Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Thread

Author
Victor




I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.

I read a review that said, in effect, "isn't it sort of pathetic for a 34-year-old to be behaving this way."

Ha. Listen and Believe.

Peter Parker ain't 34. I don't care what "continuity" you want to cite or how many back issues you have. He is in his early 20s. Whatever you have to tell yourself to accept this, get it over with.

IMO, This issue of Spider-Man was the best issue of this comic in years. Not because of the unfolding plot, but because the character felt fresh and exciting instead of stodgy and stable. Sorry, but that improvement was a direct result of the lack of marriage.

It was fresh, because I didn't know where he'd be or what he'd be doing at the end of the issue. It was fresh because I knew that, mostly, he would have to rely upon himself to find answers to the craziness.
It was fresh because I don't know which female character he may begin a relationship with and what that might be like. It was fresh because he has essentially been deaged and returned to a time when it is okay for him to be trying to establish who he is, rather than for him to be an established, responsible family man.


Here's a portion of a review from
Comicbookresources.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=6


"I suppose it's more in keeping with the tone of the classic Spider-Man stories for Peter to have all these troubles, but it's horribly frustrating to me. It reminds me a bit of all those sit-coms and teenaged melodramas where two characters hate each other for the sake of plot contrivance. If Peter is destined to always lose no matter how hard he fights, I don't want to read it. I can go pound my head into the wall, instead.

But here's the thing: It's too soon to lodge that complaint."

Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator.

Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it.

This comic succeeds on the simple principal of engaging me as a reader who wants to laugh, shake my head, root for my hero, and above all not know what is coming in the next act.


Just thoughts.

Victor



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
reformed marvel zombie




> I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.

Just curious mate. i wanna know, truly. no disrespect or anything.
>
> I read a review that said, in effect, "isn't it sort of pathetic for a 34-year-old to be behaving this way."
>
> Ha. Listen and Believe.
>
> Peter Parker ain't 34. I don't care what "continuity" you want to cite or how many back issues you have. He is in his early 20s. Whatever you have to tell yourself to accept this, get it over with.
>
> IMO, This issue of Spider-Man was the best issue of this comic in years. Not because of the unfolding plot, but because the character felt fresh and exciting instead of stodgy and stable. Sorry, but that improvement was a direct result of the lack of marriage.
>
> It was fresh, because I didn't know where he'd be or what he'd be doing at the end of the issue. It was fresh because I knew that, mostly, he would have to rely upon himself to find answers to the craziness.
> It was fresh because I don't know which female character he may begin a relationship with and what that might be like. It was fresh because he has essentially been deaged and returned to a time when it is okay for him to be trying to establish who he is, rather than for him to be an established, responsible family man.
>
>
> Here's a portion of a review from
> Comicbookresources.
>
> http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=6
>
>
> "I suppose it's more in keeping with the tone of the classic Spider-Man stories for Peter to have all these troubles, but it's horribly frustrating to me. It reminds me a bit of all those sit-coms and teenaged melodramas where two characters hate each other for the sake of plot contrivance. If Peter is destined to always lose no matter how hard he fights, I don't want to read it. I can go pound my head into the wall, instead.
>
> But here's the thing: It's too soon to lodge that complaint."
>
> Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator.
>
> Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it.
>
> This comic succeeds on the simple principal of engaging me as a reader who wants to laugh, shake my head, root for my hero, and above all not know what is coming in the next act.
>
>
> Just thoughts.
>
> Victor
>


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Tom




> I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
>

I'm sorry but at the risk of a minor flame you sound like an idiot here. If you are going to go around the board defending BND at every turn that's fine. If you then enjoy BND when you read it that's great. But to post something like the above and then turn around and accuse everyone else of being a reactionary (when you are obviously being one in the opposite direction) just makes you look foolish.

As for the issue, I did read a copy (though I did not give them my money) and it isn't bad. I don't think anyone expected Slott to turn in a lousy story. The issue is that there are already books for this type of thing (Ultimate, Adventures, some new brand they decide to make up) and there was no need to scorch the earth of mainstream continuity.

Now, people who like a married Peter have nothing to read while people who like a single Peter have even more books to read. No one that I've seen on this board has questioned the talkent of Slott or McNiven


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Brand New Hobgoblin




> I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
>
> I read a review that said, in effect, "isn't it sort of pathetic for a 34-year-old to be behaving this way."
>
> Ha. Listen and Believe.
>
> Peter Parker ain't 34. I don't care what "continuity" you want to cite or how many back issues you have. He is in his early 20s. Whatever you have to tell yourself to accept this, get it over with.
>
> IMO, This issue of Spider-Man was the best issue of this comic in years. Not because of the unfolding plot, but because the character felt fresh and exciting instead of stodgy and stable. Sorry, but that improvement was a direct result of the lack of marriage.
>
> It was fresh, because I didn't know where he'd be or what he'd be doing at the end of the issue. It was fresh because I knew that, mostly, he would have to rely upon himself to find answers to the craziness.
> It was fresh because I don't know which female character he may begin a relationship with and what that might be like. It was fresh because he has essentially been deaged and returned to a time when it is okay for him to be trying to establish who he is, rather than for him to be an established, responsible family man.
>
>
> Here's a portion of a review from
> Comicbookresources.
>
> http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=6
>
>
> "I suppose it's more in keeping with the tone of the classic Spider-Man stories for Peter to have all these troubles, but it's horribly frustrating to me. It reminds me a bit of all those sit-coms and teenaged melodramas where two characters hate each other for the sake of plot contrivance. If Peter is destined to always lose no matter how hard he fights, I don't want to read it. I can go pound my head into the wall, instead.
>
> But here's the thing: It's too soon to lodge that complaint."
>
> Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator.
>
> Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it.
>
> This comic succeeds on the simple principal of engaging me as a reader who wants to laugh, shake my head, root for my hero, and above all not know what is coming in the next act.
>
>
> Just thoughts.
>
> Victor
>

--Brand New Hobgoblin


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Ned Leeds Jr.




> > I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but at the risk of a minor flame you sound like an idiot here. If you are going to go around the board defending BND at every turn that's fine. If you then enjoy BND when you read it that's great. But to post something like the above and then turn around and accuse everyone else of being a reactionary (when you are obviously being one in the opposite direction) just makes you look foolish.

I agree with his statement about the marriage bringing a stability to the character that changed his stories drastically. While he may be a bit enthusiastic, he certainly didn't sound like an idiot. There is truth to the statement that a healthy marriage has a comforting effect to it due to the sense of stability it allows.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Simplicity




I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.

I read a review that said, in effect, "isn't it sort of pathetic for a 34-year-old to be behaving this way."

Ha. Listen and Believe.

Peter Parker ain't 34. I don't care what "continuity" you want to cite or how many back issues you have. He is in his early 20s. Whatever you have to tell yourself to accept this, get it over with.

IMO, This issue of Spider-Man was the best issue of this comic in years. Not because of the unfolding plot, but because the character felt fresh and exciting instead of stodgy and stable. Sorry, but that improvement was a direct result of the lack of marriage.

It was fresh, because I didn't know where he'd be or what he'd be doing at the end of the issue. It was fresh because I knew that, mostly, he would have to rely upon himself to find answers to the craziness.
It was fresh because I don't know which female character he may begin a relationship with and what that might be like. It was fresh because he has essentially been deaged and returned to a time when it is okay for him to be trying to establish who he is, rather than for him to be an established, responsible family man.


Here's a portion of a review from
Comicbookresources.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=6


"I suppose it's more in keeping with the tone of the classic Spider-Man stories for Peter to have all these troubles, but it's horribly frustrating to me. It reminds me a bit of all those sit-coms and teenaged melodramas where two characters hate each other for the sake of plot contrivance. If Peter is destined to always lose no matter how hard he fights, I don't want to read it. I can go pound my head into the wall, instead.

But here's the thing: It's too soon to lodge that complaint."

Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator.

Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it.

This comic succeeds on the simple principal of engaging me as a reader who wants to laugh, shake my head, root for my hero, and above all not know what is coming in the next act.


Just thoughts.

Victor




Posted with Opera 9.24 on Windows XP
Tom




> > > I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry but at the risk of a minor flame you sound like an idiot here. If you are going to go around the board defending BND at every turn that's fine. If you then enjoy BND when you read it that's great. But to post something like the above and then turn around and accuse everyone else of being a reactionary (when you are obviously being one in the opposite direction) just makes you look foolish.
>
> I agree with his statement about the marriage bringing a stability to the character that changed his stories drastically. While he may be a bit enthusiastic, he certainly didn't sound like an idiot. There is truth to the statement that a healthy marriage has a comforting effect to it due to the sense of stability it allows.

I don't buy that for one second in that this entire story could have been told wiht a married Peter. Further the "comfort of a marriage" is really just that of a relationship. So if your argument is that Peter should never be in a relationship that's one thing but I don't think that is what you are saying.

As for Victor, I'm sorry but he's been trolling all week. Its one thing to be happy with BND but he specifically writes post (see the above one) designed to aggitate those who are against it. He's gotten as good as he's given but its still trolling and if he's going to accuse someone like me of being reactionary and then turned around and give the most reactionary post I've read on this board in a while, I'm going to call him on it.

Hypocrisy sounds idiotic in my opinion, if you don't feel that way its certainly your right.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Dave Phelps




> I don't buy that for one second in that this entire story could have been told wiht a married Peter.

That I agree with. Obviously not the part where he was about to hit on the girl with glasses, but I can see the rest of it working.

> Further the "comfort of a marriage" is really just that of a relationship.

Yes and no.

In real life, marriage is more secure than just "a relationship" because there tends to be a lot more involved with ending a marriage. If I split up with my wife, at least one of us would have to move, there'd be legal fees, mundane stuff like having to split our stuff, how to tell our families, etc. But if I were to split up with my mistress ( ;\-\) ), then it would be a lot easier. We just say we're done and that's that.

In serialized storytelling, you're basically right. Married or no, chances are we'd never see Lois tell Clark to "piss off" for good. And I fully expect to see MJ in her old position (not necessarily married) someday. And from then on, any fallings out will be temporary and that'll be that.

All that said, I think Victor is more than a little overenthusiastic, but it's not like us pro-marriage people haven't had our fair share of melodrama. If he's that happy that they're doing a "will they or won't they" story in Amazing, so be it. I wish he'd stop acting like everything else in this issue couldn't have been done with a married Spider-Man, but he's hardly the only one.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Ned Leeds Jr.




> > > > I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry but at the risk of a minor flame you sound like an idiot here. If you are going to go around the board defending BND at every turn that's fine. If you then enjoy BND when you read it that's great. But to post something like the above and then turn around and accuse everyone else of being a reactionary (when you are obviously being one in the opposite direction) just makes you look foolish.
> >
> > I agree with his statement about the marriage bringing a stability to the character that changed his stories drastically. While he may be a bit enthusiastic, he certainly didn't sound like an idiot. There is truth to the statement that a healthy marriage has a comforting effect to it due to the sense of stability it allows.
>
> I don't buy that for one second in that this entire story could have been told wiht a married Peter. Further the "comfort of a marriage" is really just that of a relationship. So if your argument is that Peter should never be in a relationship that's one thing but I don't think that is what you are saying.

That is what I'm saying. Peter Parker was never meant to be in a secure, longterm relationship. It changess the dynamics of the character and of the hero.

> As for Victor, I'm sorry but he's been trolling all week. Its one thing to be happy with BND but he specifically writes post (see the above one) designed to aggitate those who are against it. He's gotten as good as he's given but its still trolling and if he's going to accuse someone like me of being reactionary and then turned around and give the most reactionary post I've read on this board in a while, I'm going to call him on it.

> Hypocrisy sounds idiotic in my opinion, if you don't feel that way its certainly your right.

You weren't pointing out hypocrisy. You were saying that his statement sounded idiotic. There is a big differnce. As big a difference as there is in take my reply as a show of support for hypocrisy.

Ned


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
The Plaid Goblin




And really, after all of the subpar to crappy storylines that Peter's been through these last few years anything that resembles classic Spidey is gonna look like gold.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 8.1.3 on Windows XP
Mr Sinister





> That is what I'm saying. Peter Parker was never meant to be in a secure, longterm relationship. It changess the dynamics of the character and of the hero.

Neither was Superman, and look what happened there.

Sinister...
Latest Review: Omega The Unknown #3


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Ned Leeds Jr.




>
> > That is what I'm saying. Peter Parker was never meant to be in a secure, longterm relationship. It changess the dynamics of the character and of the hero.
>
> Neither was Superman, and look what happened there.
>
> Sinister...

Exactly. I feel the same way about the Superman marriage. It fundamentally changes the character and the stories told. That isn't a bad thing, but it is a thing. I can enjoy married or simgle Spidey or Supes. I'm very ok with them both being single.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
CBP




I looked thru the frist issue of BND. I didn't see anything in it to justify the story from OMD or to get overly excited about.

Several people have stated that Slott writes afunny Peter Parker. I won't disagree. However Peter could've been just as funny married.

The peripheral titles are gone and the new shipping schedule so improve the overall read of the series. I've been saying that Spider-Man shouldn't appear in more than two monthly titles for years and that there should be better continuity between the two books. I don't see why it took Marvel two decades to figure this out b/c it works better for the character, whether he's married or not.

Some have cited that it was good to see Pete have more interaction with the supporting cast. I'll agree. I enjoyed seeing Betty, Robbie, and Jonah. The new supporting characters could have potential. My question would be why these characters all but disappeared from AMZ years ago? Why didn't Joe Q tell JMS to use the characters more.? Just because Peter married it shouldn't have meant he could no longer have meaningful interaction with the classic cast members or new additions.

We saw a new villian appear in this issue. I'm all for that. But let's be honest Mr. Negative would've worked if he had appeared before OMD.

The only thing that changed when Peter married was that he could no longer date more than one woman. That should have had no major affect on Peter's personal life outside of the marriage or his superheroics. The biggest problem with the marriage is the fact after Peter lost the ability to interact romantically with other woman, the woman he had settled with became rather dull. No one seemed to know how to use her in a meaningful way within the series. They couldn't even decide what career path for her to take. I don't think I would've ever considered making MJ a superheroine. But, at least it'll probably give her more character development than she's had in years and put any futute relationship with Peter on more equal footing.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Smithville Thunderbolt




> Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets

I agree, but my definition of a "set" or "arc" goes back to 1962. By this standard, it's hard to give a positive judgement to anything that follows OMD.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Menshevik




> I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character.
>
> IMO, This issue of Spider-Man was the best issue of this comic in years. Not because of the unfolding plot, but because the character felt fresh and exciting instead of stodgy and stable. Sorry, but that improvement was a direct result of the lack of marriage.
>
> It was fresh, because I didn't know where he'd be or what he'd be doing at the end of the issue. It was fresh because I knew that, mostly, he would have to rely upon himself to find answers to the craziness.
> It was fresh because I don't know which female character he may begin a relationship with and what that might be like. It was fresh because he has essentially been deaged and returned to a time when it is okay for him to be trying to establish who he is, rather than for him to be an established, responsible family man.
>
>
> Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it.
>
>
>
My immediate reaction to #546: Insipid. Going through Spider-Man stereotypes by rote. Old plots recycled (oh wow, JJJ is in danger of losing the Bugle. we're back in the early 1980s, only back then Peter actually started working for a different paper while this time round he seems to prefer twiddling his thumbs). Apparently they are also trying to gain new readers on the rationale: "Hey kids, you're really gonna be excited by what your parents got excited about twenty years ago!" Hence, I suppose the Disco Djackpot costume (holy gratuitous butt shot!)
Art good, but not really remarkable, all things considered (I prefer Bagley or JR Jr. myself). But as they say, it is early days yet. Maybe Dan Slott will surprise us.

But I don't have high hopes. Oh wow, a cliff-hanger with JJJ having a heart attack. That's...
...had all its emotional potential sucked from it because this issue appears directly on the heels of Satanic Spider-Man #545 which showed that mortal danger and even death itself are meaningless. Even if JJJ does die (yeah, right!), he'll just be brought back the next time Peter strikes a deal with Mephisto. Or maybe this time it'll be Marla and John Jameson who strike the deal? Oooooh the excitement! After all, if the last quarter of a century at DC has shown us, magical reset buttons are like potato chips, you can't stop at one...!

It is a bit early for a final judgement, and Victor himself insists, criticisms should not be leveled on the basis of one issue. But that also goes for positive criticisms as well as negative ones. I won't yet say that the emperor has nothing on, but I can't help noticing that the way some members of the pro-Quesada faction have been hailing "Brand New Day" as if it was the second coming of "Watchmen" just on the strength of this issue (some actually even before the first issue came out) does remind me of the courtiers and others in that fairy tale who were so eager to praise the beauty and the fit of the Emperor's New Clothes. Well, they have to, a cynic would say, because if BND isn't all that great, then there would be no justification left for OMD...










Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
Victor




First, I assure you, Tom, I can't be flamed by you. The lack of importance I assign to your opinion acts as something of a flame retardant.

Anyway...What I said:

"Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator."

To further clarify I said: "Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it."

I modified "reactionary" with a lot of context, all of which you disgarded for the satisfaction of saying that I sounded like a idiot.
Feel better?

I thought it was clear that the based on my comments, that the "reaction" I was criticizing was the over analyzation of particular plot points as though the comic is a complete story.

The reviewer criticizes the story for the details that he believes make Parker seem like a loser because he doesn't want Parker to always seem like a loser...the reviewer then admits that he really can't make that criticism yet. (Why didn't he just delete it, then?)

My reaction to the comic and my post was specifically geared at saying how I FELT reading this particular comic and the fact that the greater uncertainty made things fresh. Thats really not a reactionary parsing of plot points. Regardless what happens next issue, that won't change how I felt about reading this issue.

However, new revelations absolutely could change the reviewers assessment of specific plot elements that make him afraid that Peter will ALWAYS seem like a loser...As he himself admits, its too early to say.

And you can ALWAYS be worried about whether the presence of a plot point means that plot point will be overused in the future. Its that kind of "commentary" that I'm really questioning. Does it improve our enjoyment of comics? Is it effective and meaningful?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, when I lamented that "something has been lost," I never said that I haven't lost "it" as well.
People who have lost innocence, aren't hypocritical if they lament the loss of society's innocence.

I was talking about the whole community of those who engage in comic commentary.

You assumed I was saying I NEVER do it and that I am above it.

Victor


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
CBP




> And really, after all of the subpar to crappy storylines that Peter's been through these last few years anything that resembles classic Spidey is gonna look like gold.

Months ago my retailer source told me how this was going to all play out. He may have been wrong about the minor details, but what he told me was 0ver 90% accurate.

He told me that the plan at Marvel heading into 2008 and BND was to make Peter's life so bad that people would be willing to accept just about anything to get past the post-Civil War period and return to the more classic staus quo. It appears you and a lot of Spidey fans are having the exact reaction they wanted you to. OMD was a piece of crap, but some people are so glad to have classic Peter back they're willing to overlook the stories that got him to that point.

CBP




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
The Plaid Goblin




> > And really, after all of the subpar to crappy storylines that Peter's been through these last few years anything that resembles classic Spidey is gonna look like gold.
>
> Months ago my retailer source told me how this was going to all play out. He may have been wrong about the minor details, but what he told me was 0ver 90% accurate.
>
> He told me that the plan at Marvel heading into 2008 and BND was to make Peter's life so bad that people would be willing to accept just about anything to get past the post-Civil War period and return to the more classic staus quo. It appears you and a lot of Spidey fans are having the exact reaction they wanted you to. OMD was a piece of crap, but some people are so glad to have classic Peter back they're willing to overlook the stories that got him to that point.
>
> CBP

Well, it's not the first time that Marvel used that particular "tactic". Right before the Clone Saga, during the Robo Parents/"I Am Spider" mess, they had Spider-Man act so dark and so out of character that when Ben Reilly made it on to the scene, acting like how Spidey was supposed to act, some of the readers prefered the clone over the real deal. Thinking about the last few recent Spider-Man stories: Spidey's moved into a sky scraper super-hero fortress. Killed and ate a villain. Dyed. Got new powers, including poisonous bone claws. Became Tony Stark's butler or assistant or sidekick or whatever the hell you want to call him. Got a high tech super suit that made his powers obsolete. Moronically revealed his identity on national television. Became a dark, bone-breaking, seeker of vengeance. And finally the OMD retconarama. They had Spider-Man stray so far frome his roots that to some fans magically starting over would seem like a godsend. Heh, I'm suprised they didn't have him receive ninja training and given him a sword before the whole reboot.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 8.1.3 on Windows XP
chrisk7877




> >
> > > That is what I'm saying. Peter Parker was never meant to be in a secure, longterm relationship. It changess the dynamics of the character and of the hero.
> >
> > Neither was Superman, and look what happened there.
> >
> > Sinister...
>
> Exactly. I feel the same way about the Superman marriage. It fundamentally changes the character and the stories told. That isn't a bad thing, but it is a thing. I can enjoy married or simgle Spidey or Supes. I'm very ok with them both being single.

If anything, Supes' marriage gives him one of his few weaknesses to attempt to cover. I hope they don't try this stuff on Superman.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
jwd




> > > And really, after all of the subpar to crappy storylines that Peter's been through these last few years anything that resembles classic Spidey is gonna look like gold.
> >
> > Months ago my retailer source told me how this was going to all play out. He may have been wrong about the minor details, but what he told me was 0ver 90% accurate.
> >
> > He told me that the plan at Marvel heading into 2008 and BND was to make Peter's life so bad that people would be willing to accept just about anything to get past the post-Civil War period and return to the more classic staus quo. It appears you and a lot of Spidey fans are having the exact reaction they wanted you to. OMD was a piece of crap, but some people are so glad to have classic Peter back they're willing to overlook the stories that got him to that point.
> >
> > CBP
>
> Well, it's not the first time that Marvel used that particular "tactic". Right before the Clone Saga, during the Robo Parents/"I Am Spider" mess, they had Spider-Man act so dark and so out of character that when Ben Reilly made it on to the scene, acting like how Spidey was supposed to act, some of the readers prefered the clone over the real deal.

I was that way. After his Robo parents died and he went nuts I dropped the books then checked back and saw he was the Spider with no man decided to stay away again. Later I tried one after Ben showed up and liked him more than Peter.

The sad thing is its been over 10 years since Ben died and since then I haven't found Peter's stories as interesting or likeable as when Ben was in the suit. So the last time I really liked Peter being in the suit on a consistant - before his robo parents were revealed to fakes. :-/

jwd



ninja.monkeylord.org (12.345.67.89)
using Interwebs Stealth Engine 2.0 (0 points)
Eric Teall




> > Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets
>
> I agree, but my definition of a "set" or "arc" goes back to 1962. By this standard, it's hard to give a positive judgement to anything that follows OMD.

And neither were the characters! This Spider-Man/Peter Parker is lazier and more losery \(\!\) than ever before. Harry Osborn and Aunt May are both completely different characters than they were before.

Add to that the fact that ST is right--I want to follow an arc that goes from the beginning CONTINUOUSLY to the present. I don't want this "Spider--Interrupted" nonsense. The current "arc" bears NO relation to the old arc.

(If they'd ENDED the old and BEGUN the new, I could deal, just like I did back in '86 with DC.)

- Eric Teall

What happens when a man rereads every Spider-Man series since 1962? Check out...


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Jessica Drew




He's not out actively searching for a job. He's more of a deadbeat than a superhero. He took 3 months off because of Civil War? Wow, think we did this story in "Spider-man... no more".

All of this is starting to become rehashed plots. We've had the Bugle coming under fire of a corporate take over. We've had the many love interests. We've had "new, cooler" villains.

Then, the ending...so, JJJ has a heart attack? And Pete says it's all his fault! So, he is responsible for the ill of another person? Where's Mephisto to reset continuity back 10 minutes so Peter won't yell and cause the cardiac infarction?

Then, the backup with Harry...so, he to is now a douche? Divorced 3 times? Ya, really have no love for him either...

The good? I'm still saving money from not buying any of this rehashed junk and another 14 people (over 40 so far) have dropped ASM from their pulls \:\)


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows Vista

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software