (in the same title, in different titles, by the same publisher, by a different publisher, soon after original publication, decades after original publication) that I can't see forming a rule making it "the determining factor." By such logic, 1990s reprints of the EC comics would be issues of the original series. I don't think that would be correct, nor does the Library list them that way.

It seems to me the change of ownership, considered together with the timing of publication, are evidence of a distinct series. I can imagine, after the acquisition of NOW Comics by NOW Entertainment Corporation, a meeting in which new publishing strategy was determined. This is fiction, not researched fact, but I think it gets to the essence of a conversation that probably actually happened.
NEW OWNER: "We have a license to publish The Twilight Zone. Tony, you published one issue before you ran out of money. Pretty good issue, too. Harlan Ellison. Neal Adams. Big names. But the page rates you paid them! I can't authorize those rates for new work."
CAPUTO: "No problem, boss. There's lots of writers that will work way cheaper. Bruce Jones. Michael Straczynski. Me. Plenty of artists, too. Eddy Newell. Todd Fox. Enrique Villagran. Norm Dwyer."
NEW OWNER: "Good. Put 'em to work. Now about the first issue—who have we got that will really grab some attention?"
CAPUTO: "Well, uh, no one, really. Our idea last year was to invest a lot in the first issue, promote the hell out of it, and ride on that attention for the next 11 issues. Unfortunately, that was about the time we ran out of cash and, well, you know the rest, boss."
NEW OWNER: "You know, Tony, you had a good idea. Might have worked, too, if you could have kept going. What do you say, let's try it again? Can you publish the Ellison/Adams story again? And use that as a launching pad for a new series?"
CAPUTO: "Absolutely, boss. Ellison and Adams will expect reprint fees, but those will be easily within your new page rate requirements. I can have the issue out the door by the end of the week. There's just one thing though."
NEW OWNER: "Eh? What's that?"
CAPUTO: "Collectors, boss. Two issues, published less than a year apart, with the same title AND the same number. AND the same content! Collectors won't be able to tell them apart. They'll think it's the same issue we published last year, and won't buy the new one. We can do what you suggest. We just can't publish it as a Twilight Zone #1. We've got to give them some clue that it's a different issue."
NEW OWNER: "For God's sake, Caputo, why are you busting my chops with this? Publish it as Debut issue, or Premiere, or something like that. Then we could have #1 the next month. Hell, it'll be like getting two #1s in a row. God knows we could use the revenue. Now get to work!"
CAPUTO: "You got it, boss."
SwiftMann
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:26:13 PM

Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,393
Points: 1,944,546
Location: PA
outcast wrote:
The issue that I propose moving is a newsstand issue, and it does reprint the Ellison/Adams story from the 1990 #1. I'm surprised that "this is the determining factor here." Reprints have occurred in such a wide variety of cases (in the same title, in different titles, by the same publisher, by a different publisher, soon after original publication, decades after original publication) that I can't see forming a rule making it "the determining factor." By such logic, 1990s reprints of the EC comics would be issues of the original series. I don't think that would be correct, nor does the Library list them that way.


To quote myself with some emphasizes, "CCL generally puts reprints with their original counterpart when they aren't clearly titles of their own (thus X-Men Classic is its own title)."

And, no, coming up with a hypothetical meeting scenario just because of a change in general ownership isn't going to convince me of anything. A) Because it's completely made up and B) if we changed series titles based on ownership Marvel, DC, 90s Valiant, CrossGen and others would be under 3-20 different titles per comic. Ownership isn't a determining factor, especially when nothing about the actual publisher, NOW, didn't change.

I think you're WAY over-thinking this.

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

"The return of beards and 90's fashion makes hipsters and homeless people impossible to tell apart." - Woody, Quantum & Woody #5
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:57:47 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
I think you're misunderstanding my point about ownership (perhaps I didn't explain it clearly enough).

Publications can change ownership, and can continue to be the same publication. In publishing, this happens all the time. In comics, it has happened with G.I. Combat, Blackhawk, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Uncle Scrooge, Young Love, Young Romance, and many others. In my world, each of these titles would be considered one unified series (each). I have never advocated or agreed with breaking series to reflect change of publisher, nor change of owner.

The situation with Twilight Zone, as published by NOW, is a bit more nuanced. There were three distinct series (only two of which are pertinent to the current discussion). The question is, to which series does the Premiere issue belong? In these unique circumstances, I think that facts relating to ownership have relevance. Clearly, there was a decision to publish (following pursuit of a license to publish) The Twilight Zone under Caputo ownership, failure of the business, purchase of the busines, and a decision under new ownership to exploit the license that was part of the purchase. There was disruption of publication, and resumption. There were two #1s.

Any issue of The Twilight Zone published by NOW in 1990 or 1991 (or in fact 1992) must logically be part of the first series, or of the second.

You appear to want to group the Premiere issue with the 1990 "series" based on its story content. I believe this is not the appropriate criterion for classification.

I want to group the Premiere issue with the 1991 series based on the evidence that its publisher and editor decided to publish it as a part of the 1991 series.
SwiftMann
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:12:57 PM

Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,393
Points: 1,944,546
Location: PA
outcast wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding my point about ownership (perhaps I didn't explain it clearly enough).

Publications can change ownership, and can continue to be the same publication. In publishing, this happens all the time. In comics, it has happened with G.I. Combat, Blackhawk, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Uncle Scrooge, Young Love, Young Romance, and many others. In my world, each of these titles would be considered one unified series (each). I have never advocated or agreed with breaking series to reflect change of publisher, nor change of owner.

The situation with Twilight Zone, as published by NOW, is a bit more nuanced. There were three distinct series (only two of which are pertinent to the current discussion). The question is, to which series does the Premiere issue belong? In these unique circumstances, I think that facts relating to ownership have relevance. Clearly, there was a decision to publish (following pursuit of a license to publish) The Twilight Zone under Caputo ownership, failure of the business, purchase of the busines, and a decision under new ownership to exploit the license that was part of the purchase. There was disruption of publication, and resumption. There were two #1s.

Any issue of The Twilight Zone published by NOW in 1990 or 1991 (or in fact 1992) must logically be part of the first series, or of the second.

You appear to want to group the Premiere issue with the 1990 "series" based on its story content. I believe this is not the appropriate criterion for classification.

I want to group the Premiere issue with the 1991 series based on the evidence that its publisher and editor decided to publish it as a part of the 1991 series.


No, I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it.

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

"The return of beards and 90's fashion makes hipsters and homeless people impossible to tell apart." - Woody, Quantum & Woody #5
padreglcc
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:04:45 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,305
Points: 489,880
Location: Bangor, Michigan
Correct me if I misunderstood you, outcast, but didn't you state earlier that the the "Premiere" issue is not a direct reprint of the 1990 #1 issue? It has fewer pages, is missing a story, and has different non-story content (eg letters page), correct?

If I got that correct, then I can't see this a variant of 1A. Different content, no statement of reprint, etc. means to me that there's no way this should be listed as 1D. At the very least it should be it's own title, if not moved to be the preview issue of the 1991 series. I think you're wrong on this one, Dan.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:21:34 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
@ SwiftMann:

If you understand my point of view and disagree, well, there's not much I can do about that.

I'm not sure, though, that you do understand my point. Because THIS...

SwiftMann wrote:
...B) if we changed series titles based on ownership Marvel, DC, 90s Valiant, CrossGen and others would be under 3-20 different titles per comic. Ownership isn't a determining factor, especially when nothing about the actual publisher, NOW, didn't change.

...does not represent anything that I think, thought, or have tried to express. (Except for one embedded clause: "Ownership isn't a determining factor." I do agree with that. Nevertheless, when consideration of ownership can help us define and differentiate two identically named series from one publisher, I think it is prudent to make use of that information.)
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:29:24 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
padreglcc wrote:
Correct me if I misunderstood you, outcast, but didn't you tell state earlier that the the "Premiere" issue is not a direct reprint of the 1990 #1 issue? It has few pages, is missing a story, and has different non-story content (eg letters page), correct?
.
.
.

That's correct. The 26 pages of the Ellison/Adams story from the 1990 #1, as well as Ellison's text essay about the story, are reprinted in their entirety. A second, ten-page comics story and a page and a half of publisher promotional content are not.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 7:50:52 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
SwiftMann wrote:
.
.
.
And from a technical standpoint, even if we did agree that this should be moved, it can't simply be moved in the current database. There's no way to pull one issue from a title and into another without invalidating the original, building a new one and making all stores delist/relist and also messing with everyone that has had it cataloged.

I'm going to take this opportunity to restate a point I have made before (that no one seems to have noticed).

The site and the software need a feature that permits a listing to be deprecated. (That's deprecate, pronounced depre-Kate, not depreciate.)

Such a feature would permit a listing to remain active, but would put limitations on new uses of the listing. Sellers who have for-sale listings on an issue could leave the listings in place until the comic sells. New for-sale listings could not be created under a deprecated listing. (While I don't use and haven't seen the user software, I'll bluff:) Users who have recorded an issue as part of their collection would not have the item mysteriously disappear, but they would receive a message stating that a new listing in a different location is now deemed more accurate, and asking the user to consider re-recording the item in the new location. New recordings of collected issues could not be created under a deprecated listing.

And yes, I know that development of the site and the software is at a virtual standstill, and that there is no realistic hope of implementation of this feature in the foreseeable future.
padreglcc
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:28:34 PM

Rank: Celestial
Groups: Approver, CR-Guidelines, CR-Management, DC Host, Forum Admin, Member, Moderator, New Releases Host, Reviews Host, Subscriber

Joined: 5/6/2007
Posts: 4,305
Points: 489,880
Location: Bangor, Michigan
outcast wrote:
SwiftMann wrote:
.
.
.
And from a technical standpoint, even if we did agree that this should be moved, it can't simply be moved in the current database. There's no way to pull one issue from a title and into another without invalidating the original, building a new one and making all stores delist/relist and also messing with everyone that has had it cataloged.

I'm going to take this opportunity to restate a point I have made before (that no one seems to have noticed).

The site and the software need a feature that permits a listing to be deprecated. (That's deprecate, pronounced depre-Kate, not depreciate.)

Such a feature would permit a listing to remain active, but would put limitations on new uses of the listing. Sellers who have for-sale listings on an issue could leave the listings in place until the comic sells. New for-sale listings could not be created under a deprecated listing. (While I don't use and haven't seen the user software, I'll bluff:) Users who have recorded an issue as part of their collection would not have the item mysteriously disappear, but they would receive a message stating that a new listing in a different location is now deemed more accurate, and asking the user to consider re-recording the item in the new location. New recordings of collected issues could not be created under a deprecated listing.

And yes, I know that development of the site and the software is at a virtual standstill, and that there is no realistic hope of implementation of this feature in the foreseeable future. But to use the lack of this feature as a reason not to fix an (arguably) erroneous listing is inappropriate.


Even though Swifty is correct that a book, under the current system setup, cannot be moved, we can invalidate and relist a book. And we have done it many, many times before when we believe it is warranted.

“One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say.” ~ Bryant H. McGill

Please make sure you read and understand the Forum Rules here.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:34:30 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
padreglcc wrote:
Even though Swifty is correct that a book, under the current system setup, cannot be moved, we can invalidate and relist a book. And we have done it many, many times before when we believe it is warranted.

Which is a solution I had in mind (in lieu of new site/software development).

Another solution: deprecation by annotation–When a new, appropriate record is added, add text to the existing record discouraging new listings under that record, and pointing sellers to the new record for their for-sale items.

Or, y'know, let sellers move their listings for no fee.
outcast
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:10:26 PM
Rank: Large Noggin
Groups: Member, Newsstand Edition Host

Joined: 7/28/2012
Posts: 463
Points: 1,977
I've edited an earlier comment to remove a sentence that I think crossed a line (I wish I could also remove the sentence from a later poster's quote of my post, but I can't).

The line that I crossed was in suggesting that another poster was using site and software limitations as a reason to not correct a listing. On reflection, I see that SwiftMann was simply explaining in full the actions that would be required if there was agreement to move the issue, and the effects of such actions.

SwiftMann, I apologize to you for publicly suggesting motives that were inconsistent with what you wrote. I was wrong, and I am very sorry.
SwiftMann
Posted: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:39:05 PM

Rank: Beyonder
Groups: Approver, CCL Feature Crew, CR-Guidelines, Member, Super Seller

Shop at My Store

Joined: 4/19/2007
Posts: 11,393
Points: 1,944,546
Location: PA
padreglcc wrote:
Even though Swifty is correct that a book, under the current system setup, cannot be moved, we can invalidate and relist a book. And we have done it many, many times before when we believe it is warranted.

We invalidate and relist when it's warranted AND feasible. That usually happens with new issues mislisted or duplicate listing. Older stuff is harder because it's affecting so many users - casual catalogers and sellers. That's why we have a ongoing list of "Titles to Clean-up" thread in the Approvers forum that has hundreds of titles representing over a thousand issues of stuff to move around when it's feasible.

Quote:
If I got that correct, then I can't see this a variant of 1A... I think you're wrong on this one, Dan.

Perhaps. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I'm fighting the poorly constructed argument instead of where it should actually be listed. If, instead of minutia about ownership*, ad placement*, letters columns*, supposition about newsstand presence* and role-playing imaginary management meetings, there was a simple first post of "I think the 1-D is a primer book for the 1991 series and should be listed as #0 with a non-number of Premiere" I probably would have been a lot more receptive.

*None of which, individually or together, give any indication of what title this issue should be under as none give weight to the idea of it not being a reprint.

Has DC Done Something Stupid Today?

"The return of beards and 90's fashion makes hipsters and homeless people impossible to tell apart." - Woody, Quantum & Woody #5
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

This page was generated in 0.379 seconds.

ADVERTISEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All images on comic collector live copyright of their respective publishers. © Copyright 2008, MidTen Media Inc. GOLO241