>>53279335Genuine question.
Do you know what the difference there is?
It's a prop from a movie.
A pokemon card artist or card creator signing their card is directly related to the card.
A comicbook writer or creator signing their comicbook is directly related to the comicbook.
An athlete signing their card, a winning ball, or a jersey from the match is directly related to the jersey.
An actor signing a prop a character used in the movie is two degrees of separation.
No shitposting I'm honestly interested if you can identify this distinction.
Movie industry collectors are split into actor buffs and film buffs. Film buffs want the props because the prop in the movie doesn't show up with a signature. Actor buffs want the signatures, but they don't want them in props, they want them on a photo of the actor or actress. The second he signed it, it was no longer "the almanac" it was "An almanac with some rando's signature" since the almanac in the movie doesn't have a signature on it. If Thomas Wilson signed a photo of himself on the set it would have been valuable. But he had nothing to do with the Almanac, a character he played used it. So going back to my original analogy, that shit would be like Steve Carell signing Jace the mind sculptor. Steve carrel is an actor who played a role of a guy who played a card game. Nobody gives a shit about getting his signature on an MTG card.
I see this shit all the time and it gets annoying with time. Just because you can present an example that contradicts a statement, doesn't mean it disproves it, try and think a little bit about the cause before you start presenting the effect. Look dude, we're all human, I get the same urge sometimes to correct strangers on the internet, it's natural, people want to correct someone more than they want to learn, but you're achieving the opposite result if you don't do the bare minimum required, you just miss the point.
