|Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:09:04 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:37:27 pm EDT
> > 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).
Then, Jenkins' pace wasn't good at all : Without the Queen arc, you still had 11 issues, that is to say almost a WHOLE YEAR of stories to adress Flash's condition.
You're telling us here editors should not interfere in the writers' stories, fine, but what's your point ?
As far as I know, the Dock Ock arc WAS Jenkins' story, the Lizard' arc WAS Jenkins' story, as well as issues 14, 21, 22 and 27, in which he didn't adressed the Flash subplot... knowing from issue 21, at least, that Marvel will end Spectacular. He chose to write a story about Poker (huh ?!), Mindworm (Huh?! again), instead of adressing the Flash subplot. It seems it prevailed over the Flash's suplot...it shouldn't IMO.
> 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.
That's only make things worst : It was HIS RESPONSABILITY to put a final word on this, he didn't.
The way it now seems to look like is that he crippled Flash during "a death in the family" arc because he needed something "huge" to happen. It was the issues of Peter Parker Spider-Man 44 to 47. Then, he adressed it during the three following issues, 48 to 50.
Zeb Wells wrote issues 51 to 57, and EVEN IF IT WAS NOT HIS JOB, he adressed Flash' condition !
Then, Jenkins wrote the Venom arc for the Spectacular first arc in which he is adressing the Flash' subplot, and he also works on it in issue 6; the first part of the dock ock arc. From here, NADA. (Well, except a cameo from the Queen arc !)
It shows that after crippling Flash, he used him during about 9 issues, and then, dropped him like an old stinky sock ! (And he is not using him for 11 issues, not counting the Queen arc ...)
What does it mean ? That once Jenkins wrote the story he wanted to write and that he used Flash, he can just throw him like that ? It's unprofessional IMO. And it's not a matter of editors here, or pace. It's a matter of respect for the readers. You don't write a story like "a death in the family", crippling one of the main supporting cast characters, to throw it away 9 issues later, sorry.
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software|