Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Thread
1 2  >> All
Author
Comicguy1




I was thinking about all of the deaths that have impacted Peter, and everyone just seems to mention the big three: Uncle Ben (Of course.), Gwen Stacy, and Captain Stacy (Although he's not mentioned that much.). When Harry Osborn was dead, it used to be Uncle Ben, Gwen, Cap, and Harry Osborn, but he's back, so that takes him off the list. And when Norman Osborn was dead, his death impacted Peter as well. And I guess Miles Warren, as they were somewhat friendly.

But a LOT of people close to Peter have died, the three above being big examples of deaths that SHOULD be brought up a lot, as they were all his friends and allies. Jean De Wolff in particular was an ally and a friend. Ben Reilly goes without saying, but the Clone Saga drove away so many fans, and caused so much financial trouble for Marvel, that I can see why his death is never mentioned or brought up. But what about Ned Leeds? When Jason Macendale was the Hobgoblin, other than his first appearance, Peter never seemed to bring up the fact that he was somewhat responsible for the death of Ned. Whenever Peter and Norman meet, Gwen's death is almost ALWAYS mentioned, but the death of Ned didn't seem to bring any real animosity to the relationship and hatred between Peter and Jason. So yeah, three people close to Peter, but for some reason, their deaths never get brought up. Which is kind of puzzling. Peter has had a lot of tragedy in his life, that was a running theme during the Mark Millar run on Spider-Man (Which, as poor as I thought that it was, handled that part well.). In fact, I think that TOO many people close to him have died, and have been hurt. But I find it puzziling that we never hear any mention of these three. I don't want them to be brought up as much as Uncle Ben or Gwen, but I think that they definitely do deserve a mention, especially Jean and Ben. Ned Leeds, I guess that they weren't too close. Another death that I think should be brought up would be Nathan Lubensky, who was Aunt May's old flame.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:
    I was thinking about all of the deaths that have impacted Peter, and everyone just seems to mention the big three: Uncle Ben (Of course.), Gwen Stacy, and Captain Stacy (Although he's not mentioned that much.). When Harry Osborn was dead, it used to be Uncle Ben, Gwen, Cap, and Harry Osborn, but he's back, so that takes him off the list. And when Norman Osborn was dead, his death impacted Peter as well. And I guess Miles Warren, as they were somewhat friendly.

    But a LOT of people close to Peter have died, the three above being big examples of deaths that SHOULD be brought up a lot, as they were all his friends and allies. Jean De Wolff in particular was an ally and a friend. Ben Reilly goes without saying, but the Clone Saga drove away so many fans, and caused so much financial trouble for Marvel, that I can see why his death is never mentioned or brought up. But what about Ned Leeds? When Jason Macendale was the Hobgoblin, other than his first appearance, Peter never seemed to bring up the fact that he was somewhat responsible for the death of Ned. Whenever Peter and Norman meet, Gwen's death is almost ALWAYS mentioned, but the death of Ned didn't seem to bring any real animosity to the relationship and hatred between Peter and Jason. So yeah, three people close to Peter, but for some reason, their deaths never get brought up. Which is kind of puzzling. Peter has had a lot of tragedy in his life, that was a running theme during the Mark Millar run on Spider-Man (Which, as poor as I thought that it was, handled that part well.). In fact, I think that TOO many people close to him have died, and have been hurt. But I find it puzziling that we never hear any mention of these three. I don't want them to be brought up as much as Uncle Ben or Gwen, but I think that they definitely do deserve a mention, especially Jean and Ben. Ned Leeds, I guess that they weren't too close. Another death that I think should be brought up would be Nathan Lubensky, who was Aunt May's old flame.


Come to think of it, there are an awful lot of deaths that could have or even should have been mentioned more often.

For instance, consider the first significant death after Uncle Ben's, that of Bennett Brant. Although Spider-Man wasn't responsible for it (and even Betty fairly soon accepted that), it was IIRC the first time someone (and someone was fairly close to him, one degree of separation from his then-girlfriend) killed on his watch.

That the deaths of Richard and Mary Parker are not played up more than they have been is perhaps due to the fact that the story that introduced them was not very good to begin with and some people think the fact that his parents were super-agents detracts from his status as an "everyman". Also, since by at least some of the conflicting accounts Peter was only a baby when they died, he can't actually remember them...

But the most infuriating thing (on a par with the way Ben Reilly became an unperson after his death) was how little Peter and MJ thought or talked about the (apparent) miscarriage of baby May. I think I even recall a scene when, faced with Luke Cage and Jessica Jones's kid they had a brief exchange where it appeared as if the idea of having children themselves was totally new and unfamiliar to them. This probably was because of the fetish of certain editors for Spider-Man as the embodyment of "youth" plus the bad feelings about the Clone Saga. And of course in the post-OMD altered reality MJ may not have gotten pregnant in the first place, although last I read that was never confirmed in-story).



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Omar Karindu


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,242


Though i must be said that Bennett Brant doesn't work all that well since he came back as an utterly sociopathic villain in the last Venom series.




- Omar Karindu
"For your information, I don't have an ego. My Facebook photo is a landscape."
Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.9 on MacOS X
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:
    Though i must be said that Bennett Brant doesn't work all that well since he came back as an utterly sociopathic villain in the last Venom series.


Oh yes, the fact that some low-talented writer decides to bring back Bennett as a completely different character (why am I not surprised that this story is by Remender?) 47 years after his death sure shows that Peter should not have thought about him in the interim.
\(tongue\)


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Pengi




They're only mentioned when they're relevant to the story. Every line of dialogue is valuable when you only have 20 pages an issue.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Comp 

Moderator

Location: Owings Mills, MD
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,976




    Quote:
    They're only mentioned when they're relevant to the story. Every line of dialogue is valuable when you only have 20 pages an issue.


Pengi is right. That's how continuity should work. If significant past events were mentioned purely because it's been a while since the last time they were, every issue would be nothing but continuity trivia with no story to be found.

-Comp





My first novel, The Listeners, is in bookstores now! Check it out at www.harrisondemchick.com!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:
    They're only mentioned when they're relevant to the story. Every line of dialogue is valuable when you only have 20 pages an issue.


Well, "relevant to the story" is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, one might say that before the idiotic 2009 retcon which brought him back to life, Bennett Brant's death would have been relevant in any situation where bystanders were in danger of being killed in the crossfire, since Bennett was the first supporting character to be killed that way in Spider-Man's crimefighting career.

I personally found it a bit odd that when Peter interacts with Betty the fact that her brother was violently killed and that her husband was murdered did not come up more often. With Ned it even seemed deliberate to me, because they also made Betty revert back to calling herself by her maiden name and the Foreigner, the pretty interesting villain directly responsible for Ned's death, practically never appeared again and was hardly ever alluded to. Ned's death also should be relevant in Peter's dealings with the Black Cat, but it is understandable that writers using her don't want to bring up the fact that she was in cahoots and in bed with the Foreigner at the time of Ned's murder.

In the case of Ben Reilly and baby May it is also glaringly obvious that Marvel deliberately decided that they would not be mentioned even in situations when they were relevant. One of the best examples was when Luke Cage and Jessica Jones had their baby and Peter and MJ did not react with "we could have had this if our daughter had not been stillborn" but more on the lines of "this makes us briefly (and apparently for the first time) wonder whether we should have children of our own".

Strictly applying your logic one may ask if e. g. "Spider-Man: Blue" or "I Remember Gwen" should even exist. Their one and only purpose was to show Peter and Mary Jane reminiscing about Gwen and her demise.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




At least from the stories that I read. That should have formed the animosity between him and Macendale, but he never really brought it up when the two of them encountered, and or fought one another.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,085



    Quote:
    I personally found it a bit odd that when Peter interacts with Betty the fact that her brother was violently killed and that her husband was murdered did not come up more often. With Ned it even seemed deliberate to me, because they also made Betty revert back to calling herself by her maiden name and the Foreigner, the pretty interesting villain directly responsible for Ned's death, practically never appeared again and was hardly ever alluded to. Ned's death also should be relevant in Peter's dealings with the Black Cat, but it is understandable that writers using her don't want to bring up the fact that she was in cahoots and in bed with the Foreigner at the time of Ned's murder.


I'd love to see the return of the Foreigner. Since he is a master of disguise, it would be great to see him revealed as someone close to Spider-man. Maybe even disguised as Roderick Kingsley himself (since Hobgoblin's recent mercenary stint is more in-character with the Foreigner than with Kingsley). Maybe the Foreigner is keeping Kingsley prisoner somewhere? It would explain why "Kingsley" was so casual about the murder of his brother.




"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices." – Albus Dumbledore
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,689



Because he doesn't care. He's lost so many people already. What are three more corpses on the corpse pile?

I mean when he gets someone like Jonah's wife killed do you think he still cares the next week? I doubt it.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Blargh




Well let's just get this out of the way: They are mentioned. Not as often as Uncle Ben or Gwen. But they are. Especially with the recent Scarlet Spider/Kaine solo title, the death of Ben Reilly was mentioned often.

But I think in the cases of DeWolff and especially Ned, you have to think of the relationship Peter has with these people. DeWolff is someone he knew only as Spidey. Yeah the famous "Death Of" storyline hints there was something "more" on Jean's end, but and sure, some writers liked her and used her. But she was just one of the go-to friendly cops that Spidey would go to for information. There was no type of personal connection or bond between the two characters. She also wasn't present for her death.

In the case of Ned, they weren't just not friends, but rivals. At times, they hated each other. He also wasn't present for his death and he was partially responsible for a lot of misery in Betty's life. So yeah, I don't think Pete not mourning Ned's death is out of character. In fact, it makes a lot of sense.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 20.0 on Linux
Blargh





    Quote:
    But the most infuriating thing (on a par with the way Ben Reilly became an unperson after his death) was how little Peter and MJ thought or talked about the (apparent) miscarriage of baby May. I think I even recall a scene when, faced with Luke Cage and Jessica Jones's kid they had a brief exchange where it appeared as if the idea of having children themselves was totally new and unfamiliar to them. This probably was because of the fetish of certain editors for Spider-Man as the embodyment of "youth" plus the bad feelings about the Clone Saga. And of course in the post-OMD altered reality MJ may not have gotten pregnant in the first place, although last I read that was never confirmed in-story).


"Hey guys, cool baby. I know this is a celebratory moment and all, but let us verbally reminisce about our stillborn/possibly kidnapped by Norman Osborn's goons in Europe".

With all seriousness, I have no recollection of that scene. I'm not even sure if MJ and Peter even had a scene with Danni Cage together. MJ only appeared in a handful of New Avengers stories (she's briefly seen in the first arc and after they return to the Savage Land) early in Bendis' run and that's about it, from what I recall.

I would agree with you about Bennett's resurrection if the story wasn't completely awesome. I think Remender constructed such a great story about Flash Thompson, about how someone who has a different upbringing on "great power, great responsibility" and what he does with it. I really don't have a problem with the "comic booky" nature of his resurrection because...well...its comic books. Many fans on this board seem to talk fondly of Ock's Clone Saga era death and his resurrection story. Osborn has come and gone


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 20.0 on Linux
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,085


Yes, Peter probably thinks about Jean/Ned less because he has no reason to feel guilty about their deaths. Jean was killed in her bed by a madman with a gun, and Peter had never encountered that murderer before Jean's death. Ned was set up by the Hobgoblin to be killed by the Foreigner while on a business trip. I guess there's a stretch-argument to be made that if Peter had captured Hobgoblin or Foreigner on one of their earlier encounters, he could have prevented Ned's death - but the guy shouldn't lose sleep over a logical stretch like that.

Then contrast the deaths of Ben Parker and Gwen Stacey. Ben was killed by the guy that Peter selfishly refused to stop when Peter encountered him moments earlier. Gwen was arguably killed by Peter himself when his webbing snapped her neck (the Goblin was ultimately responsible, but Peter doesn't think that way).

So in terms of long-term effects on Peter's psyche, the deaths of Ben/Gwen are far more impacting because of Peter's direct involvement, as well as the fact that he was much, much closer to them (a parental figure and the love of his life).




"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices." – Albus Dumbledore
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:

      Quote:
      But the most infuriating thing (on a par with the way Ben Reilly became an unperson after his death) was how little Peter and MJ thought or talked about the (apparent) miscarriage of baby May. I think I even recall a scene when, faced with Luke Cage and Jessica Jones's kid they had a brief exchange where it appeared as if the idea of having children themselves was totally new and unfamiliar to them. This probably was because of the fetish of certain editors for Spider-Man as the embodyment of "youth" plus the bad feelings about the Clone Saga. And of course in the post-OMD altered reality MJ may not have gotten pregnant in the first place, although last I read that was never confirmed in-story).



    Quote:
    "Hey guys, cool baby. I know this is a celebratory moment and all, but let us verbally reminisce about our stillborn/possibly kidnapped by Norman Osborn's goons in Europe".


Who said that he would have had to mention this to the Cages? It would have been perfectly feasible to have Pete take MJ aside (or vice versa), briefly allude to May and then hug. Or have the two talk at length about it alone in their bedroom. But instead the writers had them acting as if the loss of baby May, as if MJ's pregnancy had never happened.

Oh yes, I forgot, we live in the era of Party Animal Parker, he would never do anything so crass as mention a personal loss to anyone. Not even to his wife who went through the loss with him.


    Quote:
    With all seriousness, I have no recollection of that scene. I'm not even sure if MJ and Peter even had a scene with Danni Cage together. MJ only appeared in a handful of New Avengers stories (she's briefly seen in the first arc and after they return to the Savage Land) early in Bendis' run and that's about it, from what I recall.


Well, I recall this scene and I recall commenting about it on this forum some years ago.


    Quote:
    I would agree with you about Bennett's resurrection if the story wasn't completely awesome. I think Remender constructed such a great story about Flash Thompson, about how someone who has a different upbringing on "great power, great responsibility" and what he does with it. I really don't have a problem with the "comic booky" nature of his resurrection because...well...its comic books. Many fans on this board seem to talk fondly of Ock's Clone Saga era death and his resurrection story. Osborn has come and gone


Well, I haven't read it, nor do I intend to read it. I consider the entire story of Flash as Venom a waste of a good character (Flash being practically the only "normal" friend of his age-group left from the old days). And the return of an established recurring villain like Doc Ock is an entirely different animal than needlessly bringing back Bennett Brant with a completely different character, especially considering that Bennett had only appeared in one story and had had no interaction with Flash Thompson (he lived in Philadelphia, Flash in New York). But then arbitrarily changing people's characters in idiotic ways to suit his plots is Remender's usual MO, something I have had to suffer through throughout Uncanny Avengers so far, especially with regards to one of my favourite characters, Rogue.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




At least in the stories that I read. In Amazing #289 ( When at Ned's funeral.), Peter's internal monologue even states that Ned was a friend.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Blargh





    Quote:
    Oh yes, I forgot, we live in the era of Party Animal Parker, he would never do anything so crass as mention a personal loss to anyone. Not even to his wife who went through the loss with him.



    Quote:
    Well, I recall this scene and I recall commenting about it on this forum some years ago.


It has little to do with Peter's characterization. It just doesn't make sense for Peter or MJ to pull themselves aside in a team book and have a conversation that the rest aren't privy to, or to blurt it aloud and to ruin what is an otherwise aw look at the baby moment.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I would agree with you about Bennett's resurrection if the story wasn't completely awesome. I think Remender constructed such a great story about Flash Thompson, about how someone who has a different upbringing on "great power, great responsibility" and what he does with it. I really don't have a problem with the "comic booky" nature of his resurrection because...well...its comic books. Many fans on this board seem to talk fondly of Ock's Clone Saga era death and his resurrection story. Osborn has come and gone



    Quote:
    Well, I haven't read it, nor do I intend to read it. I consider the entire story of Flash as Venom a waste of a good character (Flash being practically the only "normal" friend of his age-group left from the old days). And the return of an established recurring villain like Doc Ock is an entirely different animal than needlessly bringing back Bennett Brant with a completely different character, especially considering that Bennett had only appeared in one story and had had no interaction with Flash Thompson (he lived in Philadelphia, Flash in New York). But then arbitrarily changing people's characters in idiotic ways to suit his plots is Remender's usual MO, something I have had to suffer through throughout Uncanny Avengers so far, especially with regards to one of my favourite characters, Rogue.


I chose Ock simply because he doesn't have a healing factor and he seems to be a fan favorite so people handwave it when "comic book" stuff happens to him. But when it happens with other characters, well that's just taking things too far!

You won't catch me disagreeing with you on Remender's Uncanny Avengers. It has overall been a huge disappointment with only a few bright spots. But I was a fan of Uncanny X-Force, Punisher, Secret Avengers, and Venom. I had a lot of the same initial concerns about Venom as well.

I could go on and explain why Bennett works in the context of the story (it actually has very little to do with Flash) or why I think Flash is the best Venom to date. But you've already formed your opinion without reading it so I really don't see the point.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 20.0 on Linux
Blargh





    Quote:
    At least in the stories that I read. In Amazing #289 ( When at Ned's funeral.), Peter's internal monologue even states that Ned was a friend.


Yes, people tend to gloss over stuff during funerals and shortly after deaths and romanticize the good times and don't focus on the times where they were competing for for jobs and for women. How much of a friend is Peter really to Ned if he has an affair with his wife***, even if they're estranged? At one point, Peter was ready to just write off Betty after Ned and her just started dating because he didn't like Ned all that much. I specifically remember a scene of Peter and Betty in a diner drinking coffee and the conversation is very forced,

***I am specifically avoiding the "did they have sex?" question because I think it is pointless. The stories present Peter and Betty as being back together and seeing eachother as more than friends. Peter is conflicted about it but he really doesn't call it off until much later.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 20.0 on Linux
Blargh




I also think any "moratorium" on Clone Saga references, if it ever existed as official policy or just something writer chose to avoid, has long since past. Since Brand New Day, there's been no shortage of Clone Saga influenced stories. Everything from the re-introduction of Kaine to the literal re-telling of the Clone Saga and a bunch of stuff in between. The current Spider-Verse issue even has an alternate Ben Reilly in it.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 20.0 on Linux
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:
    It has little to do with Peter's characterization. It just doesn't make sense for Peter or MJ to pull themselves aside in a team book and have a conversation that the rest aren't privy to, or to blurt it aloud and to ruin what is an otherwise aw look at the baby moment.


You see, I can remember a time when in Marvel characterization mattered and plots were tailored to the characters and not the other way around. For instance in ASM Annual #21, when everybody at the Bugle was congratulating Peter after he announced his upcoming wedding, Betty Leeds joined the throng, mentioning her husband, in the process "ruining the moment" by reminding Peter of her bereavement. It would have been so much better if she had done something akin to Peter and MJ re. Luke's and Jessica's baby, maybe said something on the lines of: "I wonder what being married would be like?"


    Quote:
    I chose Ock simply because he doesn't have a healing factor and he seems to be a fan favorite so people handwave it when "comic book" stuff happens to him. But when it happens with other characters, well that's just taking things too far!


Villains get back from the dead all the time, but Bennett Brant in his original form was not a villain, just a victim. But obviously we're not going to agree on this. I am one of the few who still wishes Bucky had stayed dead - which btw means that for all I care Brubaker could have introduced a Winter Soldier character who wasn't Bucky since I feel that worked just as well only they would not have cynically exploited the PR aspect of undoing a well-known (up until then) permanent death.


    Quote:
    You won't catch me disagreeing with you on Remender's Uncanny Avengers. It has overall been a huge disappointment with only a few bright spots. But I was a fan of Uncanny X-Force, Punisher, Secret Avengers, and Venom. I had a lot of the same initial concerns about Venom as well.


I very disliked Uncanny X-Force, didn't read the other stuff, in part because I dislike the Punisher on principle, in part because I never read a Remender story that I really liked (as G.B. Shaw said, you don't have to eat the whole egg to tell it is rotten).


    Quote:
    I could go on and explain why Bennett works in the context of the story (it actually has very little to do with Flash) or why I think Flash is the best Venom to date. But you've already formed your opinion without reading it so I really don't see the point.


Nor do I.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999


Re. Jean DeWolff: I just saw a post that according to a story by one Dan Slott Jean actually once confessed her love to Spidey's face some time before her death.

(Scans at http://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/101836658340/so-you-see-this-retcon-which-completely)

Sure this contradicts what was established in previous continuity and in The Death of Jean De Wolff in particular, but hey, Slott is totally awesome and can do no wrong, right? So we really should be seeing more of Captain De Wolff in the future.


    Quote:
    In the case of Ned, they weren't just not friends, but rivals. At times, they hated each other. He also wasn't present for his death and he was partially responsible for a lot of misery in Betty's life. So yeah, I don't think Pete not mourning Ned's death is out of character. In fact, it makes a lot of sense.


Actually they were on pretty good terms most of the time (e. g. when MJ returned to New York, Ned and Betty conspired to set up a double date to bring the two together). Professionally they weren't rivals, but colleagues who intermittently worked together. Peter was Ned's Best Man at his wedding. While Ned caused Betty grief, from what was actually shown on-panel his serial adultress wife Betty caused Ned more misery. (What Betty told Peter about the state of her early marriage in order to seduce Peter under Wolfman was so obviously self-serving that it has to be taken with at least half a pound of salt). And since Betty had cheated on Ned with Peter, Peter had cause to feel guilty, which would be another reason to think of Ned. Also, while Peter was not present at the actual killing of Ned Leeds, he and Ned were on a clearly potentially dangerous journalistic assignment in Berlin together, so there's no way around it: Ned died on Spider-Man's watch.

BTW, in "Kraven's Last Hunt", when Peter lies buried in the grave, who appears before his fevered eyes? That's right, Ned Leeds. Not Gwen Stacy, not Uncle Ben, Ned Leeds.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Comp 

Moderator

Location: Owings Mills, MD
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,976




    Quote:
    Re. Jean DeWolff: I just saw a post that according to a story by one Dan Slott Jean actually once confessed her love to Spidey's face some time before her death.






    Quote:
    Sure this contradicts what was established in previous continuity and in The Death of Jean De Wolff in particular, but hey, Slott is totally awesome and can do no wrong, right? So we really should be seeing more of Captain De Wolff in the future.


I didn't know about or remember this. Subtlety is really not Slott's strength.

-Comp





My first novel, The Listeners, is in bookstores now! Check it out at www.harrisondemchick.com!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Pengi





    Quote:
    Re. Jean DeWolff: I just saw a post that according to a story by one Dan Slott Jean actually once confessed her love to Spidey's face some time before her death.






    Quote:
    Sure this contradicts what was established in previous continuity and in The Death of Jean De Wolff in particular


What does it contradict?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Michael





    Quote:
    Re. Jean DeWolff: I just saw a post that according to a story by one Dan Slott Jean actually once confessed her love to Spidey's face some time before her death.






    Quote:
    Sure this contradicts what was established in previous continuity and in The Death of Jean De Wolff in particular, but hey, Slott is totally awesome and can do no wrong, right? So we really should be seeing more of Captain De Wolff in the future.


You (and the person who posted those scans) are missing the point. Remember that the symbiote originally took Peter out at night without him remembering it so it could feast on his adrenaline. Read the captions carefully "The symbiote doesn't understand the words...It searches its memory for what the host would do. " The clear implication is that the symbiote is in control, not Peter.

Michael


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Michael







    Quote:
    I personally found it a bit odd that when Peter interacts with Betty the fact that her brother was violently killed and that her husband was murdered did not come up more often. With Ned it even seemed deliberate to me, because they also made Betty revert back to calling herself by her maiden name and the Foreigner, the pretty interesting villain directly responsible for Ned's death, practically never appeared again and was hardly ever alluded to. Ned's death also should be relevant in Peter's dealings with the Black Cat, but it is understandable that writers using her don't want to bring up the fact that she was in cahoots and in bed with the Foreigner at the time of Ned's murder.


Regarding the Foreigner, I realize that it's a matter of opinion but I think the problem a lot of fans and readers had was that PAD made him too much of a Villain Sue- He trained Sabretooth! He can talk back to the Kingpin without getting killed and even beat him at chess! He banged the Black Cat! He can have the Hobgoblin killed not personally but just by making a phone call! PAD went over the top and arguably built him up at the expense of other characters.
Regarding Felicia being in bed with the Foreigner, literally, this was the problem of the Grim and Gritty wave of 1986-1987. The writers had the characters do unforgivable things then tried to forget about it to make them sympathetic again. In Felicia's case, she was responsible for an innocent woman being killed by one of the Foreigner's agents. Around the same time, Dr. Strange engaged in black magic and exploded an African child. But the writers decided to sweep both incidents under the rug to keep Felicia and Stephen sympathetic. But it seems like some writers remembered, since Slott recently had Felicia turn into a homicidal crimelord and Hickman recently had Strange use black magic to murder people who were merely defending their world.

Michael


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




When the Gwen Stacy clone was active (Whatever happened to her anyway?), Ned and Peter worked together to try to figure out what was going on. Miles Warren (Or his clone.) took Ned as a hostage, and he called Ned a friend of his. Peter echoed this during his thoughts. And in the classic Spider-Man versus Wolverine one-shot were he died, they sure seemed to be on pretty good terms. They weren't the BEST of friends, but I don't see how Peter didn't care about him.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




If anything, he acknowledges continuity a little bit TOO much. It seems unlike him to retcon stuff.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999


I did miss the symbiote thing, so Peter would not remember.

Someone would probably have to check in how far Slott's story works with the chronology for the symbiote and the Black Cat (the symbiote remembering Spidey kissing her), though. From his return from the first Secret War to the discovery of the alien symbiote and its imprisonment by Mr. Fantastic (which only took a few months readers' time) Peter spent a lot of time with Mary Jane (this was when she revealed she knew he was Spider-Man) and there was a bit of uneasiness between Spider-Man and the Black Cat. And I don't have the PPSSM issues set during the interval.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I personally found it a bit odd that when Peter interacts with Betty the fact that her brother was violently killed and that her husband was murdered did not come up more often. With Ned it even seemed deliberate to me, because they also made Betty revert back to calling herself by her maiden name and the Foreigner, the pretty interesting villain directly responsible for Ned's death, practically never appeared again and was hardly ever alluded to. Ned's death also should be relevant in Peter's dealings with the Black Cat, but it is understandable that writers using her don't want to bring up the fact that she was in cahoots and in bed with the Foreigner at the time of Ned's murder.



    Quote:
    Regarding the Foreigner, I realize that it's a matter of opinion but I think the problem a lot of fans and readers had was that PAD made him too much of a Villain Sue- He trained Sabretooth! He can talk back to the Kingpin without getting killed and even beat him at chess! He banged the Black Cat! He can have the Hobgoblin killed not personally but just by making a phone call! PAD went over the top and arguably built him up at the expense of other characters.


Well, it is a matter of opinion, others could say that e.g. about the Hobgoblin in his Roger Stern version. Anyway, at that point having trained Sabretooth was not that big deal, as Sabretooth was still essentially a B- or C-list villain then, a lot less redoubtable than he became in the 1990s (nor IIRC had it yet been established in-story that he was much too old to have been trained by the Foreigner). Under PAD Black Cat (who did not have superhuman strength) was able to wipe the floor with him on her own, and even during the Mutant Massacre Psylocke managed the same thing without the special fighting skills she later acquired.

The Kingpin was not terribly diminished by having the Foreigner talk back to him (after all, Spidey and Daredevil also did it all the time without the Kingpin trying to kill them for it) and to the best of my knowledge was never established to be even an above-average chessplayer, so defeating him at chess might not even be that difficult.

Having sex with the Black Cat is not much of an achievement. And that the Foreigner became responsible for the Hobgoblin's death was an accident, due to a) Owsley/Priest simply not bothering to explain who killed Ned Leeds in Spider-Men vs. Wolverine, which was very unsatisfying, and b) PAD unexpectedly being landed with resolving the Hobgoblin mess (1), and the Foreigner happened to be there as an efficient assassin and leader of an organization of international assassins, so he could easily operate in Berlin as well as in New York.

(1) In short: Stern had wanted Roderick Kingsley to be him, but DeFalco had worked with the secret plan of making him the Rose and built up Ned Leeds as a red herring, also for his editor. Owsley tried to sabotage this by killing off Ned Leeds (whom he believed to be the guy whom DeFalco would reveal as the Hobgoblin), and when PAD had the matter dropped into his lap, he thought the clues inevitably led to the conclusion that Ned had to have been the Hobgoblin.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Pengi





    Quote:
    I did miss the symbiote thing, so Peter would not remember.


So essentially - "I did not read the story I complained about."


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Many fans on this board seem to talk fondly of Ock's Clone Saga era death and his resurrection story. Osborn has come and gone


I will speak only for myself, of course, but I hated the death of Doc Ock at the beginning of the (in)famous Clone Saga of the 1990s and I hated the 'resurrection' of Osborn at the end.

Of course, it was a long time ago and we are talking about fictional characters ... So, well, many things happened in my real life and I don't care much about it, nowadays.
I still remember my old feelings about it.

Both the death of Ock and the 'resurrection' of Osborn : that's truly when the comic book started to jump the shark in a big way.
Curiously enough, many fans didn't realize it, back then.
I was one of the few to have noticed it and the future proved me right.

That's how I stopped reading ASM on a regular basis (before that, I was a collector).

I really disliked both how Ock died and how he came back. Octavius was a classic Silver Age villain and I thought that he never should have died like this. Curiously enough, except the ending, Web of Death is an excellent storyline (by two of the great writers of the time : JM Dematteis and TomD).
His resurrection by a splinter group of the Hand (the "True Believers") was as ludicrous as his death.

About Osborn, I still think that his convoluted return has been a big mistake. It was only done to 'clean the mess' of the Clone Saga.
Back then, most fans were angry with the Clone Saga and Marvel gave them the return of Osborn as some kind of compensation.

Curiously enough, Marvel editors didn't understand what was totally obvious : Ock & Osborn are the two longtime nemesis of Spider-Man but they are different.
The curse of the Goblin legacy, not the first Green Goblin, is the true archenemy of Spider-Man.
Harry Osborn and Hobgoblin 1 have provided more interesting stories than Norman Osborn has since his return.
Ock is the true 'Dark Mirror' of Spider-Man, he is Peter Parker without a moral compass.
If there is no Ock, there is no Peter Parker (and that's what happened during the Clone Saga, Peter & Octavius were replaced by Ben & Kaine).

I still believe,in 2014, that the death of Ock and the return of Osborn were the first two big mistakes which changed Spider-Man forever.
Since then, every subsequent 'bad stories' have been variants of these two mistakes.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,999



    Quote:
    So essentially - "I did not read the story I complained about."


Essentially yes. What happened was that after I finished my post - which was just re. Ned Leeds - I happened to come upon the post re. Slott's Jean De Wolff story and since it happened to be à propos to this thread I quickly added the link to it to my post. I assumed the guy who made it knew what he was talking about and just added it as a matter of idle curiosity. As far as I'm concerned the points about Spider-Man not having been close to Captain De Wolff would still have applied in any case, even if Dan Slott would now write a story showing them proposing marriage or going off on a naughty weekend together two days before her murder.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 33.0 on Windows 7
1 2  >> All

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