@footsore Actually, Ebert DOES review "crappy independent films" though, among his review for the mainstream stuff. And while we do want to highlight what's good out there, I still stand by the independent pieces we cover as being something a comicbook fan may want to pick up and that we feel they should know what they're getting into.

And no ones wasting your time or bandwidth accept yourself. If you don't like the show, don't watch. No one is holding a gun to your head to do so. And we welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, but your points, made so move on.

Cheers

You heard footsore guys. Only review New Avengers and Green Arrow every week from now on!

No you miss MY point, why waste time, production costs, and MY bandwidth reviewing a crappy comic that NO ONE is reading anyway? When you have limited resources isnt it more productive to spend it on things that the majority of your viewers WANT to hear about? I mean they could have given crypt keeper 5 oranges and 99% of the viewers still wouldnt be buying it. You dont see Ebert reviewing crappy independent films on his show do you? It's not because he wouldnt like to, because he would probably love to talk about them, no its because NO ONE WANTS TO SEE IT!

Ha ha! Footsore doesn’t get the point of reviewing things that aren’t "5 oranges/stars/etc." I think he has in fact missed the whole point of criticism. But then he ends his comment with a sort of.... critique of the show. I wonder if he knows that he is doing it? Keep thinking about it man you a close to figuring out how this criticism thing works.

@Elmo: I love your idea of reviewing older stuff that may have been overlooked. In fact, it's definitely something we've been talking about doing... so I have no doubt that we must get on it!

I like that idea of Elmo's. Loved this week's episode, too.

I'm really liking this show. The titles I have read that you've reviewed I have agreed with your points. Also, I think you've reached a nice balance of the popular and the lesser known, so keep it up.

Any chance of have a show where you focus on older books and collections? One's that aren't new but might have slipped by the public's eye?

@footsore We get where you are coming from, but we don't feel they are obscure titles. With names like Rosario Dawson and Garth Ennis attached, people might be inclined to give them a read. We want them to know that "Hey, its not worth your $10+ to read this mediocre comic."

And in the case of Tales From the Crypt, Casey and I are actually huge fans of the original (and all its versions after). Like any crypt fan we were excited when we saw it in the store ... and were horrified by what a sad sack o'shite the new version is. We really wanted to warn others.

In any case, we appreciate any constructive comments you have. Cheers!

I'm just glad she added 'the horror, the horror' to the end of that one bit, because I didnt know wtf she was doing. I have no doubt that mr brando was doing backflips in his grave over that. Again I dont see the point of a review show that reviews obscure titles when they arent '5 oranges'. I mean why bother? I give this show 1 orange...

Best show yet! The Zod bit was funny..

Weird, I have Flash Player 8 (developer version). But it still says I need to get the Flash Player.

The sections between the reviews keep getting funnier.
Great CSI joke!
Will check out Superman when it's collected in softcover.

Loved it.