FastestBlender

@rdclip You answer lies within these pages:
Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book

Thor: God of Thunder 8, iFanboy pick of the week

And if @babs read the comments on her review, she'd know:

"The Godbomb doesn't just kill all the gods. Gorr realized earlier in the series (when he saw how willing the vikings were to die for Thor) that even if he killed all the gods, the mortals wouldn't be free. From what I understand the Godbomb will not just kill the gods but wipe them from existence."

"The god bomb eradicates the gods from all of existence, from all time. It's not just about killing the gods. It's about killing the very notion of a god."

Why China? This is why:

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/misc/imaxs-emerging-market-twist

China is adding new movie screens at the rate of four per day.

"The Chinese love movies and are hitting movie theaters in droves. In 2010, the dollar take for movies grew by an awesome 64% to $1.5 billion. And that is on top of the 40% growth in 2009.

China now has more than 6,200 movie screens after adding about 1,500 last year. There is no sign of that growth slowing down as a number of Chinese players are racing to add theaters.

Hollywood experts expect China’s box office receipts, currently the fourth largest in the world, to overtake Japan and India by the end of 2012. That will make China the No. 2 movie market in the world."

And the reason IM3 is an ending rather than a beginning is because Downey's contract is done

5 Things That Bothered Me About ‘Iron Man 3′
Why does Tony Stark spend 70% of the movie trying to repair/power up his suit, when he has a remote controlled suit army at his disposal?

Product placement up the wazoo

Let’s let a killing machine on board with the President of the United States

WTF is Killian’s plan anyway?

That disaster of an ending

The 5 star review system confounds me and seems to be a source of frustration for yourselves as well. I'd hoped that in the site redesign this method would be given an overhaul, but it would appear not. By only allowing yourself 5 elements to a rating, it limits the expression of your review which is already relegated into the The Good, The Bad and The Verdict. The result is multiple comics getting the same same rating which makes it difficult to discern which ones to invest in. As admitted to by Tony and Sarah in multiple podcasts, this limit is also difficult on the reviewer who's wavering on the exact quality of the book. Then there's the multiple interpretations of a 5-star ratings by the reader. To some, this just means it's a great comic book and to others it would appear the issue is flawless. I know Tony sides with the former interpretation, but think of other aspects of life such as exams where a perfect score means just that. You recently had Joey Esposito on from IGN Comics. There, they have 1-10 scale rating down to a tenth of a point. Great comics are given a 9.-something and a 10 is only reserved for the very rare and exceptional work of sequential art. When a comic is really bad, they don't have to hesitate into dropping into the below 5 territory.

To me, it seems like a simple adjustment that will give the reviewer more leeway and will temper, albeit slightly, the arguments against the review by the Comic Vine Community. I refuse to believe the EIC of Comic Vine cannot order his web designer to implement such a change. Just allowing 1/2 stars would double your options. How say you?

I'm really having trouble following this review.

"When creating a new comic franchise, the first issue is often hit or miss."

OK but then you go one to say:

"The next issue or two may be the deciding factor of whether I like this series or love it. This could be a fun ride."

Which makes it sound like you were in the middle of hit or miss.

"When it comes to Mark Millar stories, there's often some good and bad mixed in."

The word "often" waters down this statement to the point where it's unnecessary. Just say Mark Millar is a mixed bag for me.

"We do get that"

Who gets what? Just say Mark Millar is a divisive figure. But what doers that have to do with the faults of this issue?

" It's the long running debate of whether or not certain material is necessary for a comic."

But you've already established in this issue that "It's not presented in an overly crude way" In the previous section, so again how is this a fault of the issue?

"Will we find out more about the mystery in the beginning? What about the argument that took place? And of course there's a tiny cliffhanger at the end."

These are the intriguing elements of a good first issue to hook the reader, so again why is this in The Bad? If a first issue is too obtuse, then that's a fault, but you even use the qualifier "little" to describe the cliffhanger so it can't be that. I've heard you on the podcast, you seem to frequently get hung up on the questions an issue sets up for the future rather than analyzing the merits in the present. A review is more helpful if is focuses on characterization, themes, plotting and pacing