Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
PDT

In Reply To
Menshevik

Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:37:27 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:33:18 pm EDT

Previous Post

> > What 2 arcs ? He dropped it after the FIRST arc with Venom.
> >
> > The Queen arc is always the exemple given by Jenkins's fans but EVEN if you skip on it, (and he could have adressed the Flash sub-plot during it, even just in a "freakin" line here and there ...) Jenkins still had issues 7 to 14, 21 and 22, and 27 of Spectacular to adress and follow that. That makes 11 issues in which he CHOSE not to use or adress the Flash sub-plot.
>
> He can't well make the book about the Flash subplot. Writers need to move things at their own pace. Otherwise they're just hacking stuff out, and not writing the way they feel like they should write. In the Doc Ock arc, the story about Doc Ock and the ambassador took precedence over the Flash subplot. The fourteenth issue wasn't even about Spider-Man. It was about Joey. The final issue was about...his final issue. It was him putting a close on five years of working on the character. So that took precedence.

That's a poor excuse for an excuse. As Mr. Honey Bunny said, all it would have taken would have been a line here and there, Flash needn't even have appeared on-panel. And even accepting for argument's sake that there was an overarching need for #14 and the final issue not to further Flash's subplot, that still leaves 9 other issues. if he "needed" to move things at his own pace, he should not have written within the framework of a franchise like Spider-Man, where one title is always affected by the others (and Spectacular was not the flagship Spider-book) and a professional writer has to roll with the punches handed to him by editorial and the creators of related titles. Lord knows that Peter David, who over the years has had a lot to suffer in this respect is much more of a pro in this respect and usually can be relied up to tie up the loose ends, even when a title's run is cut ended abruptly (vide Captain Marvel vol. 3 and 4, Supergirl and Young Justice).
Of course I'm probably prejudiced because I did not enjoy Paul Jenkins' self-indulgent final issue (nice artwork, though), which was half wallowing in nostalgic sentimentality and half ripping of Calvin & Hobbes (oh yes, I know, it was a fromage to Watterson).


> That's a poor excuse for an excuse. As Mr. Honey Bunny said, all it would have taken would have been a line here and there, Flash needn't even have appeared on-panel. And even accepting for argument's sake that there was an overarching need for #14 and the final issue not to further Flash's subplot, that still leaves 9 other issues. if he "needed" to move things at his own pace, he should not have written within the framework of a franchise like Spider-Man, where one title is always affected by the others (and Spectacular was not the flagship Spider-book) and a professional writer has to roll with the punches handed to him by editorial and the creators of related titles. Lord knows that Peter David, who over the years has had a lot to suffer in this respect is much more of a pro in this respect and usually can be relied up to tie up the loose ends, even when a title's run is cut ended abruptly (vide Captain Marvel vol. 3 and 4, Supergirl and Young Justice).

ALL writers move at their own pace, buddy. It's the way EVERYONE writes comic books. Writers aren't usually told what to write, they're just put on a title and told to run with it. Which is as it should be. The only circumstances when writers are told what to do on titles is when there's editorial interference, such as when editors ask a writer to write a specific story, or when what they're writing ties into another story (usually seen in the form of a big crossover event). Which is fine and all, and a lot of writers might be good at doing that, but it's not an ideal state for writing and creativity, and it doesn't create adequate work conditions. Which is why so very often you hear about writers (or less commonly, artists) leaving books because they don't like having stories or story concepts forced on them. Writers are not mouthpieces for editors. Simply put, it's not a writer's job to write what editors tell them to write, beyond creating on the foundations of the book they are given (such as Spider-Man).

Furthermore, the Flash subplot is not something that was editorially forced on Jenkins. He's the one that wrote Peter and Flash's friendship in Peter Parker: Spider-Man, he's the one who wrote the story where Flash is crippled, and he's the one who was writing the story of Flash's recovery. It was his baby, his thing, and you gotta let the man work it the way he intended to work it from the beginning.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software